wikipedia on porn stars

AuthorTopic
sgv626
Member


I C BOOTIE
374 Posts
11/07
Posted - Nov 30 2007 : 01:26:50 AM
wikipedia how reliable is it on porn star bios? I know sometimes the stuff on general info is off so I am figuring same with porn stars.
[Link]
ouroboros
Member

26 Posts
11/07
Posted - Nov 30 2007 : 01:28:24 AM
Ask Christian, or Kami Andrews...
Go To Top of page [Link]
Eli Cross
Member

What's the fun of getting old if you can't be dirty?
153 Posts
4/06
Posted - Nov 30 2007 : 02:00:50 AM
DO NOT take anything you find on Wikipedia as truth. The problem with Wikipedia is that it's designed to be socially edited, and by extension, reflect the "wisdom" of multiple users. Unfortunately, the porn entries usually aren't widely edited you aren't supposed to edit your own profile at all.

As a result, one idiot can post absolute misinformation about you that you're likely to be unable to change or repair.

Go To Top of page [Link]
conquistador
Deactivated User

Hellhamster.
11427 Posts
10/03
Posted - Nov 30 2007 : 02:22:52 AM
A person isn't allowed to edit their own entry on wikipedia? I can think of one that appears to be totally fabricated by it's subject and seems to be some kind of vanity project.


Edited by - conquistador on 11/30/2007 2:23:21 AM

Go To Top of page [Link]
morbidthoughts
Senior Member

Big cats scare me but...
4099 Posts
1/03
Posted - Nov 30 2007 : 03:37:36 AM
... and didn't Kylie edit her own article.
Go To Top of page [Link]
TeaganPresley
Senior Member

1071 Posts
3/04
Posted - Nov 30 2007 : 11:21:36 AM
My wikipedia profile is wrong. I spent forever fixing the info & then the next day it got turned back because I didn't have references to verify.

xox
Teagan

WWW.TEAGANRAW.COM

Go To Top of page [Link]
Jacco
Your Choice

"liable to deprave and corrupt"
5082 Posts
5/04
Posted - Nov 30 2007 : 12:41:54 PM
But Teagan, do you really think you know more about Teagan Presley than some wiki-dork in his mother's basement?

Jacco

Go To Top of page [Link]
sgv626
Member

I C BOOTIE
374 Posts
11/07
Posted - Nov 30 2007 : 09:22:37 PM


TeaganPresley wrote:
My wikipedia profile is wrong. I spent forever fixing the info & then the next day it got turned back because I didn't have references to verify.

xox
Teagan

WWW.TEAGANRAW.COM



so they just let some random poser post your bio and history that is crazy, the sad thing is that is how most people get your bio
Go To Top of page [Link]
utopian_miner
Member

127 Posts
10/07
Posted - Nov 30 2007 : 11:05:03 PM
"The overall quality is very high, but any given page at any given moment could be sort of a mess. Use it for background knowledge, then check the references."

- Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia

I just read this in an old issue of Spin. Why anyone sources Wikipedia is beyond me.

Go To Top of page [Link]
Dan
Senior Member

It's a very good 1st anal ride for the front-cover lass. I'm now a big fan of her big sexy ass.
1828 Posts
6/07
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 02:24:19 AM
Wikipedia editors routinely delete articles about various porn stars. The only articles they allow is about porn stars who are 'newsworthy'. In other words, they only accept articles about porn stars whose names have appeared in mainstream news media for one reason or another.

There used to be another wikipedia called www.wikiporn.com. But it went out of business some time ago.

The only other wikipedia type of porn site I know of is www.boobpedia.com
This website specializes in wikipedia type of articles about big-breasted porn stars.

Go To Top of page [Link]
conquistador
Deactivated User

Hellhamster.
11427 Posts
10/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 04:38:48 AM


utopian_miner wrote:
I just read this in an old issue of Spin. Why anyone sources Wikipedia is beyond me.

When I was attending PSU most (possibly all) professors allowed wikipedia as a source. I have no clue why because it was practically like asking students to plagiarize papers. (I can make my own wikipedia entry and then site it in my own paper, brain damaged).

Go To Top of page [Link]
Everett
Senior Member

6413 Posts
6/05
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 12:36:50 PM
I don't know, it's a hit or miss thing. A lot of people mean well and work hard to make the entries accurate. It's a great place to learn porn stars real names if that's what you're into. But I don't know how up to date or accurate porn stars entries are. For instance, Manuel Ferrara, did he really have a baby with Dana Vespolie? it would seem a more verifiable source like AVN would mention it. Lauren Phoenix, was she really hired to model tube socks & underwear for American Apparel? She's Canadian.
Go To Top of page [Link]
Everett
Senior Member

6413 Posts
6/05
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 12:38:07 PM


conquistador wrote:


utopian_miner wrote:
I just read this in an old issue of Spin. Why anyone sources Wikipedia is beyond me.

When I was attending PSU most (possibly all) professors allowed wikipedia as a source. I have no clue why because it was practically like asking students to plagiarize papers. (I can make my own wikipedia entry and then site it in my own paper, brain damaged).


when did you attend? Most college professors reject wikipedia based information if they're worth their salt.
Go To Top of page [Link]
satchman23
Studios - do not send screeners to this person.

