Instead of "think of the children," in this case we should say to "think of the animals!"

Seems this kitten would rather gnaw off the hand that feeds him, than let it type to the interesting characters on WP.

I'm not really rehashing (on wiki or here) arguments of either side. I do however care about abuse and reliable information is to me, part of any effort to reduce and target abuse appropriately.

I disagree with your other comment. Huge numbers of topics (on or off wiki) may be considered "abhorrent"; you can pick your own or advocate for some universal "everyone thinks". But both science's norm and any reliable researcher's approach where genuine research exists, is to report faithfully rather than the reporter distorting or improvizing the information to meet stereotype lay-beliefs.



A technical question, it's years since I looked it up. I can't think of a specific source that wouldn't somewhere discuss mental illnesses, but bear in mind those may easily be isolating conditions such as pathological shyness and insecurity, social phobias, relational issues such as aspergers, a feeling of "being in the wrong body"(whatever that's called, a bit like serious transgender issues) ... and quite probably many may have no known or visible diagnostic issue at all.

Caveat - that's off the top of my head from memory and general recollection though - it's been years since I checked this subject. I was going to write a wiki article or list covering research in the field but haven't . However, for now it's a fair bit of research to answer that exact question if I understand you right. If you can be more specific what you're looking for, go ahead and if it's easy to find some notes on it, sure.



Damian's blog (relevant part) read:

"Its a bit like paedophilia... you should take it seriously, believe me. I've been subjected to a very nasty hate campaign in Wikipedia for this, hence the post here... It's split mostly between people who think animal abuse is disgusting and wrong, hence it is evil of me to make allegations against the editor in question. The others think it's harmless, and why am I taking an editor to task for this innocent lifestyle activity."
"Here is the user's first ever edit in Wikipedia, in that article. I make no apologies for posting this...."

So the effective intent to a reader would be

1. "This person is probably a child abuser or like that anyway" (gee thanks Damian!),
2. It should be taken "seriously",
3. The person who tried to argue against animal abuse suffered a "very nasty hate campaign" (fabrication),
4. The dispute was about admins opining on the issue (fabrication),
5. Some admins were defending someone who actually has this "(innocent) lifestyle activity" because they thought it "harmless" (fabrication; also alleged/implied criminal activity, thanks again!),
6. This (link) is the user who needs targeting by you or your organization,
7. Non, "Je Ne Regrette Rien".

Blasted out to any and everyone from SPCA to ALF, because Damian still hasn't decided which statement was a lie, the place he says he's already told "organizations" plural, or the place he later tries to claim he told one site only. What we do know is, he claimed multiple, and said he'd both already contacted and would be contacting multiple, that these included "activists", and "expect to hear MUCH more".

Bluntly, if an idiot shouts "Bomb!" in an airport, and that he's got other activists on the way, then he's guilty either way, of the crime, or of supreme foolishness. Usually such idiocy is of the 2 shots to the thoracic cage and free trip to the mortuary type.

I did a couple of quick searches just now (I sure hope my mom isn't monitoring my web-browsing activity), and found that though the more recent book by Andrea M. Beetz is currently out of print at amazon.com, there's apparently a more recent (and readily available) work by someone named Gaston Dubois-Desaulle, specifically this one. Both are listed in the WP article, of course... I wouldn't have mentioned it, but I couldn't help but remark on the "Editorial Reviews" section of the latter book's Amazon page.

Aside from the (no doubt mistakenly) repeated reference to "satyrs" and "the more bawdy of the old theologians," the tone of this blurb struck me as rather odd, to say the least!

I just have to say, the Ick Factor™ trumps almost everything else in a case like this - including any notions regarding scientific method or academic impartiality. Almost any scientific approach to the subject is probably going to be considered suspect by one side or the other, no matter how "fairly" it attempts to treat it. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people just don't even want to think about it, and for good reason.

It's a reprint of a 1905 book.



The "Ick" factor's remarkably variable, but for sure it's far from the worlds most savory topic. That means for the few who genuinely may have need or work in related areas, good informational sources (such as "scholastic encyclopedic material") are very inaccessible and hard to find; bad sources abound. Too many people prefer to turn on the tv and power up the next talk show. Poverty? Genocide? Rape? Animal abuse? (Who cares, as long as the paycheck's on time and you get to take the kids to Florida this year!) In that mindset, anything else is either Ick, funny pages, "tut tut isn't it awful", or someone else's job. Sad but realistic

Indeed. Which means the admin standard is actually neither simple nor egalitarian. It's a barrier which is fuzzy, and increases with difficulty as the years pass.

