[WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

[daniwo59 at aol.com]

Okay, this has gone far enough. 
 
It is remarkable that people have built all these theories on hypotheses as  
to what happened with Fleshlight, without actually knowing the facts. It is 
just  ludicrous to think that I succumbed to pressure from a company. To begin  
with Mark Gallagher's ad hominem suggestions on that point, I have dealt with  
Walmart, Coca Cola, and GM (among other firms) on the phone. I have spoken 
with  Congressmen and Senators. I have spoken to their lawyers. I have spoken to 
their  PR people. I have spoken to their VPs in charge of advertising. I did  
not give in to their cajoling, their threats, or their attempts at  bribes. 
To suggest that I did so with Fleshlight is simply ridiculous and  does not 
merit any serious attention. Instead I invite you to spend a day in the  office, 
or if that is too difficult, ask people who have been to the office and  have 
heard me on the phone how I deal with those kinds of people. 
 
The fact is, we are dealing with a problem here. We have companies galore  
trying to spam us. OTRS is just a small indicator of this. We have adverting  
executives calling to see if what they can do to move their company  to a higher 
position on a list, or how much it costs to get them on the  front page. We 
are prime advertising. We will soon be the tenth largest website  in the world, 
and "anyone can edit." It is not only top notch internet  advertising, but it 
is free too. You see, these people dont see the difference  between us and 
MySpace. They know that we will push up their Google rankings.  They know that 
everyone will look them up on Google and find the Wikipedia  article. And I 
repeat, it is free. For the Americans among you, it is like  getting a free 
commercial slot in the last two minutes of the Superbowl. And I  repeat, it is 
free. And for this prime slot, they want to make sure they look as  good as they 
can.
 
This is not hypothesis. We are dealing with it every day, from people who  
threaten to sue us for violating their First Amendment rights to post about  
their company to clueless people who think that if we put up a banner to their  
online poker site we will all make money. We get it from the big Fortune 500  
companies and we get it from the local car rental shop, from the sister of a 
guy  who is opening up a new real estate business in Durham North Carolina (I am 
not  kidding) to reps of Coca Cola ("The article is biased"). We get it from  
Washington thinktanks led by former cabinet members to Flickr-like rip off  
sites (they offered us $35 for every photographer we send to them). 
 
As a site where advertising is anathema, we have to make a choice. Do we  
allow this? Personally, I am opposed to paid advertising on Wikipedia, but I am  
even more opposed to free advertising which we cannot monetize. 
 
As editors, we end up having to make choices. With our goals in sight, How  
do we continue being an encyclopedia, and not some advertising forum or  
MySpace? What is the difference between an article about Budweiser (which I  believe 
we should have even though their beer is foul) and articles on  every 
micro-brewery in the state of Wisconsin? 
 
Fleshlight is just an example of one such minor product. Yes, it was  
mentioned in the Village Voice. Big deal. My mother was mentioned in the Toronto  
Star in the 1970s, but that does not mean we need an article about her. Six  
other products were mentioned in the article (which was a survey of male sex  
toys, not a piece about Fleshlight per se), but that doesn't mean we have  
articles about them (see my earlier email for a survey of the article). One hit  on 
Google News does not make something noteworthy, especially if it is not even  
an article about the topic per se, but rather just a few lines in an overview  
article (if you actually read the article online before citing it, you will  
see what I mean). 
 
For all those expressing indignation, I invite you to think about what  
should be included in an encyclopedia, even one the size of Wikipedia. Once you  
define that, consider what the definition excludes. 
 
Which brings us back to Fleshlight. It was the subject of a subtle edit war  
between the company that manufactures it, and a similar company which wanted 
to  have an external link on the Fleshlight page. Fleshlight wrote "We are 
happy to  let others view our
product, but would like to limit editing  privileges.  This product is seen 
as taboo
to many, so they would  just assume destroy our displayed page.  Is there 
anyway I
could be  placed as moderator for that single page, just Fleshlight, so 
changes  can
still be made when necessary and not having the company product  slandered." 
By slandered they mean, showing a rival company. Their rival wrote,  "I am 
quite upset. While I understand that everyone can edit pages as they want,  I 
find it quite outrageous that I  add and edit information about the  Fleshlight 
at _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleshlight_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleshlight)  I am an  affiliate of Fleshlight and got the word about rules at WIKI 
that you can't link  via affiliate links, but provide USEFUL links using your 
own domains regarding  an WIKI entry." He wanted to add "my updates regarding 
facts, like unavailable  colors of the Fleshlight." That was the slander. Add 
to this mix a guy who runs  a Fleshlight fansite, which is essentially a porn 
site, who wanted sole control  over links as well (i.e., link to his site 
only). 
 
Considering all this, I asked if Fleshlight really needs an article of its  
own. I consulted with people too. The overwhelming response was that this is  
spam and should be nuked. At first I thought it could redirect, but then I 
asked  myself the following question--do we really want redirects from every 
possible  product out there to generic articles? Ask yourself the same question. 
Better  yet, go into a dollar store, look at the display of products and ask if 
we want  redirects for all the rip-off brands in Wikipedia. 
 
And I nuked.
 
Once again, I hope that this whole incident helps to clarify what the  
criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia are. At least let it launch that discussion.  
But to do that, we have to avoid all the rhetoric and be willing to make real  
decisions based on the underlying principles behind what Wikipedia is all  
about.
 
Danny



.