As part of the increasingly incestuous relationship between the Wales page and WR, see here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...for_spanking.3F





I see he uses the word 'perverts' for which Giano was temporarily blocked, and I was indef blocked. Be careful John.



Hey and before you unwittingly spawn a worldwide boycott of Amazon.com, the primary investor in Wikia "Spanking Art", for being a pro-pedophilia corporation has got to be a WP:LEGAL if I saw one. I DEMAND a community ban (as Durova argued in my case).

Noted in another thread, about Wiki-Commons:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15405

This week the hideous Category : Lolita on the commons had a picture of a clearly under-aged girl in its ranks. As stated by Bead, the fact that WP permits this material, without taking even the minimal steps of being COPPA compliant is an outrage.

Cue Taxwoman in 3...2...1...

Actually Finley, if that is who he is, really is heading for a block: this refers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=184332213

clearly prompted by this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ohn_Russ_Finley

Roger, that. Thing is, I believe that Taxwoman is a firm believer in the rights of adults to roleplay all they want. I'm not sure she would be so strongly in favor of co-opting and/or exploiting the images of children so that they are "fair game" in the minds of adult roleplayers.

It's one thing for a 40-year-old man to wear a diaper and ask his "mommie" to spank him. It's another thing altogether to find a photo of some 11-year-old Boy Scouts and slap them on a page that's drooling with anticipation of spanking their bare behinds.

I'm sure the Wikipedia/Wikia response will be, "This is our page/photo of Boy Scouts, not theirs. It's our responsibility to police how it is used, and the reputation of our organization(s) outweighs that of the Boy Scouts and even supercedes the privacy of those boys who should have known that the camera was set on 'GFDL mode'!"

It really is astounding, and I hope that Taxwoman weighs in (with this clear distinction between fun and predation).

Greg

It would appear that the photographer of the Boy Scouts image doesn't much care about how the picture is used at Wikia.

Since there is such indifference to this within the Hive, perhaps the twisted minds of Wikipediots would be better persuaded by pointing this out to the Boy Scouts of America, so that they can issue a take-down order to Gil Penchina? Even better, somehow find the moms and dads of the specific boys in the photo and point them to how Jimmy Wales and Amazon see fit to exploit them for the edification of "spankophiles". An angry mom or an outraged dad is far more potent than a DMCA take-down notice!

Jimbo hasn't responded yet, but I wonder how Metros and Rlevse would react if the photo chosen for a page in Spanking Art happened to be a GFDL image of little Kira Wales?

Greg

Oh, great.

Now we have the Spankish Inquisition.

That's a very good point and seems completely lost on the photographer who is presumably a scoutmaster of some kind. Both my children are in the scouts and if I found out that someone in the scouting organisation had taken their picture and had allowed it to go onto a site like this I could not be held responsible for my actions. Also, I know the parents who act as guardians and governors of local and national scouting groups, whose job it is to keep a watchful eye on things, would be extremely concerned if they knew about this.

What is extraordinary is how oblivious they seem to be on that page. And on this one, I suspect. Problem is, it is all very jokey and funny in one sense, then you realise it is real children, real parents, and real perverts involved in it all. Thanks for keeping on about this.

Obliviousness precludes advancement to the Ethics of Care.

I checked out the strange spanking-related Wikia site and found this page

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Panty_shot

which is utterly sick - little girls being spanked. How much do we have to complain before, say, the police get called in?

Or this

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Gauis_Marius

I mean, words fail utterly. Has Amazon been told?

Or this

http://images.wikia.com/spankingart/images/d/d4/Park.jpg

I warned them!

The Joy

At least one wikipedia admin is like that.

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Cmxpack.jpg

AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That's really all you need to know about Wikia in one picture.

I still don't understand why the wiki- and pedo- worlds seem to cross so much.

Some unfortunate people wish to act, hidden from society's identification of them and without responsibility or attribution, on their innermost desires for personal gratification regardless of the harm they may bring to innocent lives.

Sounds exactly like a Wikipediot admin working on a BLP and a pedophile working on a neighbor's 7-year-old.

Amazon's investor relations contact is: ir@amazon.com.

Greg

In normal, healthy life, there are diligent organizations and regulations developed to protect the vulnerable from predatory behaviour such as the above.

But in Jimboland, which is dominated by a privileged but naive class with no idea of the margins many people live on in real societies, these necessary regulations are no doubt deemed "censorship". They are rejected out of hand, resulting in a revival of practices that haven't seen the light of day in civilized society for decades. This doesn't really impact this privileged class so what do they care?