If that weren't so, present administrators wouldn't mind term limits, and the necessity of submitting themselves to re-RfA's, just to prove they "still have it," now that we're out of the age when dinosaurs ruled the Earth (and Wikipedia, too). But they'll never submit to that. And they'll give you a bunch of reasons why not, but none of them will stand up to close scrutiny. Basically, they won't because they know what would happen to most of them if they did. They'd never get back in.

Example: SlimVirgin was de-tooled as a punishment for defiance of the system, for a fixed time, not so long ago (just to prove the lie behind the idea that de-sysopping somebody IS ever a punishment), but with the promise that the tools will be given back, without making her do-over a new RfA. IOW, they were nicer to her than they ever were, to Everyking. And why? Because we all know that Hell Would Freeze Over before she ever passed a new RfA under her old username. Everyking, maybe; SlimVirgin, never.

Nor did they simply desysop her without a ban, and invite her to vanish and start over, under some other new username. Which would actually be possible before Hell Froze Over, but significantly difficult. More than it used to be. The person who does that, of course, loses all work they did as a "vested contributor" (more than just a "highly valued member" ). Along with the bad-history and rap-sheet. Aye, there's the rub.

You know--- that "vested contributor" stuff, which isn't supposed to count for anything, and which administratorship is officially NOT supposed to be any kind of reward for?

Ah, the many bare-faced hypocrisies of Wikipedia. They never fail to astound.

Milton

P.S. On the question of mere content contribution, as separated from any other function of an editor or sysop (wisdom, a feeling for fairness, a capacity for dispute resolution etc.), how would the present fearless leaders of WP do, if they all had to start off from a zero-rep stance? My own guess if that if you, FT2, had to take a Journalism 101 class, you'd be lucky to get by with a D. But keep at it. SlimVirgin is actually one of the better technicians on Wikipedia, and in a journalism class, I personally would give her a flat A. Somewhere, she learned to write. As for Jimbo, I think he'd be caught trying to get by with somebody else's essay passed off as his own, and earn an F, and the boot.

"This innocent lifestyle activity" is clearly to be read de dicto and not de re I am reporting the thoughts and beliefs of others, not of myself. I was describing a very real problem in Wikipedia. If you raise any issue about a taboo subject like this, the complaints against you really do divide into those who have such a big problem with the practice, that they regard any criticism of content as a nasty personal attack. The other half have no problem with the practice, and immediately accuse one of being a Conservapedian or 'prissy Anglo-Catholic' or whatever.

Regarding the enormous debate raging above, no time to comment. Except to say the thing I most resent is that Headley is my 'Master'. I am more highly qualified than Headley, not just a PhD but publications in linguistics-related area, currently working on a translation of a work in Medieval semantics. I have an excellent reputation for careful research. I worked carefully through the Neurolinguistics part of FT2's contributions and they were poorly written, poorly-sourced, many were misattributed. The consensus view in academia as well as Wikipedia (indeed) is that NLP is a pseudoscience and should be treated as such. I sought advice on the NLP articles from experts outside Wikipedia, who agreed with my view. I sought advice on the Zoophilia article from independent academic experts, and got similar opinion ("by its very nature a collection of internet links").

On the 'POV warrior' that FT2 cites, User:Skopp is a medical expert and a member of the Smithsonian institution. Though I am not a medical expert, on balance, and given my expert view of FT2's contributions to the NLP articles, I would vastly prefer Skopp's view over FT2.

There are some subjects that simply should not be dealt with on Wikipedia without expert advice. I have nothing more to say.




I have already said, I 'made contact' with exactly one site. I did not lie, please stop saying these misleading things. Making contact is receiving a reply. I sent exactly three messages, I think. On the 'contact made' I discussed the content of the Zoophilia article, not any individual Wikipedia user. The entire (short) thread was deleted at my request within 24 hours, and was on Veggie boards which is hardly the ALF.

Please stop these misrepresentations or I shall ask the mods to try and sort it out.



That is very true, and I have no objection to a genuinely scholastic and careful treatment of such subjects. It's very important. I do object to untutored amateurs such as yourself having anything to do with it. End of story.

