[Link]
So Extra - review by Sean DPS| Author | Post |
|---|---|
morbidthoughts  All-Star Member Big cats scare me but... 3627 Posts 1/03 |  Posted - Jan 30 2009 : 10:28AM[Link] |
| Irish Caraway Member I like to fist girls. 274 Posts 7/05 | Posted - Jan 30 2009 : 11:29AM Irish Caraway [Link] |
| morbidthoughts All-Star Member Big cats scare me but... 3627 Posts 1/03 | Posted - Apr 26 2012 : 11:13AM [Link] |
| CummingLinguist All-Star Member 5908 Posts 11/11 | Posted - Jul 7 2012 : 7:31AM [Link] |
| Dan Senior Member 2056 Posts 6/07 | Posted - Jul 7 2012 : 7:40AM [Link] |
| JohnW Senior Member 1351 Posts 6/08 | Posted - Jul 7 2012 : 8:28PM I took a look at some of the articles and the discussion pages and edits... The info is still there, accessible even if (right now) removed. And I suspect that is the intention of those creeps... sneak the incorrect/private info into the article and if its removed at least put it into discussion and history. Its simply bullying, and should be punishable by law in my opinion. [Link] |
| von_swine Member Dominance & Persecution. 919 Posts 1/04 | Posted - Jul 7 2012 : 9:15PM [Link] |
| CummingLinguist All-Star Member 5908 Posts 11/11 | Posted - Jul 7 2012 : 9:59PM [Link] |
| fevrinnn Member 42 Posts 6/12 | Posted - Jul 8 2012 : 9:04AM Reading through the thread, it's clear that porno brings is own unique set of problems to the table, ones which arent really the fault of Wikipedia. A wiki, which by nature aspires to document accurate and referenced information, is conflicted when faced with the porn etiquette of non disclosure. Putting myself in the boots of a porn performer, i would likely be annoyed should my real name or personal information be released. But crucially, if i was truly concerned about that potential eventuality, i would chose not to become a porn performer in the first place. As someone said, if a person chooses to get into the entertainment industry, adult or otherwise, to some extent they making the decision to surrender life as a private individual. To accept that they are going to be become a person of public interest. If someone spent time in drug rehab and it can be referenced, then it is entitled to feature in a wiki profile, even though it may cause discomfort. I know anyone who adopts this line of argument will be accused of being a stalker type, but im just speaking the truth. I have barely read any pornstar bio's. Personally, like 99.9% of people, i have no interest in unearthing performers real names and would have nothing to gain if presented with that information. Additionally, I suspect any obsessed stalker type is unlikely to depend on a wiki article for their info. Porn is part of the entertainment industry. It's performers are the stars and they develop a following. Some of that following may be unhealthy. Same is true in mainstream celebrity. If we are talking about revealing real names, I cant see fit to hold the wiki documenters of information accountable for the strange people that are out there in society. The discomfort in revealing names is a problem the porn industry has by design. I cant defend the sense of entitlement to exist only in a bubble, where lives cannot be accurately profiled in the wider world. Defaming and harassing people by spreading inaccurate information is very wrong. But profiling accurate information is right. I say again, if real names are a game breaker to anyone, it is their right to not get into porn. It should be seen as a hope, not an expectation, that your identity will remain disguised. Anyway this is merely my viewpoint, and due to where i am posting, i suppose it wont be widely supported. Peace out.
[Link] |
| JohnW Senior Member 1351 Posts 6/08 | Posted - Jul 8 2012 : 9:34AM [Link] |
| fevrinnn Member 42 Posts 6/12 | Posted - Jul 8 2012 : 10:41AM When you say personal information is irrelevant, i agree it would be so for their bio on Brazzers. But i contend it wouldnt be irrelevant for a site such as wikipedia, which is an overall document on a person. For its own purposes, insular porn industry affords its performers a level of privacy by using false names. This doesnt mean that facade has to be maintained in the real world. Or deserves to be. [Link] |
| JohnW Senior Member 1351 Posts 6/08 | Posted - Jul 8 2012 : 11:17AM According to what we've observed from wikipedia for years, and what their editors indeed do, this info is of no public interest, and more importantly, in most cases it is completely unverifiable. Kylie complained about incorrect info being brought back. The problem was that the editors were sloppy and didn't even follow their own rules. Unless we are talking about cases like Nina Hartley or Jenna Jameson, who have taken part in a public debate about porn and published books, their real names and most of their biographical info is simply not relevant. And privacy is indeed part of Wikipedia's policy. That means that protecting these articles against stalkers/creeps inserting such information about stars is the wikipedia editors' responsibility unless they change their policies. They need to step up. Edited by - JohnW on 7/8/2012 11:20:21 AM [Link] |
| morbidthoughts All-Star Member Big cats scare me but... 3627 Posts 1/03 | Posted - Jan 2 2014 : 8:08PM [Link] |
| morbidthoughts All-Star Member Big cats scare me but... 3627 Posts 1/03 | Posted - Jan 14 2020 : 12:18AM [Link] |
| Use the code below to link to this topic or a specific post. |
| URL of this thread |
| Link to this post with HTML |
| Link to this post with Forum Code |