2324 Posts
12/06
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 12:45:40 PM


TeaganPresley wrote:
My wikipedia profile is wrong. I spent forever fixing the info & then the next day it got turned back because I didn't have references to verify.

xox
Teagan

WWW.TEAGANRAW.COM


That is wild that they would need references to verify when your the person the profile is about.Who in the hell in the world would know more about Teagan than Teagan herself.

Go To Top of page [Link]
Everett
Senior Member

6413 Posts
6/05
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 01:36:54 PM


satchman23 wrote:


TeaganPresley wrote:
My wikipedia profile is wrong. I spent forever fixing the info & then the next day it got turned back because I didn't have references to verify.

xox
Teagan

WWW.TEAGANRAW.COM


That is wild that they would need references to verify when your the person the profile is about.Who in the hell in the world would know more about Teagan than Teagan herself.


they don't think Teagan is Teagan when she makes the correction. Just like when Jewel fought with them over her birthdate.
Go To Top of page [Link]
Eli Cross
Member

What's the fun of getting old if you can't be dirty?
153 Posts
4/06
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 02:24:26 PM


morbidthoughts wrote:
... and didn't Kylie edit her own article.

She did, but her experience was very much like Teagan's. The Wikipedia geeks (yes, there are guys who have nothing better to do than spend hours out of every day -- for free -- going and fucking with the changes other people have made to Wikipedia changes) kept changing it back.

I finally went in and got some of the changes she was trying to make, all of them purely factual corrections, made. They still have several little niggling things wrong.

Essentially, the Wikipedia mods all have a god complex; they're like the Great and Powerful Oz and unless you're making changes they approve of -- and they seem the heartily disappove of porn people altogether -- forget it.

Go To Top of page [Link]
morbidthoughts
Senior Member

Big cats scare me but...
4099 Posts
1/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 05:13:21 PM
Okay, let me make a couple of things clear since I participate in the wikipedia: pornography project.

Wikipedia is not an autobiography. The subject of the article does not own the article or get to dictate the content of the article. Encyclopedia articles are written conservatively. Anything written about a living person must be verifiable. Specifically, it means that anything controversial (anything that can be disputed - whether positive or negative) must be cited to a reliable secondary published source. Self-published sources are less reliable and original research about an issue is UNACCEPTABLE. There is a conflict of interest when the subject of an article gets to determine what is so notable about them.

If you want to make vast corrections to your own article, you must clearly identify yourself, or the changes might be presumed to be vandalism. As a general point, you shouldn't make additions directly to the article, you should discuss about them and be prepared to produce reliable sources. Anything that needs to be corrected can also be taken to the discussion page.

Wikipedia, despite its reputation, is not a fucking free for all. There are rules and guidelines every editor must follow or their edits will be reverted. Personally, I have never edited Kylie's page but I have reverted many additions or changes because it flunked wikipedia guidelines. I'll post your comments and frustrations to the Kylie discussion page so that the other editors can be made aware of your frustrations.

Go To Top of page [Link]
morbidthoughts
Senior Member

Big cats scare me but...
4099 Posts
1/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 05:27:50 PM


That is wild that they would need references to verify when your the person the profile is about.Who in the hell in the world would know more about Teagan than Teagan herself.

First, Teagan should first identify herself when she's making these changes. For all wikipedia knows, it's just some random IP. Second, there's guidelines to follow as Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies.

Teagan, if you want to correct anything, just click on the discussion page of your article and write your objections there. Katja Kassin went through the same process. She was frustrated initially too but eventually the editors managed to put in and take out everything she wanted as per her suggestions.

Go To Top of page [Link]
sgv626
Member

I C BOOTIE
374 Posts
11/07
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 05:43:44 PM


morbidthoughts wrote:

Teagan, if you want to correct anything, just click on the discussion page of your article and write your objections there. Katja Kassin went through the same process. She was frustrated initially too but eventually the editors managed to put in and take out everything she wanted as per her suggestions.


wow that seems like a pain in the ass is there any easier way for a porn star or company to edit the info?

fixed quote...

Edited by - heynow on 12/2/2007 1:40:47 AM

Go To Top of page [Link]
Clam Digger
Deactivated User

Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good.
9167 Posts
1/05
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 06:40:44 PM
If any given piece of information given by a porner is usually unreliable how would anything wriiten about them on Wikipedia be reliable.

WTF are you looking for names parents, aunts or uncles maybe siblings? What college degress they hold? Come on.

Edited by - clam digger on 12/1/2007 7:28:52 PM

Go To Top of page [Link]
conquistador
Deactivated User

Hellhamster.
11427 Posts
10/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 06:49:27 PM


Everett wrote:
when did you attend? Most college professors reject wikipedia based information if they're worth their salt.

I hope they have wised up, I started in spring of 2002.

My experiences in college and university has shown me that academic integrity is not as big a deal as it should be for many professors. Of course I am only commenting on the bad ones, I had some great teachers as well.

Hell, I had a sociology class at a college in Toronto where I got away with citing (I wish I was joking here) "Various internet sources". I got an "A" on the paper and the professor complimented my writing. It was a very poor paper.