I'm not about to defend zoophilia, which transgresses my moral yuck factor by 600 miles (but then since I've defended the rights of various scumbag fascists in the name of BLP, why not?).

However, the above strikes me as a "reductio ad hitlerum". Pedos are vile self-deceiving liars, this sounds like something they might say, ergo it is lies. That's not really good enough for a neutral encyclopedia, it is at best original reasoning, and my response would be, {citation need}}.

It's a very valid debating argument, but a very poor objective one.





That argument, whilst a truism, doesn't get very far.

Animals can't "consent" to anything mucg - so any comparison with human choices is an invalid anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphic arguments are sentimental appeals to the emotion, which have no basis in logic.

Animals can't consent to live in hutches, to be sterilised, to have a stone removed from their foot, or even to be inoculated against deadly disease. A decision on whether these things are harmful, cruel, neutral or beneficial needs to be taken on welfare grounds other than consensual choice.

Indeed one might say, that the animal /can/ communicate consent in this particular sphere of "human contact", since it can resist or remove itself, if allowed to do so - whereas it will never consent to medical assistance. How far does that get you?

The consent argument for welfare is always a crap one anyway. To return to your analogy of children, children can (actually, even if not legally) consent to a variety of things from a young age. The question is not consent, but whether the child is able to make a valid judgement of its own welfare. Since we generally believe that a child cannot, we thus make a judgement for it, and we (nearly) universally decide that sex is not in the child's welfare interests but invasive surgery, blood transfusions and confining them to their room at times are. The issue is not consent - which the inability of the child to give is merely a legal fiction used as shorthand for a decision that is (rightly) taken for other reasons - but rational decisions taken by adults in the belief that we are better placed to reason.

Now, having partly defended these ghastly people, I will go shower and curse them to hell.

(Another thought. A moral comparison with children is also invalid because it assumes we care, or should care, about the welfare of animals in the same way. Actually, globally and historically most of us don't - and even those who say they do mainly don't either. The concept of "using" animals for human benefit is accepted by the vast majority - whilst no one would accept the concept of "using" children (although arguably some do use them). I eat animals, I wear leather shoes, and I accept scientific experimentation on them in some limited cases. That doesn't mean I don't have any concern for their welfare (I eat free-range and don't buy foie gras) but it does mean that human satisfaction at animal expense is not anathema to me. If one keeps tropical fish (as I do) or poodles (?) one can care for them well and not-maltreat them, indeed one can be emotionally attached, but ultimately we keep them because WE derive satisfaction from that, and not for the benefit of the animal. Whilst I also derive satisfaction from my children too, their welfare and happiness comes before mine).

1) It's not "to be read" de dicto. It's not "de re" either. This one was rather clearly either "de famation", or "de dickhead", wasn't it? It's either wilfully libelous and malicious (most likely), or was deliberately intended to be taken that way by any normal person (ie ones who don't name themselves after monks famous for obssessive anti-wank campaigns). I mean, you are aware outside your kennel there's a real world where implying things like that is kinda, you know.... like, not okay? Even for Superheroes and Protectors of Truth like yourself? Bluntly, I have no doubt it was malicious; i.e., you knew exactly what you were doing but you did it anyway. Too many other lies told to others about it, right?

2) Yeah, you're the boss, of course you are. Whatever you say. "None so blind as those...". Except when you just have to lick those boots.

3) Skopp may be the Grand Emperor of the Houyhnhnms, maybe the Secret Inheritor of the Chinese Throne or even a Nobel Laureate, but as far as this topic was concerned he was just another borderline edit warrior who recklessly or deliberately invented or exaggerated facts, needed correction, and habitually used hyperbole rather than reason in discussions, for its rhetorical effect (same diff). As a scientist and "expert" he clearly knew what "careful research" meant, yet it seems he deliberately avoided it, since he can have zero excuse of "ignorance"... right?

4) Your "always said" is incredibly expedient. Usually this means something like "since realizing rapid backpedaling from the other things you always said". Just like your "bitter regrets" are crocodilian and only for your own pathetic self.