On the ground, away from the Florida poolside dreamers, a culture further disintegrates. And the people who don't bask in Jimbo's internet bonanza, and who don't get to go to Press dinners with Richard Branson, get it in the neck. Same old story of hubris and exploitation.

BINGO.

A few more comments on Wales' page suggesting some people are now 'getting it'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...for_spanking.3F

On the other hand this one



clearly isn't getting it.

1. There are various laws protecting use of children's images 2. Even if not actually illegal, and that can always be tested, there is 'reputation risk'. (Everyone here will laugh at that one, but the point is, only people here, for now, are getting the joke).

This one is really going to run. Has anyone posted the panty-shot and cub-shout one on the Wales page. I sadly can't.

Maybe David Shankbone (i.e. resident wikid reporter of spanksings-ons) can write up a report for Wikinews!!!

See

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Web_group



Hurrah for Wikia then!



Is that Elonka with the glasses, then?

And it finally dawns on Rlevse

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...alk:Jimbo_Wales

that something ver' wrong here.

And now someone is really really getting it.



Teh penny drops

well done for bringing this out into the open - I think it's both important and urgent, and have tried to bring it to the attention of people at wikback.com.

I also took the photo out of the article because I realised I could, and really don't think it should be there a moment longer than it has to.....

I think we'll see the closure of that wiki before too long (today, hopefully) - but time will tell.....

PM

I don't really like WAS 4.250 now.

Long time troller, first time poster.

I think people are confusing a number of issues here: the only issue that I see as relevant is Wikia hosting an objectionable wiki. It should probably stop doing so right away; certainly that's what I'd do if I was Wikia.

But this has nothing to do with the relationship between Wikimedia and Wikia (incestuous thought it may be; I'm not sure). It has nothing to do with people who take photos for Wikimedia being betrayed, any more than it would if somebody totally unconnected with Wikimedia or Wikia took a free picture they found on Wikipedia and used it for nefarious purposes. There may also be laws preventing the appropriation of minors' images like this; I hope they are. But it's still just an issue of Wikia hosting something objectionable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=186211884

That's pretty much what we should expect these people to say (see my last post in this thread). That's what they are like. They are naive extremists with no clue how society works.

That's why a lot of us are here on this site. To try and stop these irresponsible ideologues from further disfiguring our societies and our culture.

Privatemusings leading the charge!

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Boy...emoved_material

Until outside pressure comes to bear in sufficient measure winning minor battles against this kind irresponsibility will do no good. The material will just seep back in, worse next time.

You missed the inevitable appearance of That Kid in Africa®:

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Chicotte

Still working on why the picture adds "encyclopedic" value...

This isn't just any wiki either, it's like a FEATURED WIKI or something or other.

Anyway, I registered and joined in the fray. On a related note, check out the CAPTCHA image I got...



Does the sexual depravity of wiki-world know any bound?

Man, the chick doing the spanking in that photo looks an awful lot like Elonka Dunin? Could that be her????

It seems Wikia is now acting on the complaints.

http://spankingart.wikia.com/index.php?tit...506&oldid=20505

http://spankingart.wikia.com/index.php?tit...&action=history

If speech is so free, why am I indefblocked from Wikipedia?

Wikipedia is not censored, an experiment in democracy, or a forum for free speech.

What?

Naah, the tip of her nose doesn't even come down halfway to her upper lip, much less all the way down.

It's interesting that the woman's face in that photo hasn't been distorted to hide her identity, whereas the woman in photos 1 and 3 of the same Shankbone series have been:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S%26M_D...d_Shankbone.jpg

And what is that on the right side of the shot, underneath the restraining device? A porta-potty seat? And in the sixth in the series, in the magazine rack in the center of the photo, there's a proudly-displayed copy of... ENSLAVED? Just what the hell is going on with these people?

On the positive side, in the eighth photo in the series, there's a handy "End of Session Checklist" tacked to the wall behind various whips, chains, etc.... I'm thinking of making a copy for my own office, except for the part about "leaving the radio on (something - probably 'classical' - or jazz) at a reasonable volume." In my office, the volume must always be unreasonable.

You just can't make this stuff up...

This had me convulsed with laughter for a second. Then laughter ceases, because laughter is the problem here. To laugh is just a way to dismiss something that is really quite serious, when you follow it all through (e.g. the cubs being spanked).

