Reporting of lolicon images on Wikimedia Commons (T-H-L-K-D)
Perhaps a legitimate article on the topic could be made, but this one reads like reflexive loli-defense by the Wikipe-tan regulars.
Full Version: Reporting of lolicon images on Wikimedia Commons
I really don't think it should be titled lolicon, but child pornography. Lolicon should probably be mentioned in the article, yes, since quite a few sources discuss the use of that term, but the vast majority of sources say child pornography.
And I find it hilarious that Sanger himself is getting involved. When did his account get unbanned?
And I find it hilarious that Sanger himself is getting involved. When did his account get unbanned?
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 21st March 2011, 2:41pm) 
I really don't think it should be titled lolicon, but child pornography. Lolicon should probably be mentioned in the article, yes, since quite a few sources discuss the use of that term, but the vast majority of sources say child pornography.
Now it is, but we'll how long that lasts.
From Wikipedia...
Getting someone's name right, especially that of a published reporter whose name appears on every one of her articles, is one of the toughest things about building an encyclopedia, I hear.
QUOTE
Wales said that the Fox News reporter, Lana Winter
Getting someone's name right, especially that of a published reporter whose name appears on every one of her articles, is one of the toughest things about building an encyclopedia, I hear.
QUOTE(Tarc @ Mon 21st March 2011, 9:19am)
Perhaps a legitimate article on the topic could be made, but this one reads like reflexive loli-defense by the Wikipe-tan regulars.
If Mike Godwin is going to be invoked as an authority on the propriety of Sanger's charges, doesn't it stand to reason that the Wikipedia article should also note that Godwin mysteriously exited the Wikimedia Foundation not long after this fiasco? I mean, one reliable source described this as "startling".
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 21st March 2011, 10:41am)
And I find it hilarious that Sanger himself is getting involved. When did his account get unbanned?
He was blocked for all of 30 minutes a year ago, that is all.
@Kohser: Since when is the Examiner a reliable source?
@Tarc: Huh...I would have expected differently. Of course, there's something to be said for the fact that the most prominent critic of Wikipedia has been editing Wikipedia himself since he left.
@Tarc: Huh...I would have expected differently. Of course, there's something to be said for the fact that the most prominent critic of Wikipedia has been editing Wikipedia himself since he left.
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 21st March 2011, 3:10pm)
@Kohser: Since when is the Examiner a reliable source?
I don't know where policy said so, but in practice, it unquestionably is.
Hey, if such a news blip like this can make it as a Wikipedia article, where is the article about Jimmy Wales' affair with Rachel Marsden? Surely, that got wider and more durable coverage in the news cycle, didn't it?
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 21st March 2011, 3:10pm)
@Tarc: Huh...I would have expected differently. Of course, there's something to be said for the fact that the most prominent critic of Wikipedia has been editing Wikipedia himself since he left.
Yes, I think it says something that the true "lead" founder of Wikipedia hasn't edited in the main article space since October 2007, he being so disgusted by the putrid community and wretched governance practices.
Looking over his contributions, I notice that he carried on the anti-porn thing beyond just this incident, considering his comments at the content noticeboard.
Are there really parents out there who don't expect an encyclopedia to have entries pertaining to sex? That seems a little daft to me.
I mean, I know that I already presumed religious parents keep their children away from Wikipedia because it has articles pertaining to homosexuality that present it in a light that isn't negative (considering said articles relate the scientific community's consensus that was laid out by the American Psychological Association that homosexuality is normal). Are the parents who don't expect there to be sex just these same religious parents? That would make sense.
But any other parents believing as such doesn't make sense to me. Even Britannica has multiple entries related to various kinds of sex in it.
Are there really parents out there who don't expect an encyclopedia to have entries pertaining to sex? That seems a little daft to me.
I mean, I know that I already presumed religious parents keep their children away from Wikipedia because it has articles pertaining to homosexuality that present it in a light that isn't negative (considering said articles relate the scientific community's consensus that was laid out by the American Psychological Association that homosexuality is normal). Are the parents who don't expect there to be sex just these same religious parents? That would make sense.
But any other parents believing as such doesn't make sense to me. Even Britannica has multiple entries related to various kinds of sex in it.
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 21st March 2011, 3:56pm)
Looking over his contributions, I notice that he carried on the anti-porn thing beyond just this incident, considering his comments at the content noticeboard.
Are there really parents out there who don't expect an encyclopedia to have entries pertaining to sex? That seems a little daft to me.
I mean, I know that I already presumed religious parents keep their children away from Wikipedia because it has articles pertaining to homosexuality that present it in a light that isn't negative (considering said articles relate the scientific community's consensus that was laid out by the American Psychological Association that homosexuality is normal). Are the parents who don't expect there to be sex just these same religious parents? That would make sense.
But any other parents believing as such doesn't make sense to me. Even Britannica has multiple entries related to various kinds of sex in it.
I was going to ignore this comment of yours, Silver, because it is foolish. But, for those who might be otherwise astounded by a lack of response, who might be reading, here goes (again)...
Parents don't expect a tax-exempt encyclopedia that is funded almost entirely by federally tax-deductible dollars to have entries pertaining to a non-expert-edited point of view about child sex, rusty trombones, and smotherboxes. Such documentation of child sex is also against the law in the country where this website is served, and we citizens of the United States -- according to the law -- are not just encouraged, but obligated to report it to the FBI. Please don't make yourself look foolish.
We know you probably don't have children, nor is the responsibility of a raising a child something that you're ready for, being that you dress up in animal costumes for your jollies, but don't take this forum as an opportunity to defensively project your mores onto those of us who are parents by lumping us into some "religious parents" category. You don't need to be religious to be a furious taxpayer.
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 21st March 2011, 7:56pm)
But any other parents believing as such doesn't make sense to me. Even Britannica has multiple entries related to various kinds of sex in it.
They don't expect there to be categories of every fetish ever dreamed of, nor multiple images of such, nor drawings of kids being fucked, or ejaculated over, or engaging in oral sex. Nor do they really want to have little Sandy describing said images at the dinner table when asked "So what did you do at school today dear?"
I actually wasn't referring to this article at all or about the images in question, I was referring to Sanger's comments at an old Content Noticeboard discussion (like I said in my last post) about the Cock and ball torture article, where it was decided to turn it into a disambiguation page between the band and sexual practice, which in turn also coincidentally serves as an article defense so the sexual practice article isn't the first thing you end up going to and being hit in the eyes with images that, while highly relevant to the article, may not be the subject in question.
Sanger was attempting to use the discussion to accuse the Foundation of violating its for children stance.
That's what my previous post was about.
P.S. I think it's quite obvious that the images in question were not child porn or the FBI would have actually done something. They disregarded Sanger's idiotic claims just like Wikipedia did. The only ones that took Sanger seriously was Fox News and...well, that speaks for itself.
P.P.S. I do not and will never own a fursuit.
Sanger was attempting to use the discussion to accuse the Foundation of violating its for children stance.
That's what my previous post was about.
P.S. I think it's quite obvious that the images in question were not child porn or the FBI would have actually done something. They disregarded Sanger's idiotic claims just like Wikipedia did. The only ones that took Sanger seriously was Fox News and...well, that speaks for itself.
P.P.S. I do not and will never own a fursuit.
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 21st March 2011, 4:30pm)
P.S. I think it's quite obvious that the images in question were not child porn or the FBI would have actually done something. They disregarded Sanger's idiotic claims just like Wikipedia did. The only ones that took Sanger seriously was Fox News and...well, that speaks for itself.
And Mike Godwin abruptly leaving his dream job of legal eagle for the Wikimedia Foundation was just a coincidence. Got it.
Five months later is abruptly? You would have more of an argument saying that he was let go because of the FBI seal incident, which did happen just before he left.
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 21st March 2011, 8:30pm)
P.S. I think it's quite obvious that the images in question were not child porn or the FBI would have actually done something. They disregarded Sanger's idiotic claims just like Wikipedia did. The only ones that took Sanger seriously was Fox News and...well, that speaks for itself.
Not so. There is "child porn" and there is "sufficient child porn in order to gain a successful prosecution".
There was child porn, artfully draw incest porn, underage vagine, hentai manga which crossed a moral line and (from memory) lots of enabling lists of book and movies with child sex in them but not enough in order to gain a successful prosecution at the cost it would have entailed. Who to hold responsible ... and where is the intent?