So let's get the truth about that, finally. You're now saying you contacted exactly one site, right? Does that mean that when you said you had already contacted organizations (plural), was a lie? And the emails where you said you are posting (present tense) at various activist sites (all plural), were those all lies too? You've got a Ph.D. in language but you can't recognize and correctly use a plural form of a word? You've got an "excellent reputation for careful research"? No wonder you're idea proxy meat for a manipulator like Docknell and a topic like NLP


Damian, if you had been an honest adversary I'd have sympathy. You were a self-centered slime, and you're rapidly coming to a slime's end. Even Headley despises you. You think he'll pick you up? He saddled you up, put a leash on your dick, and rode you into a ban, and didn't lift a finger to get you out of it. And you? You bleated indignantly that there was no way he could be manipulating you...... because you're God.

The standard's broadly equal and equally tough for any two users at roughly the same time. That's what "egalitarian" means here. If it rises over time so be it.



Without getting off topic too much, yes, it's a reputation economy, and once you have one, it pays to take care of it. In that environment, repeatedly breaching norms is akin to playing chicken with trucks... good luck and have insurance.



But here's the thing. Go to a journalism school. What are basic skills, apart from "writing gripping prose"? Tricks like human interest in the first paragraph, look for a "hook", go for emotional impact... you've read those courses? I have (well, skimmed anyway some time or other), and dead right I'd get a D, because I've no interest in that kind of writing. Little to no interest in "selling myself" or "being a byline". Encyclopedia writing suits me fine, and the object there is to convey useful information in a helpful structured form that conveys information and balances and integrates views. Its aim is to be an accessibly written resource, not a persuader and that I'm good at. Dead right I'd be ashamed to get an "A" grade in manipulative demagogy, though.

My first reaction is to lay my spurs in to you (FT2). You have been the epitemy of what Wikipedia is all about. The enabling of lies, hate, misinformation; The distribution of porn, the lack of governance, the enabling the gangs of POV pushers, Slander/liable and other malfeasances in how you regulated Wikipedia.

You, and your kind, have created a perfect on line simulation of Kafka and Orwell. You have diminished the value of human knowledge and enable the vast parasitic nature of Wikipedia.
I'm not the only one with opinions about wikipedia and MR FT2.
It make me happy now that wikipedia has turn on you and consumed you like a kid playing with fire and now the fire burns up and kills the kid.

I asked you before to stop these misrepresentations.



Possibly not.

Still calm I see.

Thought Doc G had a very sound post.

The issue of consent as a red herring is very important. It is interesting that this diversion from the real world consensus pervades Wikipedia: the idea of 12 year old admins being in some way appropriate to the function of admins is based on a very strange reframing of the task list of administrators (essentially cherry picking). Even the idea of consent between adults depends upon context: if you have been defrauded, that you consented to a deal is irrelevant; if you sign a contract which is unfair, it is deemed that you have not consented after all. The law understands that consent is a concept that depends on context, and even then does not necessarily make an action appropriate.

The problem with the zoophilia article in that context is the Lifestyle section which appears to be written uncritically accepting various premises of anthropomorphism - "being open about their relationships" is using terminology that only really makes sense in human terms yet it is in the article itself, rather than in any indirection. Very insidious.

Why anyone who knows about dog training should be in any doubt of the dubiousness of any anthropomorphism based on the perceived willingness of an animal to do something is beyond me (in the world is round obviousness sense). I guide dog puppy walk, and training is simple manipulation - repetition and reward.

The first thing we do with a guide dog is, in true Pavlov style, blow a whistle every time we feed them. Dog then returns in park when whistle is blown, and we need it drummed in as a fundamental instinctive response as a guide dog owner can't go looking in the bushes to find where Rex has toddled off to. It is not consenting to anything, it is a classic substitution, which together with reinforcement of a nice treat and warm words does to a dog whatever it is that makes it better to respond than ignore. A Labrador will do ANYTHING for a biscuit with patience (and ours only eats two things, its puppy food which is also what we use as treats, and wallpaper). Something as common as getting a dog to do "down" is going against their instincts in forcing them to adopt a subservient position, and a dog that rolls on its back to have its tummy tickled is as likely to be trying to demonstrate abject submission to the alpha dog (the owner) rather than enjoying the experience in its own right.

Jesus. Can't you keep your mind off dogs and horses for just one moment? Disgraceful.