Go To Top of page [Link]
morbidthoughts
Senior Member

Big cats scare me but...
4099 Posts
1/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 07:43:31 PM
Well, I didn't realise Eli had edited his own wikipedia article. This was his idea of an autobiography.

Of course vast edits were made to it by other people to attempt to make it encyclopedic. They key word is attempt.

Go To Top of page [Link]
SashaGrey
Member

595 Posts
7/06
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 08:47:47 PM
How about defamation of character? I get that a lot on my page...and it's hard to correct because I am Sasha Grey.

the fuck junkie ♠

Go To Top of page [Link]
the unknown pervert
Senior Member

I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch.
17036 Posts
5/06
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 08:50:55 PM


morbidthoughts wrote:

Wikipedia is not an autobiography. The subject of the article does not own the article or get to dictate the content of the article. Encyclopedia articles are written conservatively. Anything written about a living person must be verifiable. Specifically, it means that anything controversial (anything that can be disputed - whether positive or negative) must be cited to a reliable secondary published source. Self-published sources are less reliable and original research about an issue is UNACCEPTABLE. There is a conflict of interest when the subject of an article gets to determine what is so notable about them.


None of this explains the masterful work of fiction that is the Lockwood article.

Go To Top of page [Link]
morbidthoughts
Senior Member

Big cats scare me but...
4099 Posts
1/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 09:24:26 PM


SashaGrey wrote:
How about defamation of character? I get that a lot on my page...and it's hard to correct because I am Sasha Grey.

Discuss whatever you feel defames your character in the discussion page. Referring to specific quotes would be useful.

Go To Top of page [Link]
morbidthoughts
Senior Member

Big cats scare me but...
4099 Posts
1/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 09:25:19 PM


the unknown pervert wrote:
None of this explains the masterful work of fiction that is the Lockwood article.

Yeah, that one's going to need a lot of work.

Go To Top of page [Link]
Eli Cross
Member

What's the fun of getting old if you can't be dirty?
153 Posts
4/06
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 09:28:43 PM


morbidthoughts wrote:
Okay, let me make a couple of things clear since I participate in the wikipedia: pornography project.



Let me make a couple of things clear since I do not participate in the "wikipedia: pornography" project.

1: I didn't even know I had a Wikipedia page until a friend made me aware of it. I tried to post a separate page for myself under "Bryn Pryor" to differentiate my mainstream and porn work, but some meddling jackoff with nothing better to do immeditately (and I mean, something like four minutes later) deleted my page, pointed the "Bryn Pryor" search to "Eli Cross," and deleted all of my mainstream credits.

I sent various e-mails questioning the rationale and asking for it to be corrected, but what a shock, I got no response at all. This was well over a year ago.

2: More recently, someone pointed out that the page claimed my real name was Mark Logan and that Bryn Pryor was a stage name. I looked and some other well-meaning and well-informed jackoff had deleted virtually everything that had been on the page. Working an average of 14 hours every day of my life, I don't have the time to sit and fuck around with a Wikipedia entry, so I posted the first thing I had to hand: my press bio.

Is it "encyclopedic?" Hell no. But it is no less so that the "facts" that have consistently been posted, and deleted, about me on Wikipedia. Naturually, it was instantly deleted part-and-parcel, along with all the factual information and correctly-sourced links I had added by yet a third oh-so-well informed and well-meaning ur-geek jackoff who refuses to accept any direct messages (obviously pulls this shit a lot), instead demanding you post to his profile page, after which he'll get back to you when time allows 'cuz he's so fucking busy with Wikipedia.

Not a power trip at all, I'm sure.

3: The are hundreds of examples of entries on mainstream personalities that list as fact endless opinion, fluff, conjecture, PR, and good, old-fashioned bullshit. Take my old boss Roger Corman's page for a quick trip and see how "encyclopedic" you find it.



morbidthoughts wrote:
Self-published sources are less reliable and original research about an issue is UNACCEPTABLE

Which is fine until the guy who has nothing better to do than "correct" your page every day while you go on with your life has the actual facts wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it.



morbidthoughts wrote:
Wikipedia, despite its reputation, is not a fucking free for all.

Unless you're an editor. In my experience, Wikipedia is nothing but an oligarchy controlled by otherwise powerless, bitter little men who stake out their tiny electronic territories and then fight to control them with their own egotistical satisfaction of paramount importance above all other concerns. Play by our abritrary rules (and surely you realize that Wikipedia's "standards" are completely open to subjective interpretation by the ruling editor) or don't play at all.

You can defend Wikipedia all you like, but until I meet someone -- in any walk of life -- who feels their Wikipedia entry is, at the very least, accurate (forget not insulting; that, apparently, is too much to ask) I will cleave to this belief and hold it well above the reach of any grasping, mean-spirited Wikipedia geek with too much free time, and too little personal regard.

Go To Top of page [Link]
morbidthoughts
Senior Member

Big cats scare me but...
4099 Posts
1/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 09:37:22 PM
Take it to your article discussion page. It was an empty husk until today. I wasn't even aware it existed until today and I'm guessing the Wikipedia Pornogaphy project wasn't either. I have no idea who the NASCAR dude is. If you feel that there are any inaccuracies in your bio, state them there. I will make the changes myself. If I can't find any sources, I'll just delete them.
Go To Top of page [Link]
LoveAvenue
Member

53 Posts
1/06
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 09:37:41 PM


SashaGrey wrote:
How about defamation of character? I get that a lot on my page

Such as what?

Go To Top of page [Link]
kylie ireland
Member

Welcome to the darkside....we have cookies.
898 Posts
11/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 09:48:33 PM


morbidthoughts wrote:
... and didn't Kylie edit her own article.

First of all, I have edited my own Wikipedia entry - SEVERAL TIMES - and they keep changing it back. Because really, even though I stated on Wikipedia that it WAS ME making the corrections that wasn't good enough and time and time again they would change it back to the same old bullshit that someone had posted on there that was a bunch of WRONG information transcribed from a radio interview (the info got twisted in the transcribing). But I certainly wouldn't know better about MY OWN life.

Second of all, now this appears to have become a pissing match. Eli Cross has tried to help me to right what was wrong after watching me tearing my hair out with Wikipedia....and then he posted in here. And what did the guys at Wikipedia do??? Posted Eli's quotes in MY discussion area attached to MY page trying to make him look like an asshole for speaking the truth.

And this is what it says under Eli's quotes:

"None of the changes Kylie has made have been reverted or removed, although they have been tidied up." Epbr123 22:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have gone in and changed my information BACK several times. My entire bio has been removed in it's entirety and replaced with the same shit that was there before. Somebody is doing it. Granted, Epbr123 (morbidthoughts) did actually email me personally to ask why I made changes the last time and I believe we came to an agreement. But this little pissing match/gossip shit on my discussion page really pisses me off.

I am not trying to start a bunch of new shit but c'mon. If the people the entries are actually about make changes they should be allowed to be left in as long as they are correct. Therefore, Wikipedia readers beware, that information you are reading might not be correct. It's better to go to you favorite star's webpage.

Kylie

Go To Top of page [Link]
morbidthoughts
Senior Member

Big cats scare me but...
4099 Posts
1/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 09:57:06 PM
Kylie, I am that guy that posted Eli's issues in your discussion page. I stated my reasons why earlier in this thread. I am not Epbr123. He is another guy in the Wikipedia: Pornography project and the editors in that project do not have an anti-porn bias.
Go To Top of page [Link]
kylie ireland
Member

Welcome to the darkside....we have cookies.
898 Posts
11/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 10:12:53 PM


conquistador wrote:
A person isn't allowed to edit their own entry on wikipedia? I can think of one that appears to be totally fabricated by it's subject and seems to be some kind of vanity project.

Edited by - conquistador on 11/30/2007 2:23:21 AM


I LOVE this:

Wikipedia changed in MY bio (the very same one that was written by me and is found all over the internet):

"Kylie Ireland has been a favorite in the adult industry since 1994."

They claimed this couldn't be referenced, despite the fact that I actually won two "fan favorite" awards.


But it perfectly okay to leave the following in Kurt Lockwood's (lengthy) bio:

"Kurt Lockwood (nee Steve Fitzgerald) is a multifaceted artist"

"Returning to music by forming the band SexyChrist, the highly successful local group seemed on the verge of getting signed"

Multifaceted artist? Highly successful group? I want to see THOSE little gems "referenced"!

Go To Top of page [Link]
Eli Cross
Member

What's the fun of getting old if you can't be dirty?
153 Posts
4/06
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 10:13:16 PM
Further proof that where our business is concerned, Wikipedia is going to continue to be a bad anal scene with no lube. Perusing the page for Wikipedia's "Pornography Project," you'll find these little gems:

If you're on this first list, get ready to get a Wikipedia editor's opinion that you'll never be able to change permanently shoved right up your ass:



Here is a summary of tasks that need to be done, organized by general needs.

Cleanup or Rewrite: Ovidie, Candie Evans, Mr. Marcus, Melody Love, Megan Mason, SaRenna Lee
Notability: Natasha Kiss, Maya Ababadjani
Stubs: Brooke Hunter, Monique Nobrega
Verify: Candie Evans, Kristi Myst
Sources and Citations: Heather Lee, Patricia Araujo, Nacho Vidal, Steve Hooper, Maria Swan, Ted Cox, Mimi Miyagi, Anna Span, Tabatha Cash, Traci Topps, Monique Nobrega, Jody Hoskins, Flame (pornstar), Club International (magazine), Grigori Galitsin
Update: Monique Nobrega
NPOV: Mark Ashley, SaRenna Lee, Tyler Faith, Aylar Lie
Copyedit: SaRenna Lee
Style: SaRenna Lee
Expand: Dana DeArmond, Krista Lane, Riley Mason, Renee Pornero, Paige White, Olivia Saint, Nomi (porn star), Nicole Marciano, Nici Sterling, Monika Kaelin, Mandingo (pornstar), Alex de Renzy, Lesbianism in erotica, Tera Bond, Zafira
Requests: Bamboo (porn star), Kink.com, Metro Global Media, Anna Marek, Roxanne Blaze, VCA Pictures, Video Team, Stevie (porn star)


I dunno who SaRenna Lee is, but somebody definitely has a hard-on for her. That's their "to-do" list. Notice getting onto the positively ridiculous Kurt Lockwood page ain't a priority. Hell, it's not even on the list.