On the 'potty', if you follow the links on the photo to Wikipedia, it is all explained here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_toilet

This also explains the checklist bit about 'clearing up' and 'disinfecting'.

[edit] OMG Fancy that. All very Wikipedia isn't it with the warning about the health risks.

If I ever have to buy that much equipment to get off, I'll kill myself.

Also I wish someone in Wikimedia could obscure a face without it looking ridiculous. I'm sure everyone's seen this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Childhood_Obesity.JPG

In the UK, any adult has to be CRB checked (including my 18 year old daughter who has been in the sea scouts for several years and is now a helper). That is jargon for going to the criminal records bureau. That came about because of the Soham murders especially, where it turned out that a person who had come to the attention of the police several times had not been checked when applying to be a school caretaker.

Naively, but having being watching the zoophilia debate (shudder!) I have been CRB checked for being a guide dog puppy walker. It slowly dawns that it is not a joke after all.

The UK Scouting Organisation goes to great lengths to ensure there is a rigorous process to ensure not just physical safety on expeditions, but that there is also a process for parents to be reasonably confident that the people in charge of scouting groups are suitable, including parent helpers who would now be CRB checked even if going along to help with a supervised expedition.

If that was a picture of an English boy scout, the national organisation would be absolutely horrified and would take all possible measures to identify the person involved and ensure they were removed from the scouting organisation. I am not sure what the International relationship is between the organisations, but I am fairly sure that I could contact the right people in the UK to put pressure on both Wikia and The Scouting Association in America.

I am acutely aware that going public with the media is likely to go in the wrong direction: I am a great supporter of the Scouting Movement as a worthy organisation which has been a tremendous help to my family and I would hate this to end up harming them rather than Wikia.

I want to contact the UK movement, but I am not sure I can frame the right wording to translate the technicalities into plain English. Could we work together to come up with a standard letter? Basically it needs to say, "Watch out. Wikia is hosting material which both brings the scouting movement into disrepute and appears to be condoning and encouraging violence against children and sexual abuse."

I am assuming there is little point raising this with the UK police, though I am aware there is a UK branch of Wikia. It would be very interesting to know the legal position.

And in the words of Wikipedia, for all those Wikipedians browsing this, that is a legal threat. You are damaging an organisation I am proud for my family to be involved with. Pass the message on - this will get nasty.

My estimate is that about 30% of the content of Wikipedia brings some agency, idea, organization, movement, or person into disrepute.

Is it any wonder Wkipedians are worried about what might bring them or their project into comparable disrepute?

Yes absolutely my wife has to do so to help at local school.

Yes again. My friend is on board of governors of local scouts. He takes the view that everyone is potentially suspect. So they keep a very tight watch, and mums and other parents go along. And a wonderful thing too - inner-city kids like ours get to go camping in the mud and build things &c. Incidentally my father was one of the first boy scouts before the first World War & left me a beautiful certificate.

But this now raises some interesting questions. The one under the real pressure here is not Wales or Wikia, but the poor guy Rlevse who is likely to be facing some difficult questions. I don't know whether to feel sorry for him or not. What makes me not feel sorry is that he feels no personal responsibility at the point here (from his talk page):



Then he clearly notices the Jimbo page:



And realises the problem is with him and 5 angry parents. Then the pleading tone starts



On the other hand (look at the correspondence this has generated among the Wikipedia scouting fraternity) I think they are probably going to deal with this themselves. Wales is not going to alienate a whole section of the enyclopedia who are doing generally good things, just to humour a bunch of perverts.

OK enough is enough. I have just found this

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Category:CC-BY-SA_images

which contains (among other things) these

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:800px-Pigtails.jpg

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:BP_Bed_Time.jpg

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Baby_tub.jpg

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:BP...ng_in_a_Row.jpg

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Ba...by_roguebfl.png

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Between_Friends.jpg

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Behind_the_Door.jpg

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Cute_japanese.jpg (yuk)

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Ja...white_dress.jpg (double yuk)

I think the police need to know. Can anyone help me out here on who to contact?

...and after a naive start it has dawned on him that what probably started out as a flippant position about rights was actually a discussion about how he was supporting paedophilia. My guess is he is someone who thought he was doing the right thing in promoting the scouts, and hadn't thought it through. We all make mistakes and I would not want to target any individual who did something like this by accident. (Very different from the likes of say FT2 and his studied manipulation).

I don't think Jimbo really understands ethics and consequences.

The unintended consequence of this is not that there is a strong likelihood of them being stalked and abused, but that their school mates come across this and in one play time of merciless teasing, their lives become unbearable as they become the latest target for bullying (cue Pink Floyd - The Wall). Children commit suicide over less.




The trouble is, that, having had a quick skim through, they appear, as individual images, generally to be quite innocent (used advisedly). It is the context that makes the problem.

Yes, absolutely. Given all this (and our publicity not helping) they should just take the picture down, but need to think through, as you have done.

What REALLY gets me though, is boring old farts concerned-parent types like me (and possibly you) are the ones who get banned (for momentarily losing one's cool and threatening legal action), the teenagers and older-but-colder sinister types like FT2 get to stay, and get promoted moreover. That really gets to me. Why is it the scouts-type organisations positively welcome the old-fart type (that's all we are here on earth for, now), but Wikipedia bans us? Why is that? (hard to type when angry, going now).

And look at all this nicey-nicey stuff on Roguebfl talk page here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Roguebfl

Excuse please, really sorry, but do you mind &c (mindful of Wiki-equitette &c).

Excuse me!! This Roguebfl is the one who made half the drawings of little half-naked girls and uploaded the rest onto Wales' website. Excuse me!! So sorry for causing him offence.

Yes, Wiki(a)pediots maintain a Wikiproprietary interest in the brand name «Wikiperverts»™ — they are jealous to Wikiprotect and zealous to Wikipreserve their Xclusive rights to it.

Jonny

These are just all disturbing really:

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Lawrence...elected_Gallery

Different kinds of offensiveness, IMO.

What consenting grown-ups do is often good for a snigger, but hey, grown-ups are grown-ups. It would be a positive step for wikipedia/wikia to hive all this kind of content into separate sub-domains where it can easily be blocked by school and corporate firewalls, but they are blinded by a wooly ideology that will prevent them from defusing this particular timebomb.

The images of brutality and the crypto-paedophilia are a different matter. From the irrelevant nudity to the self-rationalising statements that victims want to be punished, the spanking site supports getting off on abuse of the non-consenting vulnerable, and it deserves to be crushed.

Wikia needs a good spanking.

I think I am with you, with some qualifications. Like, I assume, most people, one's interest gets piqued as to what is out there. We live in a world where the sex industry has become accepted - Ann Summers on the High Street, lap dancing clubs an acceptable destination for a boy's night out. It seems OK.

If you've seen stuff like Louis Theroux on the American sex movie trade, you realise that not all adults that give their consent have thought through the reality of what they have got into. And in my "Peter Townsend"-like research it is clear that there are people taking part either under duress or by being misled. Adults need protection too.

Where do Wikipedia fit in with this? Their "not our fault" uncensored approach seems fine on the surface, but the problem is that as an encyclopaedia it is seeking to be an authoritative source.

It needs to be understood that you can't use Wikipedia in schools because it is uncensored, not because it is unreliable. That is not just looking up rude words in a dictionary but it is presenting information which has the potential to mislead impressionable minds. The combination of uncensored and wrong presents a quite disturbing problem.

So Wikipedia is no good for kids because it's not censored and no good for adults because it's unreliable.

We'll there was meant to be an and in my comment rather than an exclusive OR. I am looking for the Firefox "Write what I mean, not what I type" enhancement to the spell checker.

What is ludicrous is that anyone defends this stuff. This has far more of a potential to cause problems for Wikipedia than Essjaygate, Durovagate, etc.

It's the same reason that President Clinton was impeached for Monica, not for Whitewater - you don't need a grad degree to understand it.

Not everyone has the attention span to understand most Wikipedia scandals, but everyone can understand, (1) Scout leader contributes photo for Wikipedia article on Boy Scouts, (2) company run by the same people who run Wikipedia takes said photo and uses it for site that advocates child abuse. And whereas it doesn't really affect your life if Essjay lied about his identity, if you have children, this one bothers you.

I'm hopeful that Wikia is going to do the right thing and get rid of this trash of a page. Part of the problem is that so many people in the "free content" movement don't live in the real world. They're willing to justify any abhorrent behavior under the title of "freedom".

If Wikipedians believed in academic freedom, they wouldn't routinely ban academics.

Aha, someone now heading for a block on WP:LEGAL? This is just idiocy.

[Edit] Pennies dropping like mad, now:



(All from the Wales talk page)