Reviewers Recommend Hot Wives 8, The - review by Captain Jack Director: Mike Quasar Starring: Van Wylde, Jay Smooth, Codey Steele, Ella Reese, Charlotte Sins, Freya Parker, Melissa Stratton. Read review
Eli, Kylie it does no good to get into an 'edit war' with some of the 'little Hitlers' over there at Wikipedia. The best way to change info correctly I find is to go in at night when many people are up and to bury your important changes under more ancillary one. Katja Kassin had her real name successfully removed off of the English Wikipedia but it's still posted on the Deutsch version. Likewise Lauren Phoenix's real name has successfully been removed off of Wikipedia but it's posted on IMDB.com ..so I don't know. There's a process to have a mediator or arbitrator during disputes or edit wars. Sometimes an entry can get a temporary lock put on until everyone has calmed down. These locks usually last a week and I guarantee one of the disputing parties will have forgotten about the dispute after a week. I hate Wiki edit wars cause it makes me want to hit somebody.
Maybe it's not even my place to make this suggestion, but I'm going to make it anyway. Maybe the moderators of this great web site could add a category for porn star bios. That way, the stars could post their accurate bios, and someone searching for it might not be confined to the Wikipedia misinformation. If I had any idea whatsoever how to handle the technical aspects of it, I'd do it myself!
Welcome to the darkside....we have cookies. 598 Posts 11/03
Posted - Dec 2 2007 : 10:51PM
The whole point is that we WANT a CORRECT bio posted publicly. The bottom line is that for information Wikipedia is not reliable on anything and many people assume it is all fact. It's not. From porn stars to mainstream movie stars to science facts there is misinformation across the board. Just because you see it in writing, don't assume it is the truth.
I absolutely hate wikipedia for posting my personal information on there I wish my article could be deleted but of course I don't have a say in that matter. I don't want my personal life (for example who am I dating or my real name) anywhere. The problem is that other sites like Orgazmik just go ahead and copy it and publish my real name in a porn review. PLEASE use my stage name for that. I did never approve that. It's not right and I can't agree more with Kylie. It's fucked up to post performers real names anywhere.
yes, everything that is said in the current version is true. But there were a lot of things in there in the past that were totally wrong like saying I was bisexual. And I don't like them putting gossip in there like who do I go out with if that's not even confirmed and official
[Link]
conquistador Deactivated User
Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03
Posted - Dec 3 2007 : 4:47AM
I think everyone will know about what I am speaking of when I say it's the best wikipedia site ever. Does playing in your parents basement mean the same thing as having a successful band? Something seems... well it seems disingenuous about Kurt's entry. I mean, doesn't it. (I linked it very early on in the thread). Give it a read and then search the words "Kurt Lockwood" in the member search in the past year. He had a rather confusing and very public meltdown here during the summer. He chose to document it here.
This is puzzling. If a "reliable source" publishes a porn person's real name without that person's consent, would that still mean that then it's ok to just continue to spread the news?