Um. Yeah. "The distribution of porn" says it all. Another advocate of sex education being limited to the over 16s? Join Glass Bead in the corner with the ostriches, because it doesn't work that way any more. Censor it and they won't go back to MTV, they'll click the next Google link instead. You can tell the difference between encyclopedic information and porn can't you? You see, there's a difference between us. I'm not "happy" when others suffer. You are, even if they aren't suffering, provided you can believe they might be.



I once heard urban hearsay of an annual review that read "having previously got himself up to his neck, (employee name) has unfortunately now reached bedrock, and continues to dig..."

I'm all for non-misrepresentation. Do you notice that funny symbol that looks like a hook? The kind you catch fishy things with? It's called a 'question mark' and it's part of your Ph.D. in language, I believe. If you look up you'll see some of those, signifying a 'question', and a link to other places you appear rather blatantly to have done the same. If I can explain my editing, you can explain yours, right? So stop bleating like a neutered ninja turtle, take your eyes off Docknell's whip for a few seconds, and be a man for once -- assuming you remember how.



I am, completely. Unfortunately I also decided I'd had enough of being played. Damian's made clear he doesn't trust calm and well-mannered styles. I am hopeful he prefers this one.



He did. And yet you're only partly and in some basic areas right. If you cannot tell by sight a creature that is coerced, forced and unwilling, then re-read any basic book on body language. If there isn't to you a difference between a creature that races to the door eager for a walk, and one that needs to be dragged into the vets or shows over-passive or aggressive traits to its owner, then you're missing something. Deception as to feelings or mood doesn't come easy to most common mammalian species. But as said, I'm not advocating either side, so I'll cut short there.

One thought on the training thing though. An owner takes an animal for a walk daily; after a while the animal becomes active and jumps avidly at the door if he/she approaches it. Is this response trained or conditioned? If so, does it speak to whether the activity is desired or undesired, enjoyed or pressured? No advocacy, more a philosophical question almost, but just to indicate I also had to ponder such questions in the past.

As it happens, I did "go to a journalism school" where I signed on, not as a student, but as an Adjunct Faculty to assist with the technical aspects of Online Journalism. Over the past 14 years in that role, I've absorbed a substantial education in Mass Media Ethics (that being one of three undergraduate courses that I lent a hand in supporting). It's not enough to learn how to not write abysmal yellow journalism. Learning to be an ethical journalist is a serious requirement for any mass media producer. It occurs to me that anyone (and I'm not singling you out here, FT2) who undertakes to craft a high-profile online encyclopedia has an obligation to muster more than a D in Mass Media Ethics.

I was wondering, if you accept that most of us use animals in various ways, and all the other stuff you say, can you think what it is that gives zoophilia that moral yuck factor for you?

I think for myself it would have to be the taking advantage of their innocence. And probably the customary use. Ok most of us eat meat, but that seems a bit different to shagging an animal. That seems more like using it for our gratification while it's alive than having it pull a cart or something.

Animals can be affectionate, that doesn't mean we are given a license to take advantage of that affection in such a way. I know animals shag each other but when it comes to their relationship with us, they have a certain innocence (when they're not being destructive and manipulative themselves lol, usually in attempts to get food.) We keep a pet for innocent fun, if we were to shag it we would be removing one of the last dregs of innocence within ourselves. Social taboos are there to preserve that a little, for those normal people that want to keep it. The rest can all move to London.

For a woman, at some point in life it usually becomes obvious that something doesn't always have to be physically violent to be abusive, even physically abusive.

Uh uh -- no moving goalposts. Your original comment was "if you had to take a Journalism 101 class" and explicitly in the context of SlimVirgin being a grade A "technician" in her writing, an area you conclude many users and myself would get a "D". You're now "bait and switching" or recasting this (itself a non-ethical action) to be instead about "mass media ethics". May I respectfully point out that my response was as your question, about writing style?

In the case of Wikipedia, I hadn't noticed.

You're thinking clearly and logically, despite not really enjoying your conclusions. Still, a pleasure to read. In fact, drawing the conclusions you don't really like, adds something. We don't see that enough.

Oh, journalism is more than just learning to write formalized 1500 word 25 paragraph newspaper articles. Though even doing that helped Twain, Kipling, Churchill, Hemingway,and many, many others a lot.

I could have as easily recommended a course in technical writing. Anything to help you be more modular and concise.

And as for me, I promise to use the spellchecker more. But that reminds me of the woman who insulted Churchill by saying he was disgustingly drunk, and his reply that perhaps so, but she was disgustingly fat, yet in the morning, he would be sober.

