Wikitruth thanks you for your years of support!
Talk:The Sausage Factory and the Sausage Fest
From Wikitruth
Contents |
[edit] Can you Digg it?
This sordid tale of Jizz, Judgement and Jury-rigging got the attention of the site Digg.Com, with a link called "Wikipedia tells naked girl to get lost". Our webservers slowed down to the pace of the average Wikipedia Admin's thought process and then rallied towards the end of the day. When all was said and done, 40,000 people learned of our little article and took the time to hear publicgirluk's story. That's a lot of people looking at our little side-corner of the internet, and we appreciate it. Some even took time to assault us in e-mail or in their weblogs with various questions, statements and the usual quality investigative journalism in the blogosphere.
[edit] Lust is in the Air
"With enough eyeballs, all porn is shallow." As a result, those who know their stars by eye were able to figure out that our hapless lady is in fact "Linda Lust", an adult film star who has starred in a number of films of an adult nature. This was pointed out by a few of the e-tards as validation for the deletion, apparently unaware that the selection of photos uploaded on Wikipedia (and which we contacted the lady for permission to put up) were private photos taken by her boyfriend. Sometimes people work off the clock, folks.
In the name of research, we checked out a few of Ms. Lust's cinematic works and can verify for the audience that she is no stranger to ejaculate. Faced with the introduction of a boner into the story arc, she has been able to properly take the plot to a satisfying conclusion, occasionally with assistance from another actress. Therefore, we can conclude that she has knowledge in the matters to which she contributed both editorial and pictoral additions on Wikipedia. Not that that means anything in the currency of the site, but it's worth noting that she was one of the much-vaunted "experts" that Wales claims that Wikipedia is courting.
[edit] Hypocritical? No!
Calls were made on the part of some Wikipedia editors/hangers-on that she should have signed a model release. Hey, fine with us, except of course Wikipedia has never done that in its history. As an example, you have to travel no further than the Wikipedia Penis Pavillion, which contains not one, not three, but thirteen pictures of a wang, including one on an elephant. One of these, for example, Penis_corrected.jpg, was uploaded by a user who claims to be female! No information about the multi-faceted boner is given, its owner, or where it is sourced from. No docs? No problem!
If there's some inherent difference between a male and female model, then fine; what's up with this creampie photo, which was on Wikipedia at least from June 26, 2006 to December 26, 2006? Did someone miss this, this yawning love canal with a notable leak?
The fact is, Wikipedia is worse than infected with a double standard; it has pioneered the triple-standard, wherein different judgements are made based on time of day or biases, and then rejudged again by a completely different group. So it's almost a luck of the draw as to what goes and stays in terms of "controversial images".
[edit] Pornography Schmornography
This inconsistency runs throughout the whole of Wikipedia; it's just a lot funnier when it involves vaginas. Back in November of 2005, there was a little battle over in the Swimsuit entry as to whether there should be male or female swimsuit models. Naturally, over time, there was room for all manner of genders to strut their stuff, but it was touch-and-go there for a while.
Some people see any picture of a person with their shirt off and go "pornography". Hell, some people see a picture where you can see a woman's face and it's considered indecent. This is not a new controversy, and Wikipedia is utterly, totally incapable of dealing with it.
Should Wikipedia require model releases? Well, yes, every other damn website does; it would just be a lot of work, and that's work that could be spent making sure the List of British Postage Stamps gets the attention it deserves.
Until then, it's a crapshoot whether vaginas are genitalia non grata on any given day, whether boobs are cum laude and what particular sexually-relevant entry will go to the dogs today.
