[Foundation-l] Censorship: Speedy deletion of porn articles

[Jeff V. Merkey]

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