What's the fun of getting old if you can't be dirty? 141 Posts 4/06
Posted - Nov 30 2007 : 2:00AM
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.
[Link]
conquistador Deactivated User
Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03
Posted - Nov 30 2007 : 2:22AM
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
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
"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.
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.
[Link]
conquistador Deactivated User
Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 4:38AM
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).
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.
when did you attend? Most college professors reject wikipedia based information if they're worth their salt.
[Link]
satchman23 Studios - do not send screeners to this person.
1906 Posts 12/06
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 12:45PM
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.
What's the fun of getting old if you can't be dirty? 141 Posts 4/06
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 2:24PM
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.
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.
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.
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
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 6:40PM
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
[Link]
conquistador Deactivated User
Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 6:49PM
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.
Well, I didn't realise Eli had edited his own wikipedia article. This was [ invalid url ]. Of course vast edits were made to it by other people to attempt to make it encyclopedic. They key word is attempt.
What's the fun of getting old if you can't be dirty? 141 Posts 4/06
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 9:28PM
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.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.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.
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.
Welcome to the darkside....we have cookies. 598 Posts 11/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 9:48PM
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
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.
Welcome to the darkside....we have cookies. 598 Posts 11/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 10:12PM
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"!
What's the fun of getting old if you can't be dirty? 141 Posts 4/06
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 10:13PM
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: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: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: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.
Welcome to the darkside....we have cookies. 598 Posts 11/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 10:15PM
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
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.
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
What's the fun of getting old if you can't be dirty? 141 Posts 4/06
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 10:37PM
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.
Welcome to the darkside....we have cookies. 598 Posts 11/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 10:38PM
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
Welcome to the darkside....we have cookies. 598 Posts 11/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 10:54PM
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?
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.
Welcome to the darkside....we have cookies. 598 Posts 11/03
Posted - Dec 1 2007 : 11:28PM
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.
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.
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
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"
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.
Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99
Posted - Dec 2 2007 : 12:42PM
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.
Equilibrium Ep 2 - review by fu_q
Posted - Nov 30 2007 : 1:26AM
