I'm in half a mind whether this should be in the BLP forum or the Articles forum...

Basically, I came across the article about celebrity sex tapes. Now, I was expecting a short article describing a sex tape (how foolish, this is Wikipedia after all), but instead I was greeted with a huge list of celebrities who have been in a sex tape, some of which had no bearing on their careers at all. Even worse, there's a list of rumoured sex tapes. If that doesn't violate BLP, I'll eat my proverbial hat.

So I went about fixing this violation, and was reverted by three different editors who hold the maxim "if it's sourced, it's in", NPOV be damned. An AFD on the matter forced by me hitting three reverts (because 3RR doesn't exempt NPOV, unfortunately) looks like it'll end with a keep with the list kept on the article.

To be honest, I'm close to tagging NPOV and BLP as historical and/or disputed. The way Wikipedia is going, it looks like they're lame ducks.

I came very close to adding a "POV" tag to the NPOV policy page itself. But I long ago learned that if you manage to serve up a logical truth to WP in the way that can't be ignored, you will violate POINT and be reverted for that. If you make the point in a way that CAN be ignored, on the other hand, you WILL be ignored.

All of which goes to suggest that WP is not a "learning organization" in the sense of Peter Senge.

It isn't an article it is a category. If it were an article, it would have a discussion about what they were and a couple of notable examples.

There is a similar discussion at the Village Pump where there is a suggestion to have a filter on adult content, e.g. for schools. While I don't think it would be practical until stable versions is introduced because you cannot warrant that an article can remain fit for viewing, the argument used is censorship. Filters are a good way of avoiding censorship - allowing content to be built for all users while giving a mechanism to protect people from seeing offensive content if they don't want to see it.

Fundamentally, why are all the normal, possible, reasonable things of the real world considered so hard to deal with on Wikipedia? Wikipedia is a subset of the universe, not a superset - it should not be this difficult. Theory of relativity - all in a day's work for Einstein, man on the moon - most Wikipedian's weren't even born - the work of 40 years ago, BLPs, vandalism - insoluble.

I get the feeling that a Wikipediot would argue that children should have guns and be allowed to go round shooting people as we should not be restricting their freedom. Still one thing if for sure, if you decide something can't be done, it is usually easier to prove yourself right than try and prove yourself wrong.

One of my revert summaries actually said something to the effect of "we don't need to mention all of these. Maybe the Pamela Anderson and Paris Hilton videos, but not all of them."

Hmmm.... I can see how rumored sex tapes would be problematic legally, and of course ethically (though that's never stopped Wikipedia before)...

Still, you have to look at the ergonomics of searching and surfing. Someone looking for celebrity sex tapes on the internet is much more likely to type the name of the celebrity into Google than the words "celebrity sex tape," though that may seem counter-intuitive at first.

IOW, if you're the sort of person who seeks out celebrity sex videos on the internet, there's a very good chance it isn't the first time you've done it. You probably do it all the time, in fact - and you already know where to find the material. Brand-loyalty is a factor in choosing porn sites as much as anything else in consumer-land, so people aren't necessarily going to just go to sites at random, either.

Moreoever, people looking for this stuff will probably be net-savvy enough to know that while Wikipedia does carry a few porn images, it's not normally going to carry links to actual sex videos. So, for the "Celebrity sex tape" article itself, you're left with people who are doing legitimate research into the celebrity sex-video "phenomenon," and people who just don't know any better.

I guess what I'm saying is, if I were featured in a celebrity sex video (and I'm not saying I have been or haven't been), I'd probably still prefer to be listed in the "Celebrity sex tape" article on WP rather than have an article specifically about me, given the choice.

Not that WP has ever given anyone much of a choice...

incidents removed...

...and readded

Lovely.