Has our friend Don Murphy ever learned this?

What a ridiculous and silly coment - are you including your owm work in that statement? If you can't make an adult contrubution to a debate then say nothing at all.

Giano

Can FT2 possible be that oblivious to the limits of his ability to write in an effective manner? The only "skill" he has demonstrated in this thread is to repeatedly come back for more after failing to expressing himself a manner that "conveys useful information." I understand that being being the last one standing is useful in the drive-by environment of Wikipedia where matters are often settled by having the influence to get someone blocked or banned if they persist to oppose him but it does nothing for him here.

He also seems disoriented by his inability to command the needed influence to prevail here and appears to be searching desperately for a voice.

Wikipedia Ironic Quote No.3429

Giano

"If you can't make an adult contrubution to a debate then say nothing at all."

In the case of Virgin Killer, your comment, Giano, is overruled by Damian's tact.



The 12 year old wikipedia admin just sent a tweet, "/facepalm"

His search is over. The ever-more-desperate and rapidly declining Giana seems to be fulfilling that role nicely now that Wikiwhistle seems to have given up. Meh!

FT2 and Giano are doing a phenomenal job of demonstrating Wikipedia's finest virtues in this thread. Please, both of you, do continue.

What FT2 seems to be trying to say - rather ineptly - is that there exist people to whom the word "zoophilia" can be legitimately applied who have never, in fact, had sex with an animal.

I've said in twenty-three words what you've failed to say in several hundred. This is what people mean when they say you're too verbose.

Yes, but the difference, Random, is that now you are on record as saying that and will have a hard time disavowing it, whereas FT2's verbal effluvia is so convoluted and jumbled that he can effectively deny anything he might have said later on, on the double grounds that it's unlikely that anyone actually read it all the way through in the first place and anyone who did probably got such a headache that they'll refuse to admit having read it if asked.

FT2's purpose is not and has never been to communicate; his purpose is to baffle and misdirect. You should direct your attention to the man behind the curtain.

Whose original comment? You seem to have confused "Moulton" with "Milton Roe".

Well that's a horse of a different color.

A well known incident, often cited Trouble is that brevity often conflicts with informativeness. I don't have sufficient trust that soundbites are honest, or sufficient skill to know what's readily skipped, so I avoid using it. I know my limits, and summing up a complex matter plus evidence in 2 sentences or paragraphs isn't it. There's worse.



What I'm saying is a bit harder to handle than that. I'm saying that a range of fairly authoritative sources seem to consider it uncontroversial in their field to state that even those who do such things, are not all abusive or to be classed as abusers.

That said... in your example, you haven't given any evidence whatsoever; which means its a mere assertion. Evidence it for a skeptical but openminded reasoning person, or explain how you got there so someone else can check your reasoning, and see how many words you need. That's why it gets wordy. I'd obviously be interested if there's a way to cover that and also keep it short.



We're going to disagree Glass Bead. You don't want scholarly material shown to anyone under 16? 18?, regardless of harm its lack may cause. You seem to feel that providing scholarly information on difficult subjects is more harmful than clicking round whatever random links comes up... you're much more in the "hide it away, people shouldn't be able to know adult stuff" where conservatives hang out, regardless of need, value, or value of avoiding misinformation. We just don't have common ground on this.



This would be a lot more compelling and the style less necessary if you and some others weren't egging it on for the year up till now, of course.

Popcorn still good, hun? Want a soda to go?

I'm actually only on record as having attributed it to someone else, but I see your point. I prefer to think that he's completely incompetent at communicating rather than deliberately being dishonest (don't look at me like that, FT2 - it really is down to those two options at this point, and incompetence is in line with AGF)



You could try answering simple questions with simple answers and then providing your evidence separately, rather than having it all in one unintelligible mass of words.

I never sought to persuade you of anything. I will also add complete inability to discern irony if not signaled by an emoticon to your list of pervasive communication deficits. Did you really think that I ever used the word "scholarly" in relation to your work intending anything other than mockery? Also did you notice that your pandering to the kiddies to come in and shout me down as "ageist" has not panned out? That argument has been settled for sometime on this site.

No need for defensiveness. It's an accurate comment in certain areas and obviously intended for good cause. I asked because I know it's a skill I lack and can get in the way, and in some cases it will make me an incompetent communicator. Concur and not shied away from. Something I've asked others to advise on before, and will again.