But they don't want your article to be too complete (it's only an encyclopedia, after all, not something which claims to have all the pertinent information... oh, wait... well, nevermind), especially where your credits are concerned:



Filmographies
While it can be useful to have some indication what films the performer or filmmaker has worked on, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Any filmographies should be partial, not a complete listing of each and every film that person appeared in. Filmographies are to be limited to six films at most; any additional listings above that number must meet at least one of the following criteria:

Performer or filmmaker's first movie.
Movies that have garnered awards (for the entire movie, or the performer's work in the movie).
Movies that the performer has been in that have received mainstream news attention - e.g., films such as Deep Throat and Behind the Green Door.
Movies that themselves have individual entries in the Wikipedia.
Performer or filmmaker's last movie (of their career, not their latest film).
Providing links to the appropriate IMDB, IAFD, EGAFD, and/or BGAFD filmographies (in the infobox or under "External links") should allow readers access to complete filmographies of performers and filmmakers without unnecessary cluttering of Wikipedia articles.


Translated, this means we don't want the porn people to have actual fimographies (which my dictonary defines as "A comprehensive list of movies in a particular category, as of those by a given director or in a specific genre."), just pick five or six movies you liked and then list others if you feel they're worthy of inclusion. We don't want all those distasteful porn titles cluttering up Wikipedia (are they running out of internet?); instead, just let someone else shoulder the burden of attempting to do it right.

Further down, under a posting about the Creative Commons license, there's a bit I quite like allowing people to post pictures from lukeisback.

You know, the guy who's pictures are so fucking poor he calls himself the camera of death. But these guys don't have an axe to grind with porn, noooo.

I guess it explains why they'll allow editors to "source" from Puke Ford, as if anything Luke posts has any veracity or authority at all.

It would be funny if it weren't tragic.

Now, here's the real kicker:



Real names of performers
If the birth name of a performer is being added to an article, note that per WP:BLP we must ensure that it is sourced from reliable sources and it is equally clear what should happen if the source is not reliable:

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." (emphasis original)
This creates a problem with respect to the Internet Movie Database, as it is not what can be considered reliable. The problem with the "biography" page on IMDB is that anyone can add information to it. As a consequence, it is entirely possible for someone to "vandalize" the IMDB page by adding a random name to the biography page, then turn around and use IMDB as a source for adding the name to Wikipedia.


Okay, first of all, go fuck yourselves. There are a hundred reasons unique to this industry for people to have stage names, none of which should have to be explained to someone who frequents this site. Personally, I don't care. My real name is Bryn Pryor, and virtually everyone who's ever dealt with me knows it. But I'm the exception.

Now Wikipedia -- once they're absolutely sure they've got you dead to rights -- wants to put your real name right up there on the fucking web for everyone to see. Woe betide anyone who lets their personal info leak, because they'll never, ever get it removed.

It isn't bad enough we have to fight the government and the fucking e-tailers and web hosts to keep personal info from 2257 out of the public eye, now we have to fight Wikipedia as well.

Morbid, you people are not only positively fucked, you're dangerous.

Go To Top of page [Link]
kylie ireland
Member

Welcome to the darkside....we have cookies.
898 Posts
11/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 10:15:29 PM


morbidthoughts wrote:
Kylie, I am that guy that posted Eli's issues in your discussion page. I stated my reasons why earlier in this thread. I am not Epbr123. He is another guy in the Wikipedia: Pornography project and the editors in that project do not have an anti-porn bias.

My apologies....the way that info reads on Wikipedia it seemed as if you and he were the same person. Sorry for blaming you for that.

But why the hell are you posting that shit on MY discussion page? If you are going to post some info about my "signficant other" how about some useful facts instead of trying to make him look like an asshole by posting a one-sided discussion from a forum there???

Edited by - kylie ireland on 12/1/2007 10:23:05 PM

Edited by - kylie ireland on 12/1/2007 10:30:29 PM

Go To Top of page [Link]
morbidthoughts
Senior Member

Big cats scare me but...
4099 Posts
1/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 10:24:38 PM
Eli:

You're twisting the project's intent.

The paragraph about Luke Ford discusses the fact that he gave people a CC license to republish his pictures without having to ask him every time. Pictures can not be published on wikipedia without the consent of copyright owner.

As for the real name controversy, the project discourages the posting of people's real names unless it is adequately sourced to a reliable secondary source (like a mainstream newspaper). The supermajority of people in the industry have not had their real names published in such a manner. Most of my edits in the projects have focused on removing uncited names from articles. If the name has been published in a reliable secondary source, then the name is already out in the public and your complaint about 2257 and protection of privacy is ridiculous.

Go To Top of page [Link]
kylie ireland
Member

Welcome to the darkside....we have cookies.
898 Posts
11/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 10:25:58 PM


sgv626 wrote:


morbidthoughts wrote:


That is wild that they would need references to verify when your the person the profile is about.Who in the hell in the world would know more about Teagan than Teagan herself.

First, Teagan should first identify herself when she's making these changes. For all wikipedia knows, it's just some random IP. Second, there's guidelines to follow as Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies.

Teagan, if you want to correct anything, just click on the discussion page of your article and write your objections there. Katja Kassin went through the same process. She was frustrated initially too but eventually the editors managed to put in and take out everything she wanted as per her suggestions.
[/quote
wow that seems like a pain in the ass is there any easier way for a porn star or company to edit the info?


It is a pain in the ass....like we have nothing better to do than sit around all day trying to correct and recorrect and argue about our own biographies! And people USE this information on websites assuming it is correct. It really is a losing battle.

Go To Top of page [Link]
morbidthoughts
Senior Member

Big cats scare me but...
4099 Posts
1/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 10:27:44 PM
Kylie, I referenced his rant with a link to the entire thread. Since I quoted an entire message completely verbatim and gave the reference to the entire thread, the only person that made Eli Cross look like an asshole is Eli Cross.

I also posted his reply in your discussion page because the discussion was about your article. Like I said, I wanted to find who had been reverting your edits.

Edited by - morbidthoughts on 12/1/2007 10:34:06 PM

Go To Top of page [Link]
Eli Cross
Member

What's the fun of getting old if you can't be dirty?
153 Posts
4/06
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 10:37:19 PM


morbidthoughts wrote:
Eli:

You're twisting the project's intent.

The paragraph about Luke Ford discusses the fact that he gave people a CC license to republish his pictures without having to ask him every time. Pictures can not be published on wikipedia without the consent of copyright owner.

As for the real name controversy, the project discourages the posting of people's real names unless it is adequately sourced to a reliable secondary source (like a mainstream newspaper). The supermajority of people in the industry have not had their real names published in such a manner. Most of my edits in the projects have focused on removing uncited names from articles. If the name has been published in a reliable secondary source, then the name is already out in the public and your complaint about 2257 and protection of privacy is ridiculous.


Bullshit. And bullshit.

My real name -- as an example -- was in my Wikipedia page well before I ever got to it, and to this day, is not sourced at all. Just off the top of my head, I looked at Stephanie Swift, and her real name is listed (spelled wrong, incidentally) but I sure can't see where it was sourced to. How many more do you think I could find if I spent a few hours on it?

The fact is, you're blowing smoke, You have no business listing these people's real names at all.

As for Luke, no one who didn't have an anti-porn agenda would have asked him for anything, period. And the fact the "project" encourages linking to him (I sure didn't see any other suggestions) proves it.

Go To Top of page [Link]
kylie ireland
Member

Welcome to the darkside....we have cookies.
898 Posts
11/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 10:38:02 PM


morbidthoughts wrote:
Kylie, I referenced his rant with a link to the entire thread. Since I quoted an entire message completely verbatim and gave the reference to the entire thread, the only person that made Eli Cross look like an asshole is Eli Cross.

I made that correction....I missed that highlighted reference. In my infuriated state I didn't notice it. But the question is still why did you post it on MY page?

This is what you said "I'll post your comments and frustrations to the Kylie discussion page so that the other editors can be made aware of your frustrations."

Why on MY PAGE? Why not HIS? Why at all? Oh, because you WANTED Eli Cross to look like and asshole by posting a one-sided arguement!

And, I also want to point out that I agree with Eli, and I think most porn people will too, that Luke Ford is HARDLY a place to reference for truthful ANYTHING. Oh, I am sorry, just because it is in writing MUST mean it is a true fact. Pfft.

Kylie

Go To Top of page [Link]
kylie ireland
Member

Welcome to the darkside....we have cookies.
898 Posts
11/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 10:54:30 PM
I was going to let sleeping dogs lie but as I was looking up other friends of mine to see if Wikipedia was ratting out their real names as well I found Jewel DeNyle's:

----
Birth Name
Replacing Stephany Asbury in infobox with Stephany Schwarz. Main article already says Schwarz. Asbury could be a married name. Mrprude 15:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, per Larry Schwarz, he is not her biological father, so Asbury could well be her birth name. We should source it properly, though. --Dhartung / Talk 13:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
----

Nice work Wikipedia. Not only is it not her real name, there is no reference, add in a little heresy and then 'Dhartung' actually STATES "We should source it properly, though." right there on the page!

Morbid had stated earlier in the thread: "As for the real name controversy, the project discourages the posting of people's real names unless it is adequately sourced to a reliable secondary source."

This BS about real names is wrong and dangerous. We have stage names for a fucking reason! To protect ourselves. There are wierdos that will find you and show up on your doorstep and Wikipedia seems to want to help them out. Compromising our safety, that's what I would call it. Any other performers care to chip in with their 2 cents on this one?

Go To Top of page [Link]
morbidthoughts
Senior Member

Big cats scare me but...
4099 Posts
1/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 11:11:36 PM


Eli Cross wrote:
My real name -- as an example -- was in my Wikipedia page well before I ever got to it, and to this day, is not sourced at all. Just off the top of my head, I looked at Stephanie Swift, and her real name is listed (spelled wrong, incidentally) but I sure can't see where it was sourced to. How many more do you think I could find if I spent a few hours on it?

The fact is, you're blowing smoke, You have no business listing these people's real names at all.


I don't look at every single page related to porn on wikipedia. Like I said, I didn't even realise you had an article until today. If you see real names posted on there and uncited, you're free to remove it rather than just bitch about it here. Don't forget to include a summary for every change you make.

Kylie: before the discussion was about your article therefore it went into your article's discussion page. I didn't even know eli had an article devoted to him at the time.

Go To Top of page [Link]
Eli Cross
Member

What's the fun of getting old if you can't be dirty?
153 Posts
4/06
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 11:23:02 PM


morbidthoughts wrote:


you're free to remove it rather than just bitch about it here. Don't forget to include a summary for every change you make.

Why, so the asshole who put it up in the first place can immediately replace it? You're missing the point.

1: You have the time to "work" on the pornography project; I don't. I'm regretting the time I've spent doing this, but the faceless editors of Wikipedia have long been a pet peeve of mine.

2: Once it has been posted, it's always there in the revisions to be found. There's no way of "removing" it.

3: You were the one defending Wikipedia's policy of "[not] posting... people's real names unless it is adequately sourced to a reliable secondary source (like a mainstream newspaper)." Looks like that was utterly and completely incorrect.

4: You were the one claiming "Wikipedia is not a fucking free-for-all." And yet, during the development of this thread, you've used your status as an editor to attempt to embarrass me with my own comments (best of luck on that, sparky).

5: I'm the one calling virtually everything you've said in this thread misleading, factually incorrect, poorly-sourced bullshit.

Go To Top of page [Link]
kylie ireland
Member

Welcome to the darkside....we have cookies.
898 Posts
11/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 11:28:34 PM


Dan wrote:
Wikipedia editors routinely delete articles about various porn stars. The only articles they allow is about porn stars who are 'newsworthy'. In other words, they only accept articles about porn stars whose names have appeared in mainstream news media for one reason or another.

There used to be another wikipedia called www.wikiporn.com. But it went out of business some time ago.

The only other wikipedia type of porn site I know of is www.boobpedia.com
This website specializes in wikipedia type of articles about big-breasted porn stars.


So just for shits and giggles I went over to www.boobpedia.com to see if I was listed....and lo, and behold, there I was! And take a guess at where Boobpedia went to get my info? Wikipedia! And it is the old bio I spent so much time trying to update and correct!

Doesn't this just prove everything this fucking thread is about?!?

Fuck all.

Go To Top of page [Link]
morbidthoughts
Senior Member

Big cats scare me but...
4099 Posts
1/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 11:47:12 PM
Eli, my editing account is no different from yours (under piercedone). Wikipedia policy and guidelines are what they are. Lots of people just don't follow them, especially edits from newbies and numerical ids. If you have made changes and followed wikipedia guidelines, you're free to revert other people if they had reverted you.

Wikipedia:Pornography is just an ongoing project to get things correct. If you have issue with policy, guidelines, or changes, discuss it on wikipedia (on the relevant discussion pages) if you expect to effect changes. I made the link to your discussion pages because that is the proper venue! Your criticism of the project should be discussed in that discussion page. In fact I'll just reference your concern about luke and real names over there too. You have the ability to participate in the discussion talk pages with your accounts. The opinions of other ADT'ers is irrelevant unless they are willing to participate over at wikipedia.

Go To Top of page [Link]
ma meeshka
Iconoclastic Member

16032 Posts
4/06
Posted - Dec 2 2007 : 12:17:37 AM
this thread:
Go To Top of page [Link]
nietzsche
Impresario of the Inane

Putting Descartes before the Whores
31141 Posts
8/03
Posted - Dec 2 2007 : 12:28:22 AM


morbidthoughts wrote:


SashaGrey wrote:
How about defamation of character? I get that a lot on my page...and it's hard to correct because I am Sasha Grey.

Discuss whatever you feel defames your character in the discussion page. Referring to specific quotes would be useful.


How can they tell when you're editing your own page?

Go To Top of page [Link]
sgv626
Member

I C BOOTIE
374 Posts
11/07
Posted - Dec 2 2007 : 01:13:33 AM


SashaGrey wrote:
How about defamation of character? I get that a lot on my page...and it's hard to correct because I am Sasha Grey.

the fuck junkie ¢¼



that is fucked up t, I am sure alot of people take anything written on WIKIPEDIA seriously ,so some asshole can say Sasha grey has 8 kids and lives in Helena , Montana and many people will belive it, that sucks, I know howard stern uses Wikipedia for sources when porn stars go on his show
Go To Top of page [Link]
sgv626
Member

I C BOOTIE
374 Posts
11/07
Posted - Dec 2 2007 : 01:20:31 AM


Eli Cross wrote:


morbidthoughts wrote:
Okay, let me make a couple of things clear since I participate in the wikipedia: pornography project.



Let me make a couple of things clear since I do not participate in the "wikipedia: pornography" project.

1: I didn't even know I had a Wikipedia page until a friend made me aware of it. I tried to post a separate page for myself under "Bryn Pryor" to differentiate my mainstream and porn work, but some meddling jackoff with nothing better to do immeditately (and I mean, something like four minutes later) deleted my page, pointed the "Bryn Pryor" search to "Eli Cross," and deleted all of my mainstream credits.

I sent various e-mails questioning the rationale and asking for it to be corrected, but what a shock, I got no response at all. This was well over a year ago.