"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a mouse." -- Anon E. Mouse 2 Posts 12/07
Posted - Dec 3 2007 : 4:41PM
Hi. I'm a Wikipedia editor. In fact, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, which means I have a few more things I can do to articles than others, but basically I'm just an experienced Wikipedia editor. I've been an editor for about 20 months. And I somewhat specialize in WikiProject Pornography articles. I see Katja Kassin and Sasha Grey have contributed: we've "met" on Wikipedia. I couldn't help them with everything they wanted in their article, but hopefully I've been able to help somewhat. Someone pointed me to this thread, so I made an account, and hope to be able to address some of the points here. I wrote a big long Q&A article that would probably be too long for this forum, but fortunately, Wikipedia is a Wiki, so I could put it there. I tried to answer all the themes I saw in this thread, using specific quotes. User:AnonEMouse/AdultDVDTalk Some highlights: I should probably start by saying that basically everything that Morbidthoughts says in this thread is right. I'd say some of it a slightly different way, but he is basically correct. I'm a bit more experienced, so can add more detail to some of the answers (more...) * 1 How reliable is Wikipedia on porn star bios? Not perfectly, as for other articles. Check the references. (more...) * 2 Editing own entry "Avoid writing or editing an article about yourself, other than to correct unambiguous errors of fact." (more...) o 2.1 What a pain! True. But compare to any other web site that you can't edit at all. (more...) * 3 Article deletion and notability If someone has appeared in mainstream news media multiple times, they generally qualify, but so do people who win major adult industry awards (more...) * 4 Article pictures We can only use freely licensed images on our pages; but we'd love to have better ones. (more...) * 5 Real names and other personal information Removed unless sourced; but (more...) * 6 But that's not how it actually works It's how it should work, and, amazingly, usually does. (more...) Edited by - AnonEMouse on 12/3/2007 5:08:53 PM
"* 3 Article deletion and notability If someone has appeared in mainstream news media multiple times, they generally qualify, but so do people who win major adult industry awards (more...)" this is odd to me, as just about porn person I've ever wanted to look up on Wiki has had an entry. Like, has Alicia Alighatti ever won an award of had mainstream recognition? not to my knowledge…
I have no personal stake in any porn bio on wikipedia, but I had read a non-fiction book with an interview which contradicted information in a porn performers bio (the bit I changed was also a chronological impossibility). So I changed the wiki bio and included the book as a reference. It was *still* changed back the next day. After that, I pretty much determined that wikipedia sucks balls.
What's the fun of getting old if you can't be dirty? 141 Posts 4/06
Posted - Dec 3 2007 : 8:40PM
Every time I think my blood pressure can go back down... Anon, there's so much wrong with your response, I can't even begin to address it all. Here's the simple answer, from Anon's own posting on Wikipedia: "It's a volunteer project with 2 million articles. As a volunteer project, it's a miracle any of them are good." In other words, if we can't have correct information, at least we have a lot of information. And, incidentally Anon, both you and morbid keep repeating this refrain of "we only post real names when they're sourced" without addressing the obvious problems of A: the dozens, if not hundreds, of entries on Wikipedia that list real names which aren't sourced, B: the fact that for many of these performers having their real names posted can be life-damaging, if not outright dangerous, and C: once some fuckhead has posted it, it's always there in the fucking revisions never to be removed. Quite simply, if you guys want to do something useful, have the "pornography project" forbid the posting of real names.
News rarely has anything to do with consent. You give up certain parts of your privacy when you decide to become a public figure... much like crooks have to learn to "not do the crime if they can't do the time" so must performers decide that there will be certain things they might not want public that will find their way there. In journalism class, we were taught there's always someone with an axe to grind, so if you want the story, you'll seek that person out, get some quotes, and then take them to the source for comment. I'm sure Britney Spears would wish every paparazzi away if she could and only controlled when they appeared, but she can't -- so her ladybits are on display for all to see. I'm no fan of having one's real world data out there and used against oneself or in a manner not to their liking, but once one decides to go down a particular road, one has to expect the eventuality such a thing might happen. It sucks when it happens, and it makes you feel lousy, but you have to be able to say "If only I did such and such differently then maybe this wouldn't have happened..." Jenna Jameson appears on E! True Hollywood Story with her real name and her family's name plastered all over it. Should Wikipedia not make mention of it? It's not a well-kept secret. People who choose a career in the performing arts -- carnal or not -- have to expect their privacy to be invaded -- it's the sad nature of the beast.
Blood pressure must not have you thinking adequately. People are ignoring the unsourced real name rule and posting them anyway, which prompts a removal. You think A->B->C goes away if there was an outright prohibition? People are still going to ignore it outright, which leads to the same problem.