Someone has once mentioned something like that before, a couple or so months back (maybe more?), for wiki use - post a short version, plus link to the detail on a backing page (usually userspace) for those who would want it. Seems somewhat similar - does that work?

FT has been giving me tips on how to get my house warm via correct use of the clingfilm (not in a sex way lol) double-glazing technique. If it gets warm enough for me to live here, I shall be very pleased. I think I'll draw the line at converting to Bestialism or anything though.




What about the probably thousands more sources that would say the opposite?

One of the keys to good writing (and I have long struggled with this one) is finding the right metaphor. An entire picture can be conveyed in a well-chosen metaphor.

If a good metaphor doesn't come to mind, downgrade to an analogy.

If a good analogy doesn't come to mind, downgrade to evidence-based reasoning and analysis.

If all else fails (and it often does), downgrade to a joke, personal anecdote, or atrocious song parody.

But whatever you do, avoid preaching by means of Jesuistic Parables. That practice will get you crucified faster than you can sing, "We will, we will BLOCK YOU!"

That, I think is the point where you leave the real world and end up in Wikipedialand. To come to such a statement relies on several basic issues: what definition of zoophilia are those sources using (given that at its most literal it can be taken to be as simple as someone who likes animals in the most general sense), the "fairly authoritative", the context of the quote, the biases of the sources and so on, all sourcing 101. You can provide all the sourcing you like, but The Reasonable Person would struggle to agree with the statement that you seek to justify, cutting the FT2 crap, that says "Having sex with animals is not abnormal or abusive." You no doubt will say that is not in any way the statement you are making, but by the time you add in redirects, obfuscation and whatever, that is what the reasonable person will think you are saying. In typical Wikipedian fashion, you will then argue that it is the reader's fault for failing to understand what is written than the writer's fault for failing to communicate in a manner a reasonable person can understand.

That's the problem with Wikipedia - it reserves the right to switch off common sense on a whim and you end up with illogical stances where starting from a reasonable position of wanting to insulate yourself from editors bias you end up instead with another bias "verifiability not truth" where the verifiability is based on a flawed set of rules that allow Wikipedians to argue for incorrect information without batting an eyelid.



Classic FT2 misdirection. You know full well that the consensus here is that Wikipedia articles do not pass the test of scholarly information, and that there are other criteria than academic standards that dictate what are appropriate subjects for children. If you really believe that total mis-statement of GBG's obvious and rational statement of what most reasonable people would think then I think you really have confirmed you are not a fit and proper person to have any influence at all in the development of a resource used by minors, scholarly or otherwise.

To be frank, of all your odd outbursts here, that one is the one that makes me think that either your are stupid or are so irrationally convinced of your own intellectual superiority that you cannot conceive how our tiny minds will see how you have abused GBG's comments (which would then pretty much confirm the first premise).

Funny thing is, as long winded as he gets I can usually comprehend FT2 just fine. Now, when Geogre (T-C-L-K-R-D) really gets going on a rant, I get completely lost. Excellent command of language, that threatens to overwhelm him sometimes.

I've said I don't have a problem with FT2's writing style, but then I think he's generally improved over the months. Not many people agree with me though.

Right. Let's look at your sense of irony. Your actual statement read: "Maybe you think your views about X deserves scholarly encyclopedic coverage in a online encyclopedia... but I think not."

First off, notice the misattribution as before (whose views? "Your advocacy.. your views.." both misattributed)

Second... irony? This sentence was not ironic at all. It was a statement of what you yourself believe, in the context of a post on your beliefs about censorship features, and at the middle of a discussion about scholarly information on difficult and heated topics, right? And you blew a fuze about providing it. So let's recheck: "Should Wikipedia provide scholarly encyclopedic coverage of topics like this? If so, should they be provided to young people?"

Anyhow, I think we aren't going to agree.



The research is solid; the cites given for openness, the definitions broadly the commonplace usual ones in the field and both popular and clinical dictionaries. The fact that The Reasonable Person is your criterion for "what should be written" is the problem, because The Reasonable Person has believed every last myth and rumor going on every last topic in existence, at some time or other. On this one, the man in the street isn't informed. Media are uninformed. The weight in an article where science speaks, is given to science, and science is fairly precise about this. If you look at the branches of science that deal with this, you'll find very close agreement between the key researchers. I did, and I hadn't looked for it either, believe me. You'll also find the major researchers all seem to concur about the methodological errors of most studies, that build in what they aim to test.

