No, you called it a "semi-secret"; is that
really that different? I'm
not sure it even strictly makes sense as a term (a bit like
"semi-unique"):
"And there is a little semi-secret that many people don't know: Bomis
is in the business of pornography (though, to be fair, they also do
other things)."
The thing is, I didn't say Bomis itself was a semi-secret, as Jimbo
implied. What I said and what was meant by it is that Bomis peddles
porn, and that you don't see that mentioned in any Wikipedia
history-ofs - what do they call Bomis, and how do they describe it?
Most of those descriptions could more aptly apply to sites that didn't
have a "Babe report".
And I wonder, is the Babe Report's "tim" the same tim as Tim Shell?
Sure, there
was never a sign posted at Wikipedia that
said "Come Buy Porn from Bomis!", but the fact that much of the
funding for Wikipedia comes directly or indirectly (ie, through you
and other donors who profit from Bomis) from a business which makes
"less than 10%" of its revenue through pornography.
So, really, why does it matter? Who cares? If you can point to a
single editorial decision, a single carrot or stick offered by Bomis,
or by Jimmy or any of its employees, that suggests that this
relationship has ever, in any way, had an influence on the structure,
content, community, or values of Wikipedia, then I will accept that it
is at least historically noteworthy. Until then, I really don't see
the need to continue to bring it into discussions.
"the need to bring it into discussions"... There is no need. This only
has to do with the history of Wikipedia, not the actual present
content or structure.
I don't know whether Bomis should be classed as a
porn portal with a
respectable front, or a general portal with a seedy backroom, or
neither, or something in between. And, to be perfectly honest, I don't
care - unless someone can demonstrate to me that it has made *any*
difference to Wikipedia besides giving its detractors something
unanswerably trivial to talk about.
Yes, I'm guessing without Bomis Premium and the Bomis Babes, there
would be at least a few dollars less in funding available to the
Wikimedia foundation.
Not that I personally care about the explicit nature of materials -
any man on this list who denies viewing pornography at least once
every couple of months is probably either lying, involved in a
gratifying relationship, or doesn't have many hormones - but I favour
a policy of full disclosure and feel it is better to make the fact
well-known up front rather than having a reporter from a seedy tabloid
making big money off of it later because nobody really ever found out.
Mark
--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE