(I guess that I should warn people that these links are definitely not for work, and if you are offended by pictures of men having sex with each other, you should not click on these links....)

David Shankbone hasn't been here very much, but don't think that he's been lying down at the job! (sic)... He has, though, been spending quite some time on the set of a "Lucas Entertainment" adult "film"....and in the process, he's provided new "high quality" photos for foot fetishims (I didn't know that this was called "shrimping", Dave!), Sex Industry, Gay Pornography, Pornographic actor, Pornography, and even fluffer... Oh yes, and he's also replace a "low-quality" image at "nipple" with a "high quality" one....

And all of this to save poor children in Africa! Imagine that!

I guess Dave is just sacrificing himself for his art...

A cynic might even think that these photographs serve as covert advertisements for Lucas Entertainment!

Mr. "Shankbone" and Mr. "Scribe" should definitely meat.

WIKIPEDIA: Where pruriance and exhibitionism find cozy common shelter.....

I kinda figured he pull something like this...

IMO, he's trying to push the tolerance envelope to the point where he'll get mainstream media attention for what he's doing. The images will get more and more outrageous until they finally start yanking them, at which point he'll cry "censorship," and they'll ban him.

Who knows, he might even claim that his WR membership is the real reason they'll have "targeted" him. But the joke's on him - that actually will be the real reason!

Well, I'll grant that they are, indeed, high quality images in terms of...image quality, if not image content...Having to warn people that images on Wikipedia are NSFW and might be offensive to certain people is normal, I guess, but it does seem awfully like.....an ad campaign for this new opus by Michael Lucas.

However, the feminist in me did like the inclusion of the blonde female camera person named Mister Pam, who sends out the "girl positive" message that anyone can grow up and be a camera person on a gay pornographic film!

You've come a long way, Baby!

That hefty blonde really did it for me.

This image is almost humorous in its mockery of the human condition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_mak...d_Shankbone.JPG

I just can't understand what this has to do with a respectable scholarly project. Nothing, I guess.

Willbeback seems to ask the right question here:



That statement seemed to remind me of this Wikitruth article about....just this subject...

Here's the section of the code quoted...and it seems valid...

So, is Sue going to have one of her secretaries start a file for age verification of pornographic models then?

It's really worth the bother though, when you consider the educational value of images such as this.

Or this one, which claims to be "teenage pubic hair"....

I love the immediate response from the wikichumps


Of course, the only law that can impact the mighty Wikipedia is wikilaw.

Retards.

Not only that, the teen pube snapshot is completely out of focus. It's just a lousy-quality picture!

But now they'll worship it like everything else that comes under threat of the "fair use and open content" army.

It's been flagged as having no copyright notice.

Well, could somebody explain to me the difference between "teenage" pubic hair and "adult" pubic hair?

(It seems to me that somebody's yankin' their chain...)

I'd say that "teenage" pubic hair is between the age of 13 and 19, and "adult" public hair is anything older than that. Of course, if you shave your pubic hair completely off, that pretty much restarts the clock.

"teenage" pubic hair may belong to somebody younger than 18, or even younger than 16. That would be an extremely serious matter. Putting "teenage" in the file name is not good, in that context.

Well, it can't be that serious, since it's been there for almost 24 hours and it's still there...

The point being that how can one know (or not know) that any of the models having sex in the other photos are over 18? And why is this less serious?

Heh.

Shankbone has some influential friends (SV, Raul). He also contributes loads of content. Finally, his limited activity here indicates he's a true believer in the project writ large. He won't be banned, and he shouldn't be banned.

He might, however, get butthurt and retire if they hassle him much more. I wonder if he's looking for an excuse to go. I would if I were in his shoes.

Well, in light of the recent slew of Wikipedia = porn for kids articles in the Christian press, it seems that the Wikipedia signpost is considering running a story on this and specifically these pictures... (I didn't say a word to 'em, Davie! Cross my heart!)

And somebody finally asks the right question :



Yes, indeed....

Where would Wikipedia be without David Shankbone to add a picture of a gay sex act to an article about gay pornography?

To be pedantic, teenage pubic hair would be between 13 and 19 years old; meaning that the person sporting said hair would be somewhere between 24 and 38, and adult pubic hair would be emanating from somebody aged 30 and over. To be really pedantic, pubic hair does not make it to the first birthday.

It seems to me that it would be easy to call the bluff on the Shankbones. Jimbo once killed a photo using a 2257 record-keeping-requirements justification.

The problem is a lack of any consistent standards for content that Wikipedia considers appropriate for an "encyclopedia." What if anti-Wikipedians started illustrating articles with more pornographic illustrations? I'm not talking about child porn, which is illegal under federal law, but your ordinary porn that's all over the web. These pornographic websites are covered by 2257 record-keeping requirements, and some of them have shut down because it's burdensome to comply with these requirements.

Of course, I'd never do this myself, nor approve of anyone doing this. All I'm saying is that by tolerating the Shankbones, it could cause devious anti-Wikipedians to take it one step further, and flood Wikipedia with nude pics in appropriate articles. If they did it well, it would not be obvious to vandal patrollers that this is really against Wikipedia's own interests.

I guess what I'm saying is that Shankbone should be banned because he does not have Wikipedia's interests at heart. If I were intent on getting more porn into Wikipedia, to the point of the feds requiring 2257 reporting from Wikipedia, I couldn't do better than what he's already doing.

If the press picks up on a 2257 issue with Wikipedia, perhaps triggered by federal interest, or by Moral Majority moms whose children land on Wikipedia pages with porn pics, or even try to write a paragraph on George Washington, then there is no way the Foundation can win the publicity war on this issue. That's because it will sound somewhat sensational to the media, given that the media has been swallowing the "encyclopedia" hype about Wikipedia for years now.

The media will court something new, tell all its readers how wonderful it is, and then when it can go no higher, the media will pull it crashing down!

Wikipedia, the hour is nigh!