And dogbiscuit, be careful not to conflate a person's personal feelings with the data they report from others.

Anyhow. If you don't like what the authoritative researchers in the field say, then go talk to them. I've given two links, you can find the rest easily enough. If you haven't done the work, don't prate about what "the reasonable but ignorant tv-watching man" would think. You've got a thousand website reporting "what different lay-people think". But it's almost entirely not good quality information.

The man in the street is not The Reasonable Person. You do understand the concept, don't you, it is well understood, in English Law for example. Rummage - interestingly enough, Wikipedia has a reasonable stab at explaining it.

Indeed.

Some way up the thread, it became clear that FT2 was arguing from a position entirely cocooned within Wikipedia's absurd practices - and no amount of real-life revelation was going to penetrate his delusions.

The idea that Wikipedia - with all its turmoil, its lack of accountability, and perpetual revisionism is the most sensible venue to provide a "scholarly" account of bestiality for kids is ridiculous.

They're all too often the same. Sadly, the dispassion and wigs of the English Courtroom, and the completely understandable (and often deeply felt) visceral reaction of many, don't always co-exist easily. Human nature.

Boa Constrictor
By Shel Silverstein

Oh, I'm being eaten
By a boa constrictor,
A boa constrictor,
A boa constrictor,
I'm being eaten by a boa constrictor,
And I don't like it--one bit.

Well, what do you know?
It's nibblin' my toe.
Oh, gee,
It's up to my knee.
Oh my,
It's up to my thigh.
Oh, fiddle,
It's up to my middle.
Oh, heck,
It's up to my neck.

Oh, dread,
It's upmmmmmmmmmmffffffffff . . .

Geogre is almost the antipode of FT2, though. Geogre mostly wants to write an encyclopedia (well, actually, he wants to write stuff and bask in the glory of knowing that other people are reading it, which is a pretty common motivation in the "authors first" coalition of Wikipedia), but he lacks enough emotional self-control to be an effective advocate for his own cause. He gets too easily lathered, and once lathered he tends to blather. George does not seem to particularly want to engage in community manipulation, but only does so when the community's actions interfere with his goals, or annoy him in some other way.

FT2, on the other hand, has no evident skill at actual writing, but instead is well-practiced at generate large quantities of verbiage that fails to commit to anything at all, much like a marketer, public relations expert, or postmodern philosopher. He is also very obviously far more interested in manipulating interpersonal relationships within the Wikipedia community (and in the periphery of that community, as evidenced by his dedicated efforts here) than he is in furthering the dissemination of knowledge generally. I do believe that he also has an interest in disseminating specific bits of so-called knowledge, which is to say that he appears to be attempting to manipulate Wikipedia to favor his particular points of view.

Kato, you're doing a grand job of reinventing GWB. "There were so weapons of mass destruction, honest!"

I believe I've explained myself quite amply; if you can't handle it, then be glad you and nobody you know has to. If you're happy and normative, be glad you didn't grow up spending your teens in some agony of worry with nobody to ask, nowhere to read. If you're an adult, which is questionable based on your lack of comprehension of the actuality of the real world where Bad And Difficult Stuff Happens To Real People, then your statement of "a scholarly account for kids" is a trivial idiocy -- that's Glass Bead's issue, not mine.

I'm fine if it were Net Nannied or CyberPatroled, and fine if we mark it as an "article for adults only". I'm not fine about censoring tough subjects from counselors, legal workers, concerned parents, concerned adults, desperate people who need that knowledge and can't ask anyone else, or the world at large, any more than I'd remove the books on them from libraries and online resellers. The rest of your post is your own interpretation of that.

There you go again, like the typical Wikipediot who loves to assume and put words and deeds on other people. I'm a father of two young children and I would rather that I teach them about the nature of Sex and it's place in the social fabric of our lives and culture, at a time and place, appropriate then have you ( who I don't know even your name or if you not some kind a pervert or worst a pedifile)
See some proof

And here too
Wikipedia is not were I would want to see my children to learn sex from. I consider Wikipedia worst then learning in the back alley from some Nambla editors/admins (predators) pushing their point of view.