Comparing porn people to crooks? Interesting choice of analogy, although I'm not even sure it holds for the intended purpose. Both groups run risks, clearly, but crooks deserve to be punished, porn performers not. What this means is that when society is to decide what to do with a criminal there really is no choice in the matter, but when people with editorial responsibilities decide how to handle porn perfomers, or other public figures for that matter, they clearly have a choice. And the editors at the New York Times make different choices from those at the National Enquirer. The question here is where on that scale Wikipedia should be. But whichever line they take, make no mistake: it's an active choice they're making.To begin with, I'm not saying Wikipedia should never publish real names. In some cases these are widely known and it would just be silly not to publish them. But in many cases the real names might just have been mentioned occasionally in real sources and wouldn't turn up in a casual google search. Unless, of course, the editors at Wikipedia decide that since "the cat's out of the bag", it's perfectly fine to shout it from the mountain, because then the real name will be there even for the most casual of googlers.
What's the fun of getting old if you can't be dirty? 141 Posts 4/06
Posted - Dec 4 2007 : 3:36AM
No, Morbid, what makes my blood pressure rise is that both you and your compatriot Anon are still ignoring the fact that the removals aren't happening, and you simply refuse to admit that the system does not work. You alternate between saying "well, these are the rules," then admitting the rules are being ignored, but claiming that leads to a "removal" -- which is simply a reversion, and anyone who wants to find the real names can look back through the history to find them -- to ignoring the whole thing and reverting right back to the "we only post names with sources, blah, blah, blah" BS. Why don't you just admit that there are people out there with a hard-on to post as much upsetting and undesirable info as possible on porn performers, and that nothing, positively nothing is being done about it. Looking back at the "to do" list for the pornography project, I don't see one single action item regarding sourcing or removing someone's real name. It would be different if Wikipedia weren't regarded as a source of legitimate information by much of the real world, but it is, and the misinformation there gets perpetuated over and over on the web, even if you're lucky enough to fix your Wikipedia entry and make it stick.
Welcome to the darkside....we have cookies. 598 Posts 11/03
Posted - Dec 4 2007 : 4:00AM
Don't be a troublemaker. You know there is a difference bewtween a correct bio and a bunch of gossip. All the talent are talking about here is being able to add correct info into our bios on wikipedia, take out incorrect or dangerous information (since we have the right to edit it it) and have it stay intact without a wikipedia person changing it back the next day. After all we know the facts of our lives better than anyone. And for the record, the last time I edited my wikipedia bio I realized someone had entered in that I am an alcolholic and have been sober several years. This is true but not the most fabulous information to have on your bio. But since I have spoken of my sobriety on my site and other places, I left that on the page...the next time I went in, someone had deleted that too. Why? It was a fact and it could be documented. Nothing about the way that site is run makes sense. Again, the bottom line is that with anyone and everyone entering in and taking out information NO Wikipedia entry of any kind is going to be all fact. Wikipedia in not an encycolpedia, it is a site full of heresay and gossip with some truths and facts and it is just frustrating and infuriating that because people like Katja, Teagan, myself and many others care enough about providing truthful and informative information for fans and publications we get beat down for it.