Ko-so is right. You're either being a jerk off over this or you having a jerk off over this. And, no, I am not religious, nor do I watch Fox. Life is not a simple binary dichotomy.
Most subjects could be covered by an encyclopedia according the actually importance of the subject but the Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia and it has no capable to editorial control over relative importances.
It is just intellectual bukkake ... which either definition you choose ... defined by the degree of mental obsession and state of irresponsibility and unemployment editors enjoy.
Damn, this is funny. You have to admit that.
It only took TEN MONTHS to decide to create this article. Specifically, Jinnai, one of
the leading lights of the anime/manga wikiproject, was the guilty party.
He's also the most dedicated of the small group of nerds who guard the lolicon article with great justice.
Also quite fond of moe. Desu kawaii!
This part bears repeating, because it is so wonderfully smug:
Never get between a professional dork and his erokawa comics, eh?
Or he's gonna post something mean on Wikipedia, is that it?
It only took TEN MONTHS to decide to create this article. Specifically, Jinnai, one of
the leading lights of the anime/manga wikiproject, was the guilty party.
He's also the most dedicated of the small group of nerds who guard the lolicon article with great justice.
Also quite fond of moe. Desu kawaii!
This part bears repeating, because it is so wonderfully smug:
QUOTE
On May 7, 2010, after Fox News had begun informing and putting pressure on dozens of companies that donate to the Wikimedia Foundation, they reported that the Wikimedia Foundation had begun purging its websites of thousands of pornographic images after co-founder of the Wikimedia Foundation Jimmy Wales had been contacted by several of those donors.[16][17][18] Fox News also reported that, according to Wales, this was in preparation for a new policy regarding sexually explicit content.[17] However, Wales later denied the shakeup and that the reporter had ever contacted him.[19]
The purge led to infighting throughout the entire Wikimedia community.[18] Contributors complained that the deletions were "undemocratic and taken too quickly" and could result in images with legitimate educational value being accidentally deleted.[16] Fox News claimed that the situation quickly "devolved into an all-out war pitting board members against board members, and with top leadership sparring with lower level administrators."[18] However, the Wikimedia Fountain responded that, while discussions had become intense, it was a normal part of the process.[20]
On May 9, 2010, Jimmy Wales gave up some site privileges in response to protests by contributors who were angered over his deletion of images without consultation. He can no longer delete files, remove administrators, assign projects or edit protected content; however, he is still able to edit as a regular user.[16][18][21] Wales had previously asked that such images be removed. Some of the images he and other administrators deleted were restored as they were deemed to have educational value.[16] His stepping down was picked up by various media when Fox News quoted a source as saying that Wales' voluntary redaction of his administrative powers created "chaos" with no one clearly in charge.[18][19][20][22][23] The Foundation later denied those claims and posted a response on their blog about co-founder Wales' role in the Wikimedia Foundation. They clarified Wales' position as Chairman Emeritus of the Board of Trustees, noting that there were other executives with higher authority.[20]
The purge led to infighting throughout the entire Wikimedia community.[18] Contributors complained that the deletions were "undemocratic and taken too quickly" and could result in images with legitimate educational value being accidentally deleted.[16] Fox News claimed that the situation quickly "devolved into an all-out war pitting board members against board members, and with top leadership sparring with lower level administrators."[18] However, the Wikimedia Fountain responded that, while discussions had become intense, it was a normal part of the process.[20]
On May 9, 2010, Jimmy Wales gave up some site privileges in response to protests by contributors who were angered over his deletion of images without consultation. He can no longer delete files, remove administrators, assign projects or edit protected content; however, he is still able to edit as a regular user.[16][18][21] Wales had previously asked that such images be removed. Some of the images he and other administrators deleted were restored as they were deemed to have educational value.[16] His stepping down was picked up by various media when Fox News quoted a source as saying that Wales' voluntary redaction of his administrative powers created "chaos" with no one clearly in charge.[18][19][20][22][23] The Foundation later denied those claims and posted a response on their blog about co-founder Wales' role in the Wikimedia Foundation. They clarified Wales' position as Chairman Emeritus of the Board of Trustees, noting that there were other executives with higher authority.[20]
Never get between a professional dork and his erokawa comics, eh?