2: More recently, someone pointed out that the page claimed my real name was Mark Logan and that Bryn Pryor was a stage name. I looked and some other well-meaning and well-informed jackoff had deleted virtually everything that had been on the page. Working an average of 14 hours every day of my life, I don't have the time to sit and fuck around with a Wikipedia entry, so I posted the first thing I had to hand: my press bio.

Is it "encyclopedic?" Hell no. But it is no less so that the "facts" that have consistently been posted, and deleted, about me on Wikipedia. Naturually, it was instantly deleted part-and-parcel, along with all the factual information and correctly-sourced links I had added by yet a third oh-so-well informed and well-meaning ur-geek jackoff who refuses to accept any direct messages (obviously pulls this shit a lot), instead demanding you post to his profile page, after which he'll get back to you when time allows 'cuz he's so fucking busy with Wikipedia.

Not a power trip at all, I'm sure.

3: The are hundreds of examples of entries on mainstream personalities that list as fact endless opinion, fluff, conjecture, PR, and good, old-fashioned bullshit. Take my old boss Roger Corman's page for a quick trip and see how "encyclopedic" you find it.



morbidthoughts wrote:
Self-published sources are less reliable and original research about an issue is UNACCEPTABLE

Which is fine until the guy who has nothing better to do than "correct" your page every day while you go on with your life has the actual facts wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it.



morbidthoughts wrote:
Wikipedia, despite its reputation, is not a fucking free for all.

Unless you're an editor. In my experience, Wikipedia is nothing but an oligarchy controlled by otherwise powerless, bitter little men who stake out their tiny electronic territories and then fight to control them with their own egotistical satisfaction of paramount importance above all other concerns. Play by our abritrary rules (and surely you realize that Wikipedia's "standards" are completely open to subjective interpretation by the ruling editor) or don't play at all.

You can defend Wikipedia all you like, but until I meet someone -- in any walk of life -- who feels their Wikipedia entry is, at the very least, accurate (forget not insulting; that, apparently, is too much to ask) I will cleave to this belief and hold it well above the reach of any grasping, mean-spirited Wikipedia geek with too much free time, and too little personal regard.


here is your bio from wikipedia what is true , what is false , what is overstated on understated?
Thanks
Eli Cross is an adult filmmaker who began his career making short films in Arizona, and eventually, after moving to Los Angeles in 1993, worked as a director at Roger Corman’s Concorde Studios. Cross directed four straight-to-video films for Corman, but eventually transitioned into the adult market.

Under the name Mark Logan, Cross ran Adult Video News – the premiere trade magazine for the porn industry – from 1997-2001. After parting ways with AVN, Cross returned to directing, but as a pornographer.

He is best known for his films The Visitor (2003) from Elegant Angel, Epiphany (2004) from VCA Xplicit, and Corruption (2006) from SexZ Pictures, which won 7 AVN Awards including Best Video.

In 2007, Cross became Head of Production for SexZ Pictures, and completed Upload, one of the most expensive adult features in history with a budget of over $360,000.

His stage name comes from the character played by Peter O'Toole in the 1980 film The Stunt Man.


[edit] Awards
2007 AVN Award winner – Best Director of a Video – (Corruption)[1]
2007 XRCO Award nominee - Best Director (Feature) – (Corruption)[2]
2007 Adam Film World Guide Award winner - Best Director (Corruption)
2007 NightMoves Award winner - Best Director (Corruption)[3]


[edit] References
^ AVN Awards Past Winners. AVN.com. Retrieved on 2007-08-08.
^ XRCO Awards Past Winners. XRCO.com. Retrieved on 2007-10-19.
^ NightMoves Winners. NMAEA.com. Retrieved on 2007-10-19.

[edit] Further reading
Interview at RogReviews.com
Interview at AdultDVDTalk.com
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Cross"

Go To Top of page [Link]
HarryWild
Member

Make me believe
709 Posts
2/05
Posted - Dec 2 2007 : 02:49:42 AM
I am a big fan of Wikipedia on porn stars. Especially on porn stars at have been retired for some time. It seems that the story of their bio over time is quite accurate. I kind of like to track to see what actually happen to them after porn and where they ended up at.

I take from previous post that some bios of current stars are not too accurate. I think that the way I would want it to be while I am working.

Go To Top of page [Link]
Janitor
Administration, Defenestration

Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service.
13562 Posts
11/99
Posted - Dec 2 2007 : 12:42:49 PM
I'm sure that link to ADT will be removed. There is one "editor" who removes as many links to ADT as possible. It's his life mission. Although this person has had his editing privileges removed and reinstated several times he continues to be one of the prime examples of what's wrong with wiki on porn (he's using it to carry about personal battles.)

There are many people involved in the industry who use wiki, our forum, and any other public forum to carry out their little vendettas. I spend way too much time dealing with these people. Wiki is a wide open playground for them.

Go To Top of page [Link]
RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Dookie?
28480 Posts
3/06
Posted - Dec 2 2007 : 03:38:07 PM
Who knew there was so much drama in porn?
Go To Top of page [Link]
Page 1 of 3 2 > Last

All Forums -> The Porn Pool
Previous topic: Shower Anal

Next topic: Discussion about Hungarian beauty

Jump To: