Robert Horning wrote:
If accounts are being blocked because of content editing issues like this, it makes trying to make a persuasive argument to overturn a policy difficult or even impossible to make. I just got through with one of these content editing disputes where it became registered user vs. admin, and the ordinary user had his account blocked. There were other issues involved here too, but if you can't make your case in the first place, you can't even get started to make a counter argument.
As far as doing a full fork of a project, I would agree that is always an option, but it is an option of very last resort. And something that I hope is not encouraged at all except in the most extreme situations. At best a fork will divide the community with redundant efforts happening for the same general effort (such as happened with the es.wikipedia some time ago). Even then, the move to make a fork will create so much ill will for everybody involved, including or especially with the people who create the fork. There is no reason to allow a group to take over a project because you have some ideological differences.
--Robert Horning
I completely agree with your comments here. However, wikipedia, and even the wikis which host other languages should not be platforms for porn sites to hyperlink through an encyclopedia. There's a lack of balance with internet porn sites being listed at enwiki at present. Most of these articles are simply little more than advertising of particular websites with links to their sites which allow search engines to scrape Wikipedia and its page rankings in order to get free advertising. What's sad is there are a lot of articles about these smut peddlers which are larger and more fleshed out than articles about technology companies or other forms of businesses which do not market internet porn.
The Search Engine project over at Wikia is certainly a good place for the porn peddlers to advertise -- where they have to PAY Wikia for these services. Wikipedia should be scrubbed of this content as much as possible and these folks articles moved to Wikia and then billed for the free advertising they are all getting. Over 60% of Google's revenues at present come from these porn peddlers.
Using lame "notability" arguments to justify writing articles about porn sites and porno should be discouraged on Wikipedia and a lot more content from Wikipedia should get pushed to Wikia and then billed, since most of these sites are doing little more than using Wikipedia as an advertising engine for FREE.
The internet porn market was valued at over 30 billion dollars last year. More than Novell, Microsoft, and most large high tech companies. Time these people paid for their free advertising.
I would suggest that all porn articles (porn is defined as articles about porno sites Vivid Video, etc. ) be tagged and moved to a "porn sites" category and billed with a click system rather than junking up the encyclopedia. It's not an issue of free speech as Erik Moeller eloquently stated, its an issue of site misuse and commerce.
Jeff