Or he's gonna post something mean on Wikipedia, is that it?
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 21st March 2011, 7:56pm)
Are there really parents out there who don't expect an encyclopedia to have entries pertaining to sex? That seems a little daft to me.
As a parent, I don't expect an encyclopedia to contain pornography. Any more than I expect an encyclopedia that contains articles about heroin to be selling heroin.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 21st March 2011, 1:35pm)
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 21st March 2011, 7:56pm)
Are there really parents out there who don't expect an encyclopedia to have entries pertaining to sex? That seems a little daft to me.
As a parent, I don't expect an encyclopedia to contain pornography. Any more than I expect an encyclopedia that contains articles about heroin to be selling heroin.
Good analogy, for the most part.
This whole "they should expect it" completely ignores two things: the explicit nature of the materials on WP, and how easily it can be found (even accidentally) with a few clicks. It's always been normal enough for kids (boys especially) to look such things up in a dictionary/encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean it should be described and photographed/drawn out in pornographic levels of detail. These excuses are ridiculous and just annoying.
Even worse, a reference to "WP:NOTCENSORED" is usually a pretty good sign you're dealing with someone whose head is far enough up his ass to see his own molars. Usually a Randroid, but sometimes they're another variation of internet troll that WP leadership always seems to take seriously for some reason.
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 21st March 2011, 2:41pm)
I really don't think it should be titled lolicon, but child pornography. Lolicon should probably be mentioned in the article, yes, since quite a few sources discuss the use of that term, but the vast majority of sources say child pornography.
At the very start of that article it actually outright tries to say that it was a 'mis'classification!!!
And yeah, I guess the anime nerdboys are all over it. So 99% of wikipedia editors then...
I've seen quite a few stuff with japanese names for stuff that actually already exists in English, I think cos of the same reason. In this case I think it's a cover word basically...
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 21st March 2011, 9:35pm)
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 21st March 2011, 7:56pm)
Are there really parents out there who don't expect an encyclopedia to have entries pertaining to sex? That seems a little daft to me.
As a parent, I don't expect an encyclopedia to contain pornography. Any more than I expect an encyclopedia that contains articles about heroin to be selling heroin.
That doesn't make sense. There is no reason why encyclopedias ought not to contain articles about pornography, there are even BBC television articles about the history of pornography. If you have any evidence that anyone is selling pornography by whatever means then you ought to share it with whomever you believe to be the relevant authorities.
QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 12:51am)
There is no reason why encyclopedias ought not to contain articles about pornography, there are even BBC television articles about the history of pornography.
You mean this series which from what I recall managed to get the point across without any porn. Was scheduled after 9pm, in fact I think it went out around 11pm.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 21st March 2011, 9:35pm)
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 21st March 2011, 7:56pm)
Are there really parents out there who don't expect an encyclopedia to have entries pertaining to sex? That seems a little daft to me.
As a parent, I don't expect an encyclopedia to contain pornography. Any more than I expect an encyclopedia that contains articles about heroin to be selling heroin.
As a drunk, I don't give a fuck! Give the kiddies porn and heroin say I.
QUOTE(lilburne @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 12:59am)
QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 12:51am)
There is no reason why encyclopedias ought not to contain articles about pornography, there are even BBC television articles about the history of pornography.
You mean this series which from what I recall managed to get the point across without any porn. Was scheduled after 9pm, in fact I think it went out around 11pm.
Without selling any porn, which appears to be Peter Damian's objection.
QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 1:10am)
QUOTE(lilburne @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 12:59am)
QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 12:51am)
There is no reason why encyclopedias ought not to contain articles about pornography, there are even BBC television articles about the history of pornography.
You mean this series which from what I recall managed to get the point across without any porn. Was scheduled after 9pm, in fact I think it went out around 11pm.
Without selling any porn, which appears to be Peter Damian's objection.
If Peter's that desperate to buy porn there are better options.
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 21st March 2011, 4:30pm)
P.P.S. I do not and will never own a fursuit.
Wait a second... how did I get that impression? Could you briefly describe what is your level of involvement with the furry movement? Sincere apologies if I've improperly cast you into the wrong category.
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 21st March 2011, 4:43pm)
Five months later is abruptly? You would have more of an argument saying that he was let go because of the FBI seal incident, which did happen just before he left.
You're probably right about that, I concede.
@Kohser: What do the levels of involvement entail exactly? I'm a furry, I have an account on FurAffinity (not that that means much, since I also have an account on DeviantArt). Is owning a fursuit the highest level of involvement, I presume? Because I guess i'm not that if it is. I'm not interested in owning one at all, not even considering how outrageous they cost for a half-way decent one.
I suppose I should also note that I am absolutely not an Otherkin, if you were wondering. I do not have any "past lives" or anything like that. Those people are idiotic.
I just know a lot about both the porn incident and the FBI seal incident, since I was involved with both when they happened. Firmly on the side of Jimbo is wrong (pretty much perpetually, I would say) for the former and firmly on the side that the FBI can shove it for the latter.
I suppose I should also note that I am absolutely not an Otherkin, if you were wondering. I do not have any "past lives" or anything like that. Those people are idiotic.
I just know a lot about both the porn incident and the FBI seal incident, since I was involved with both when they happened. Firmly on the side of Jimbo is wrong (pretty much perpetually, I would say) for the former and firmly on the side that the FBI can shove it for the latter.
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 21st March 2011, 9:22pm)
@Kohser: What do the levels of involvement entail exactly? I'm a furry, I have an account on FurAffinity (not that that means much, since I also have an account on DeviantArt). Is owning a fursuit the highest level of involvement, I presume? Because I guess i'm not that if it is. I'm not interested in owning one at all, not even considering how outrageous they cost for a half-way decent one.
I suspect the "disconnect" here is that people like myself, and (AFAIK) Mr. Kohs, who don't do any sort of online role-playing whatsoever can't see why anyone would want to identify oneself as a "furry" unless there were some sort of real-world, and preferably real-world sexual, payoff. And you can't expect to obtain that sort of payoff by just walking up to someone in street clothes and saying, "hey, I'm a furry," can you? So it would seem that your only viable options are to go all-out with the suit, or else try to hook up with like-minded people on various websites - but the latter approach actually seems more risky, given that you don't really know who any of those people are.
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 3:29am)
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 21st March 2011, 9:22pm)
@Kohser: What do the levels of involvement entail exactly? I'm a furry, I have an account on FurAffinity (not that that means much, since I also have an account on DeviantArt). Is owning a fursuit the highest level of involvement, I presume? Because I guess i'm not that if it is. I'm not interested in owning one at all, not even considering how outrageous they cost for a half-way decent one.
I suspect the "disconnect" here is that people like myself, and (AFAIK) Mr. Kohs, who don't do any sort of online role-playing whatsoever can't see why anyone would want to identify oneself as a "furry" unless there were some sort of real-world, and preferably real-world sexual, payoff. And you can't expect to obtain that sort of payoff by just walking up to someone in street clothes and saying, "hey, I'm a furry," can you? So it would seem that your only viable options are to go all-out with the suit, or else try to hook up with like-minded people on various websites - but the latter approach actually seems more risky, given that you don't really know who any of those people are.
If you don't dress up like a furry ... what the hell do you do that's related to furry-ness?
Why are we suddenly talking about furry porn?
I could always post a bunch of links to FurAffinity porn pictures, as if it would help illustrate this discussion.
(FurAffinity is wide open to casual surfers, unlike Deviant Art and some similar sites.)
But they won't, because as absurd as furries are, they aren't also into furry child-sex
(at least not usually, even the furries have their small populations of extra-twisted members).
You wanna talk about why manga and CP are often joined together?
What about the Christopher Handley case?
Or Simon Lundström?
Or Dwight Whorley?
Did you know that you can find hundreds of images that might be considered child pornography,
scanned and uploaded directly from any number of notorious manga titles, at websites like
Danbooru and e-hentai?
How about just DLing some images, and placing them on the hard drive of someone you dislike,
and then calling the cops? Might it work? Judging by the above cases (and many more), in some
parts of the US, it might. And yet, those same communities don't block Danbooru or e-hentai,
nor do they block naughty pics on Commons. Isn't that odd.
I could always post a bunch of links to FurAffinity porn pictures, as if it would help illustrate this discussion.
