Current State of Wikipedia on the Porn Issue ? Options

[Alison]

What's the current status with this sort of stuff? I can't remember if that's pedophilia or if it's just anime (or if there is any difference). Included in the Eroge (T-H-L-K-D) article.

That's the work of Tgcomix / Blackshade9 / Ganymede / Midnight68 , etc. Despite having accounts blocked on commons, enwiki, meta and simple, he is still welcome to contribute to other wikimedia projects, as well as creating new accounts to use.

Here is his latest Blogger profile.

Two of his new wm accounts must be HURRDURR and OldYorkBradley.

OldYorkBradley is JtV, as it happens. AKA 'Text' on here. Why he's into spanking and panchira, I've no idea.

Hey Text, any answers?

[Peter Damian]

* It is run by a hierarchy of about 500 administrators.
* The election process is entirely run by these administrators
* Successful candidates have to be approved by senior administrators
* Non-administrators can participate in the election, but this is strongly discouraged unless the voter has proven sympathies with the administration
* Canvassing for elections, or for any cause whatsoever, is strictly prohibited ...
* ... except for administrators, who have a special chat room set up to block any actions or behaviour they deem 'disruptive'
* Elections for the governing committee are similarly controlled.
* There is little control over 'alternative accounts' which effectively give multiple votes to the same person
* Except of course for voters who are suspected not to be comp[letely loyal to the administration
* Those convicted of any offence against the administration (this is called 'disruption') are not allowed to speak in their defence. They are sometimes allowed to keep their own talk page, but this is very often blocked, in case they say something 'disruptive'.
* Hearings for special cases are generally held in secret

This is satire, right? Silly rabbit.

Which of those bits is satire then? Satire is stating outrageously overstated things about the object of satire in a way that exaggerates its faults.

Are you saying then that users never have their talk pages or email blocked? Or that this statement is an exaggeration? That hearings of the arbcom special cases are rarely secret?

My mistake, then.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Thu 24th February 2011, 7:57am

[Somey]

Which of those bits is satire then? Satire is stating outrageously overstated things about the object of satire in a way that exaggerates its faults.

There are some ways you could soften it a bit, maybe make it a little less strident-sounding... but I wouldn't change a word of it, personally.

[Peter Damian]

Which of those bits is satire then? Satire is stating outrageously overstated things about the object of satire in a way that exaggerates its faults.

There are some ways you could soften it a bit, maybe make it a little less strident-sounding... but I wouldn't change a word of it, personally.

It's much softer in the paper. This was a more strident version for WR readers. What I actually say in the current draft is

The final problem is the Wikipedia administration itself. As we saw, both sceptics and anti-sceptics use all kinds of dubious tactics in this dirty war. Anyone caught of playing dirty will be blocked by an administrator, unless they have influence in the Wikipedia adminstration itself. Wikipedia has an administration which is supposed to be neutral, but it was long ago infiltrated both by members of the pseudoscience establishment and sceptic groups (prominent among early members of the administration were both anti-scientologists, who are a sort of sceptic, and members of Ayn Rand’s “objectivist” cult, who are not). Regular battles in the rank and file are mirrored by intense secret battles in the administration, including the powerful ‘arbitration committee’, who are the final court of appeal.

I may post the whole version in the 'book' section of WR, for comment. Deadline is March 18.



This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Thu 24th February 2011, 10:11am

[Text]

he's into spanking and panchira

No thanks!

any answers?

I don't always troll wikis, but when i do, i LOL

[Text]

Also, since Midnight68 is still active on the various other wikis, he uploads and puts his images on the respective pages, which results in bots uploading the freely licensed pictures to Commons again, in a feedback motion.

[Alison]

he's into spanking and panchira

No thanks!

any answers?

I don't always troll wikis, but when i do, i LOL

I just don't get it, though. You create a sock account on WP and on Commons - two separate ones. The Commons one uploads one of TGComix' ... "artworks" ... It shows a pigtailed child about to be spanked & her underwear is clearly showing ("panchira"). Caption: "NOW - COME HERE, YOUNG LADY! IT'S TIME FOR YOUR HOT BOTTOM!" And so on ....

So ... you add this image to the Eroge (erotic game) article and it stays there undetected for nearly three months. How is that trolling? Nobody knows it's there only you. Either you get your jollies secretly knowing you uploaded some of TGComix' inane panchira gaming shite to WP - take a peek every now and then and snicker - or you were doing it for TGComix himself, for some reason. Or some other reason I can't work out. Which is it?

[Text]

It's a good snicker against the brain dead administration who can't detect this stuff in a timely manner (either because they don't care about questionable material or they take anything that's freely licensed).

Wikipedia, always improving, and quickly?

This stuff also gets a butthurt reaction here, which makes for more lulz!

[Text]

Well, what of Lina Medina? The only wiki to have a picture of her is the English Wikipedia, which is using the pic under the dubious fair use clause. The same image is scattered on various other sites which doesn't rule out the possibility of it being scraped without control.

Would the living subject in question be content with having this picture copied prominently on the web?

[HRIP7]

Atomaton (T-C-L-K-R-D) has interesting views:

My feeling is that the editor who wants [a mention of Wikipedia demograpics] in the essay is trying to be judgmental in some way to suggest/imply that single childless males are the primary participants if Pornography, or Hardcore pornography (whatever that is), and as such, are responsible for propgating that within Wikipedia. That seems like a leap from A to M without any of the intermediate steps. Don't we have a basic assumption of good faith on the part of all editors within Wikipedia?

Then he explains the correct way to illustrate the bukkake article:

I would support a real photo of the real act.

[Text]

I would support a real photo of the real act.

Is he going to ask Seedfeeder, or is he going to take a picture himself?

[powercorrupts]

Imagine a world in which absolutely everything was run like Wikipedia.

Good line, worthy of a WP caption I think.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

While we're on the subject of porn, what's up with that TV show called "Glee"? I watched it once, and I was stunned to find out that their high school singing group calls itself "nude erections."