"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a mouse." -- Anon E. Mouse 2 Posts 12/07
Posted - Dec 4 2007 : 9:32AM
>Every time I think my blood pressure can go back down... I'm sorry, I didn't mean to give you health problems by posting, I hoped I could help. If I'm not helping, say so, and I'll stop posting here. >"It's a volunteer project with 2 million articles. As a volunteer project, it's a miracle any of them are good." >In other words, if we can't have correct information, at least we have a lot of information. I guess self-deprecating humor doesn't work. :-) No information source in the world is perfect, and the Wikipedia is less perfect than most, specifically because anyone can edit. But the New York Times doesn't always get it right either, and unlike the Times, what Wikipedia writes can be easily fixed. Or compare to the IMDB, referenced earlier in this thread, or a hundred other sites, which post even more real names, with even fewer sources, and which are far harder or outright impossible to change. > "we only post real names when they're sourced" without addressing the obvious problems of A: the dozens, if not hundreds, of entries on Wikipedia that list real names which aren't sourced, Half my essay addresses that point, actually. It's a work in progress; it's huge; the secrecy of real names in pornography is not as obvious to everyone as you think; and if they are not sourced, they can and should be sourced to reliable sources or deleted. Come help. Yes, you have other things to do, but at least you can, that's not a minor difference. Compare to the NNDB, or a hundred other sites, try and delete something from there. But I'm here to try to help. Please list the unsourced names, and I will try to remove them. > B: the fact that for many of these performers having their real names posted can be life-damaging, if not outright dangerous, We're volunteers from every background, mostly without journalism degrees. Cited from reliable sources usually means either (A) a professional journalist, with a degree, and a career devoted to this, decided printing the real name was more valuable to the world than harmful to the person, and her editor, even more likely to have a degree and a career devoted to this agreed, or (B) a similarly professional published author and publisher decided the same thing or (C) the person herself agreed to let it be known. That's where we get this stuff. We aren't out interviewing your neighbors and friends and looking through your school records, we rely on professional journalists and authors and the subjects themselves. We don't make the world know, we just reflect what the world knows. Getting mad at us who do this part time for free is rather the wrong place to direct your anger, don't you think? When the newspapers of the world decide that printing the real name of a pornographic performer is not right, we don't print it either. That said, we're not here to try to hurt people. If a name really is causing a specific person problems, and the name really hasn't been that widely disseminated (it hasn't been printed in Time Magazine, or the Washington Post), and the specific person really isn't that much of a public figure (she's not Jenna Jameson), we may be able to remove even that. Ask Wikipedia management or a Wikipedia administrator. >and C: once some fuckhead has posted it, it's always there in the fucking revisions never to be removed. Finding it in revisions is not trivial, and does not make it show up on search engines, unlike the hundreds of other sites, which do; by the time someone is searching revisions, surely they've searched Google first. But if the revisions really are the only place anywhere on the Web the information exists, we can, actually, remove it from there as well. > What about D: how ridiculous is it that someone calling himself Anon E. Mouse is defending revealing other peoples' real names against their will? Actually, I'm one of the one of the Wikipedia administrators removing unsourced real names, quite a lot of them (and even a few marginally sourced ones). I understand a little about what pornographic performers consider privacy, and a couple of the performers participating in this thread can vouch for that. But as far as I understood this thread was about the Wikipedia, not about me. Edited by - AnonEMouse on 12/4/2007 9:38:12 AM Edited by - AnonEMouse on 12/4/2007 11:49:03 AM
absynth makes the heart grow fonder 434 Posts 8/06
Posted - Dec 4 2007 : 10:52AM
In my honest opinion, posting an entertainer's real name is in poor judgment, as well as poor taste. You might as well post their addresses and socials. Oh, and maybe their complete travel itineraries, license plate #s, etc. Why not do the rest of the legwork for the sickos and stalkers out there?
What's the fun of getting old if you can't be dirty? 141 Posts 4/06
Posted - Dec 4 2007 : 2:42PM
Okay, this has to be the final input from me on this thing. As with Wikipedia itself, this thread has become a gigantic time-suck I can't afford.Anon, no. No. Because there simply is no point. The very reason this problem exists, and that Wikipedia is a source of controversy in virtually any sphere of influence is that there's no accountability and no real peer review. It isn't simply that I don't have the time to go in and fix something, it's that I don't have the time to fix it over and over again. The very "strength" of the Wiki social engine is also its greatest weakness; it gives the most power to those who have the most time on their hands, i.e. those not deeply involved in whatever field they're trying to cover. I'm not about to spend hours crafting a properly-sourced Wikipedia entry just to come back the next day to discover some faceless yobbo has deleted the entire thing. Sure, I can revert, but so can he, and eventually, whichever of us has the most time to fuck with the entry will win -- will have their "truth" presented -- through sheer force of attrition. That will certainly never be me. For this reason, it simply isn't worth it to participate. If you'll look back, I didn't start this thread; I merely answered the question about Wiki's porn bio veracity. To my mind, both you and Morbid have managed to confirm my original assertion: don't accept anything you find there as truth. The main difference between the examples you present of other news sources getting it wrong and Wikipedia (and I come from a journalism background myself, having worked as a reporter at the Phoenix Gazette before I took over AVN) is that each outlet you've named has an editor who saw and approved what was written before it went to press. When mistakes are made -- as they invariably are -- retractions and corrections can be printed specifying what was incorrect, and hopefully, correcting it. Wikipedia's version of this is endless dithering, changing, infighting and bickering with no one able or willing to take the authority for making an informed decision. It is "fact" determined by oligarchy accountable to no one, targeted at a populace so lazy they'll accept essentially any written word as incontrovertable truth. If that isn't a recipie for misinformation, I don't know what is. And I, for one, want no further part of it.
Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99
Posted - Dec 4 2007 : 3:05PM
AnonEMouse, you should know that Adult DVD Talk is not considered newsworthy enough to have an entry (deleted.) Wikipedia is a great and obviously very successful concept. The problem is the porn industry needs moderation. There are too many evil little fuckers tangentially attached to the industry. They make it their "life mission" to attack/stalk their foes on the internet. That said Wikipedia should have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to posting private information like a real name. There is no reason to have the real names there. Anyone who posts them should be banned.
I do agree here. There's no reason why I or any other fan needs to know a performer's real name. Most particularly if they don't want it published. I figure if they wanted the whole world to know their real name, they'd simply perform under their real name.
Kylie, maybe sometimes, an article on Wiki can be correct. The Wright Brothers article as it stands is very correct. I know cause I help keep it correct. That and the RMS Lusitania article are my pride & joy. They are vandalised here & there but enough of us revert or point out vandals when they do harm. There are other articles with enough vigilance by meaningful posters can really be a good source of information, which I always thought was wiki's goal.
Steph, I don't understand the significance or relevance of that statement to the discussion and why it was directed at Mouse? What he wrote was not an entry but a section in his personal discussion page over at wikipedia. Same as any reference to ADT in discussion pages over at wikipedia. As long as it's pertinent to the discussion of the article, references to ADT will not be deleted. As for your zero tolerance (not the video company) banning proposition, you can propose the policy and try to reach a consensus. It's not a unilateral decision so people may disagree with your proposal.
Eli , why dont you clean your house, make love to your wife and then shoot some porn , also go on Wikipedia and fix articles... I think thats all in a days work accoriding to Annon lol Edited by - sgv626 on 12/4/2007 7:08:51 PM
So does this mean [ invalid url ] They object vehemently to the changes that have been made to their contributions. Looking at their drafts, I can definitely understand why they were not left alone despite the theory, "who knows more about the subject than the subject him/herself". I relayed the reason why with the second post in the thread. Just because someone objected to their articles and rewrote them while Lockwood's article remains a love poem shows the wikipedia system isn't fair (but it's funny). Some people have asked Eli and Kylie what is currently wrong with their respective articles. I've asked Teagan and Sasha myself. Someone asked Katja about her article. I still haven't seen an answer other than past grudges (besides one begrudging yes). As for the wikiproject:pornography, which Eli rants about with his usual hyperbole, it's an attempt to improve wikipedia porn articles. It seems clear that Eli thinks a the project rules don't do enough, it's useless, and/or are simply just counterproductive (dangerous) to porn. We could all just simply sit on our asses like you and the problems are still there. The solutions you propose won't solve the flaws either. If you don't participate, that's fine, just don't expect the situation to improve to your liking. Kylie, someone probably removed the tidbit about your alcoholism/sobriety because it's a controversial statement that wasn't sourced. If you could point to a citation, I'm sure somebody would be happy to be put it back in.
Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99
Posted - Dec 5 2007 : 12:21PM
My job is to enforce that policy on ADT, not fight with a bunch of people to establish a reasonable policy on someone else's website. There are some things that should not be up for consensus. I said that about ADT not being newsworthy because I think it's funny that this site is important enough to respond to a thread here on wiki, but not important enough for an article (even though there are articles for hundreds of totally useless websites.) I'm not trying to do anything constructive about either issue. I don't have the patience or time to deal with wikipedia.
Mouse was responding to the concerns of notable subjects of wikipedia articles (Eli, Teagan, Kylie, Katja). The fact that ADT was the forum was ancillary. They could have had the discussion at a gas station and that wouldn't have made the gas station any more notable. I doubt Mouse had any part of the decision in deciding whether ADT was notable enough for inclusion as an article into wikipedia.
We talked about some of the same issues in this threadfrom TechTalk not too long ago. Particularly the John Seigenthaler Sr controversy over dubious info.
Welcome to the darkside....we have cookies. 598 Posts 11/03
Posted - Dec 5 2007 : 10:42PM
Morbid, well I have to congratulate you for dragging up the very bios I was trying to correct. That proves that nothing is ever deleted from Wikipedia. It also shows how vindictive you are that you have to try to throw it in my face by posting them all here. For the record, there aren't things in those I don't want in there because they are embarrassing or whatever, I am just trying to correct the things that were incorrect because the source whoever pulled them from was an incorrectly transcribed radio interview. I was just trying to make the facts correct. Because I freakin CARE about the info that reaches people being correct. Second. About the alcoholic thing. You said it is a controversial statement that couldn't be sourced, right? Except that I MYSELF sourced it right there. I said it was true right here on ADT and I stated that I said it was true on my website (which is used as a source by Wikipedia) on which I wrote every word. I have talked candidly about it on BTS and in interviews and on my radio shows. I am not embarrassed or trying hide anything. My point wasn't the content of the alcoholic statement itself or that I wanted it removed or put back in, it was the irony of it. The way things can be there one day and changed the next. Even something that was true and could be sourced can be deleted. But as usual the point was missed. I am currently okay with the version on there now. I actually had someone on Wikipedia (Epbr123) email me personally at my website address and ask why I kept changing it. I simply explained my reasoning and he explained some of the things he had changed and it has been okay since. I told him I would be happy to work WITH him to build a better bio. But it doesn't mean my frustrations in the past were forgotten. And this is before I realized there was a push for real names and before this thread popped up. I am done with this thread. This thread is just as big of a waste of time and energy as updating my Wikipedia bio. I am going to try to keep it current, for the sake of fans and for websites that go there for information because I care and I think they deserve that. You all can argue away on here and try to dredge up more ugly but the fact is that Wikipedia is frustrating to update and keep updated and there may be some stuff that is factual and correct but there is alot that isn't correct. Kylie edited for typos, as usual. Edited by - kylie ireland on 12/5/2007 11:19:19 PM Edited by - kylie ireland on 12/5/2007 11:24:22 PM
must be nice to be 'newsworthy' enough to garner wikipedia recognition, instead of just another nameless/faceless/forgettable member of the XXX society. we're easy targets in XXX because society deep down really thinks we're trash for doing what it is we do on camera. big deal. 'show business, that's the way it goes!' - AC/DC, 'Showbusiness' lates, Von S.
I just wanted to note that a person claiming to be from ViceList.com (affiliated with AmericanVice.com) is inserting the real names of performers into their respective wikipedia articles basing it off the 2257 records they have. They also publish the real names on their own site. [ invalid url ]. That's not cool at all. Edited by - morbidthoughts on 1/30/2009 10:28:42 AM
^ Two things: 1. Clicking on that link takes me to a "post new reply" page. I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant to do. 2. Is there anything that can be done to stop this person's behaviour?
Hot Wives 8, The - review by Captain Jack
Posted - Dec 2 2007 : 6:02PM