(FurAffinity is wide open to casual surfers, unlike Deviant Art and some similar sites.)
But they won't, because as absurd as furries are, they aren't also into furry child-sex
(at least not usually, even the furries have their small populations of extra-twisted members).
You wanna talk about why manga and CP are often joined together?
What about the Christopher Handley case?
Or Simon Lundström?
Or Dwight Whorley?
Did you know that you can find hundreds of images that might be considered child pornography,
scanned and uploaded directly from any number of notorious manga titles, at websites like
Danbooru and e-hentai?
How about just DLing some images, and placing them on the hard drive of someone you dislike,
and then calling the cops? Might it work? Judging by the above cases (and many more), in some
parts of the US, it might. And yet, those same communities don't block Danbooru or e-hentai,
nor do they block naughty pics on Commons. Isn't that odd.
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 12:05am)
Why are we suddenly talking about furry porn?
Admittedly, that stuff is off-topic, and I'd suggest that it be split off except that it might help folks to know where Mr. Seren is coming from, subculturally-speaking.
All in all, I'd say your estimation of Jinnai (T-C-L-K-R-D) is spot-on - the article in question is almost certainly an immature revenge-needling attempt from someone who had been made to fear that either his supply, or the overall legitimization effort of... whatever that stuff is was being threatened, and now feels secure enough that he (correctly) figures he can get away with something like this. It looks like Nawlinwiki (T-C-L-K-R-D) tried to "prod" it, which means "delete immediately," but of course this Jinnai person was having none of that. I thought Nawlinwiki was more of a hard-ass than that? He should have banned the guy.
QUOTE
Did you know that you can find hundreds of images that might be considered child pornography, scanned and uploaded directly from any number of notorious manga titles, at websites like Danbooru and e-hentai? How about just DLing some images, and placing them on the hard drive of someone you dislike, and then calling the cops? Might it work?
If I had a nickel for every time someone tried to do that to me...
Remember, information about pixie-like Japanese girls wearing school uniforms whose eyeballs and breasts are at least ten times normal size wants to be free. Who are we to deny freedom to information about pixie-like Japanese girls wearing school uniforms whose eyeballs and breasts are at least ten times normal size? Do we really have that right? I ask you.
Now, if the eyeballs were only two or three times normal size, ehh, maybe I could go along with it, but once you get past 8, 9 times, I think you have to just let it go.
QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 1:10am)
QUOTE(lilburne @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 12:59am)
QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 12:51am)
There is no reason why encyclopedias ought not to contain articles about pornography, there are even BBC television articles about the history of pornography.
You mean this series which from what I recall managed to get the point across without any porn. Was scheduled after 9pm, in fact I think it went out around 11pm.
Without selling any porn, which appears to be Peter Damian's objection.
That was not my point. Even if the encyclopedia is free, then I don’t expect the article about heroin to be giving away heroin. I want it merely to be about heroin.
My point was that an article about X should not be the same as X. An article about pornography should not itself be pornography.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 4:13am)
My point was that an article about X should not be the same as X. An article about pornography should not itself be pornography.
A little random and off-topic-ish, but I was curious to see just how the Wikipedia entry on "pornography" handles the subject matter and was surprised to find that that specific article is blocked by my workplace's content filtering software (iPrism). I was unaware that the wiki is seeing specific and targeted blocking like this. Not necessarily a bad thing IMO, though I'm sure there's quite a bit that isn't caught.
QUOTE
Your argument sounds remarkably similar to your opinion about Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. I think the result for this article will be much the same as it was there, showing that this is a clearly notable topic. Any "attack edge" is a content issue that can be resolved through normal editing. SilverserenC 18:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
QUOTE
Everything you just said are content issues that can be resolved through editing. All of that has nothing to do with the article's notability. SilverserenC 18:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I see Silver Seren has picked up on the "can be resolved through normal editing" phrase. Sil, just a word of advice - this phrase should only be used from a position of strength wherein it is generally understood to mean "we control this article and will ignore whatever concern you just raised".
"The article still has the flavor of being written by a pathetic, wounded lolicon-defender."
I almost snarfed my coffee, that was awesome.
I almost snarfed my coffee, that was awesome.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 12:13am)
QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 1:10am)
QUOTE(lilburne @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 12:59am)
QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 12:51am)
There is no reason why encyclopedias ought not to contain articles about pornography, there are even BBC television articles about the history of pornography.
You mean this series which from what I recall managed to get the point across without any porn. Was scheduled after 9pm, in fact I think it went out around 11pm.
Without selling any porn, which appears to be Peter Damian's objection.
That was not my point. Even if the encyclopedia is free, then I don’t expect the article about heroin to be giving away heroin. I want it merely to be about heroin.
My point was that an article about X should not be the same as X. An article about pornography should not itself be pornography.
Contrary to the nit-picking, I thought it was pretty clear that was the point, and that's what I agreed with. I've tried to avoid the porno articles, but what I've seen pretty consistently has a level of detail that indicates all the article-writing was done one-handed. This is a big part of the problem.
QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 6:40pm)
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 12:13am)
QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 1:10am)
QUOTE(lilburne @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 12:59am)
QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 12:51am)
There is no reason why encyclopedias ought not to contain articles about pornography, there are even BBC television articles about the history of pornography.
You mean this series which from what I recall managed to get the point across without any porn. Was scheduled after 9pm, in fact I think it went out around 11pm.
Without selling any porn, which appears to be Peter Damian's objection.
That was not my point. Even if the encyclopedia is free, then I don’t expect the article about heroin to be giving away heroin. I want it merely to be about heroin.
My point was that an article about X should not be the same as X. An article about pornography should not itself be pornography.
Contrary to the nit-picking, I thought it was pretty clear that was the point, and that's what I agreed with. I've tried to avoid the porno articles, but what I've seen pretty consistently has a level of detail that indicates all the article-writing was done one-handed. This is a big part of the problem.
Yes. The serious pursuit of knowledge does not involve getting a large stiffy.
Dear god, shoot me now. *sighs* Now i'm going to go through the task of finding the names of the photos that were attempted to be deleted and their authors. I can do it though and it will be quite obvious that they have artistic merit.
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 24th March 2011, 4:56am)
Dear god, shoot me now. *sighs* Now i'm going to go through the task of finding the names of the photos that were attempted to be deleted and their authors. I can do it though and it will be quite obvious that they have artistic merit.
Bot if the van Maele pictures are anything to go on. That sort of stuff was 10 a penny back in the 19th century, though obviously not the exact subject matter. All books, and magazines were full of similar illustrations. The only thing to pick these out is the theme.
From this statement, Sanger appears to have a very short list of what "erotic art" is. It may possibly include L'Origine du monde (T-H-L-K-D), but, of course, you'd have to prove to him that they are significant beyond the realm of erotic art somehow, since all erotic art is "merely a tool for men to masturbate by".
Well, yes, Mr. Sanger, that is generally what "erotic art" means. I don't see what that has to do with images having artistic merit, unless you believe that once someone has wanked to a picture, that it has been defiled and now belong in the category of pornography. I'm afraid that that would put a lot of other art into the same category though. I wouldn't even be surprised if someone has done it to the Mona Lisa at one time or another.
Well, yes, Mr. Sanger, that is generally what "erotic art" means. I don't see what that has to do with images having artistic merit, unless you believe that once someone has wanked to a picture, that it has been defiled and now belong in the category of pornography. I'm afraid that that would put a lot of other art into the same category though. I wouldn't even be surprised if someone has done it to the Mona Lisa at one time or another.
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 24th March 2011, 8:26pm)
I don't see what that has to do with images having artistic merit, unless you believe that once someone has wanked to a picture, that it has been defiled and now belong in the category of pornography. I'm afraid that that would put a lot of other art into the same category though. I wouldn't even be surprised if someone has done it to the Mona Lisa at one time or another.
You'll need an account and be over 18. NSFW BTW.
Do I even want to look?
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 24th March 2011, 9:46pm)
Do I even want to look?
Depends on whether you know what a tribute is.
Anyway enough of this I have a bunch of 16th century architectural shots to process.
QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 24th March 2011, 2:53pm)
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 24th March 2011, 9:46pm)
Do I even want to look?
Depends on whether you know what a tribute is.
Anyway enough of this I have a bunch of 16th century architectural shots to process.
A tribute? You don't want to look.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.