Someone explain to me why, when Director Gardner creates an article about some humorist author in Boston or a dozen emo kids who get killed in Baghdad on suspicion of being gay, a bunch of editors pitch in and help her out and tell her what a good job she's doing, but when she writes an article on hundreds of thousands of homeless kids who have to sell their bodies to survive, it's all crickets?

Don't tell me Wikipedians are perverts. They're almost entirely prudes afraid to face the decay in their own society when they could be arguing over how many animated penises to have on Commons instead. Pathetic.

Basically, you can't make a simple blanket statement about Wikipedians--with exceptions. They are generally paranoid, humorless and intolerant of criticism.

As for the survival sex article: I suspect that would probably have been speedied, if it had not been created by Sue Gardner. It's not about sports, it's not about some political cause, it's not about Doctor Who or videogames, and it's "boring" to Aspies. And it's not interesting to the pedos.

I also noticed that someone who worked on the article last month was banned as one of your socks.

Keywords: Addiction, Attention Deficit Disorder, Asperger's Syndrome, Autism, Bipolar, Cluster A, Cluster B, Cluster C, Dopamine rush, Egocentrism, Frustration, Mental disorder, Narcissism, Neuropathy, OCD.

To be fair, I suspect the rationale here is one of political correctness, to define certain forms of prostitution more as pure victimization (of the prostitutes) than as mere exploitation, or as a legitimate form of employment. So there probably is a "political cause" involved, and it's probably being driven by the Indian WP community, since this is probably a much more serious problem in India. In fact, I believe Bishakha Datta on the WMF Board of Trustees has done some film-documentary work that would have touched on this issue...

Nevertheless, calling it "survival sex" tends to make the whole thing much more salacious than it probably could be. I'm not sure what they'd call it instead, but you'd think they could come up with something better than that? Something like "survival self-abasement" would be more accurate, but possibly even worse from a political-correctness perspective.

Either way, there's almost no question that the article would have been AfD'd (at the very least) if Sue Gardner hadn't written it.

Have you guys even bothered to look up the term? It's used extensively throughout all the literature, from the news, to books, to academic articles.

This is a pretty good study, even if it's kind of old.

I did, but just because they coined it at least two decades ago doesn't mean they couldn't come up with something better, even now.

However, point taken. Please carry on with your Sue Gardner community-absorption efforts!

It really has nothing to do with her. Making the article has nothing to do with the importance of the term.

Maybe they'll hire you now. Tip, falsely claiming to be an naval officer is a plus. Furry might work, though.

No need to get defensive about it, Mr. Seren - I think you may be missing the general point here. You can (and, I suppose, do) make a good case that the term is important, and the issue of Ms. Gardner's actually making the article is immaterial, at least in the context of this particular thread here.

I believe Mr. Salsman's point was that there are "WMF groupies" among the WP user and admin community who will follow VIP editors like Sue Gardner and Jimbo around, and if the VIPs should start an article, whether or not it has merit or encyclopedic "value," it will be improved by those groupies, very quickly, to the point at which it can't be proposed for deletion or even merging into another, more appropriate, article.

You might argue that there's nothing wrong with this phenomenon, but you can't really argue that the groupies (not to mention the phenomenon itself) don't exist, can you? And really, the issue isn't that the phenomenon is good or bad in relation to any particular article, the issue seems (to me) to be that Sue Gardner or some other VIP could conceivably take advantage of it to promote a cause or organization that might not otherwise "merit" one.

Maybe this is making a mountain out of a molehill, but Sue Gardner has hypocritically claimed that her Wikipedia activities are somehow "totally separate" from her Foundation activities, because she knows that the Foundation Director's writing of Wikipedia articles could expose the foundation under Section 230 - and yet she just goes and does it anyway. That's wrong, and she should stop, but she probably figures "in for a penny, in for a pound."

It's not boring to this Aspie. I just refuse to edit WP until I get my WH account back.

So, shortly after this topic was posted here on WR, Wikimedia UK trustee Fæ removed a graph of the number of homeless children in the US, saying "homeless children [are] only indirectly related to prostitution," even though several sources and statements in the article make the direct connection abundantly clear. Then he complains that "due to the easier availability of campaigning material in the USA, a better balance of sources and (geographic) points of view need to be maintained."

Is the number of homeless children indirectly or directly related to child prostitution?

Does the article look like it has a geographic bias? Most of its statements and sources are not specific to the US.

Is the second paragraph of the Outreach and law enforcement section truly only applicable to the US as Fæ claims?

Is Fæ trolling for accusations about his motivations in relation to his recent difficulties so that he can claim to be attacked by b& WRers?

Is survival sex as good as make up sex?

Just more evidence that Mr. Van Haeften is watching WR like a hawk. He really isn't much different from Shankbone, the same paranoia, the same floparound attention-whoring. I've known a few gay men, even was employed by one long ago, and none of them acted like this. Evidently Wikipedia gives the impression of being very PC, so it attracts people like Fae--his professional career and even his sexuality are secondary to his need for power and attention. He apparently took a big pay cut to work for WMUK.

Wikipedia = The New Vaudeville. I'm surprised they don't have more on-wiki suicides.

^assholes^. Well, not really, but somebody might take you two seriously.

I guess we're on a "deletion spree" now, so maybe those two posts could, like, "go away."

Well, you obviously take us seriously. Why don't you go down to the local auto body shop and show them what a real wreck looks like?