Creeping on real children is a real problem and is incredibly wrong and disgusting. However, depending on the context, when it's in a work it might not merit removal. For example, Lolita itself has a vast amount of literary merit and is studied in some schools. There are plenty of other stories that include pedophile characters and does not endorse their actions or thoughts(while I find this disturbing, it's usually the intent in such works).
So, it's contextual.
"Oh, dear. The toad, the monkey, and the dog have all screwed up."@Man in Black
Oh, no, I'm not saying that. Quite the opposite. I want it included in a core guideline, up to the level of no notability and no negativity.
edited 14th Apr '12 11:03:47 PM by abstractematics
Now using Trivialis handle.![]()
Well, maybe PG-13 isn't the best way to state it, but I mean a guideline that actually corresponds to this change: a fair principle that's worth calling a defining feature of a site.
edited 14th Apr '12 11:00:44 PM by abstractematics
Now using Trivialis handle.
@Sehankh...... Isn't a good thing that those pages informed about the existence of the people you hate?
Those pages were cut for a good reason, but creeping by tropers wasn't it.
edited 14th Apr '12 11:00:32 PM by encrypted12345
Full Battle Mode
Wikipedia manages to describe things in a neutral manner without saying "And That's Terrible", but still doesn't end up appearing to endorse the things it describes.
I disagree with that. There's no reason something can't be explained in a civil manner that does not endorse it. I don't endorse such works(with the exception of one in particular, as it is an extremely interesting character study and has a story detailing many psychological issues with the characters, though I still have to skip some pages that make me uncomfortable), but I do not believe there is no way to record them that is neither endorsement of the acts within or scathing condemnation.
"Oh, dear. The toad, the monkey, and the dog have all screwed up."![]()
We Are Not Wikipedia. Also, it has been made abundantly clear that those works are not welcome here. Not to mention that, unlike us, Wikipedia has notability guidelines.
We are still talking about pædo-porn here, right?
edited 14th Apr '12 11:04:49 PM by setnakhte
"Roll for whores."588: You could just as easily say that not gushing about something is implicit condemnation. Which is just as false. It's only an endorsement if we're endorsing it.
she her hers hOI!!! i'm tempe![]()
![]()
Wait, it's that confusing?
Ahem. Those pages contained information about the type of people you hated. So they informed the public of their existance and created more haters of that same thing.
@Anno R As a psych major, I like that series, too.
edited 14th Apr '12 11:06:34 PM by encrypted12345
Full Battle Mode@setnakhte
Anno and Enthryn are talking about a quality of a good site that Wikipedia possesses, not just Wikipedia itself. "We are not a Wikipedia" won't cut it.
Like I said, it's possible to not have PG-13, etc. and still be an informative site. That's why, if we are having that policy, we have to make it a core guideline, because it's part of what shapes this site.
edited 14th Apr '12 11:08:30 PM by abstractematics
Now using Trivialis handle.@setnahkte: Not porn. The subject matter is uncomfortable(I'm under the impression that it is intended to be), but it is not porn.
Outright porn isn't worth bothering with to begin with, and shouldn't be on this site.
edited 14th Apr '12 11:06:33 PM by AnnoR
"Oh, dear. The toad, the monkey, and the dog have all screwed up."![]()
![]()
![]()
Your logical fallacy. I know that it is one, but I can't recall the name either.
edited 14th Apr '12 11:07:46 PM by encrypted12345
Full Battle Mode

edited 14th Apr '12 10:55:54 PM by setnakhte
"Roll for whores."