Off-site preservation of the content that's leaving TVT?

Hey everyone,

Is anyone organizing an effort to preserve the content of pages that are currently being cut (or being considered for cutting) from TVT for NSFW/"paedoshit"/etc. reasons? Such as finding a website to host this content, and then moving the content to that website?

I know that a lot of people who contributed to these articles would not like to see their contributions go to waste. And repulsive as their content may be to some, they still contain some useful information (even if that might require a bit of rewriting to adopt a neutral tone neither positive nor negative toward the work), especially in being able to tell people information about a work that is not available from a source like Wikipedia.

If there doesn't already exist such an effort, I think we as a community should organize one.

That said, I won't be able to spearhead this effort. As you may know, I'm already the de facto head admin of IJBM, and I'm going to be very busy starting this fall already very busy preparing for graduate studies. I do have a couple small (former) articles (for Beat Angel Escalayer and Custers Revenge) of this sort that I created and would like to see preserved, though the total number of such articles far dwarfs my meager contributions.

(To mods: This thread was created with the blessing/recommendation of Best Of via PM. If another thread addressing this topic already exists, please direct me to it. A thread like this one was previously created in Troper Covens but zapped by Best Of.)

edited 27th Apr '12 10:59:16 AM by GlennMagusHarvey

There is a topic discussing the removal of the "porny" stuff to the Fetish Fuel Wiki. Let me find it... here, about five threads down from this one as of the time I wrote it.

edited 27th Apr '12 11:16:25 AM by Fighteer

This thread is still valid as there may be people who have interest in preserving material that the FFW would not accept, such as material defined as p/s by Fast Eddie.

Speaking of which, is there a better term for "paedoshit"/"pedoshit"? Preferably one that doesn't sound like something a disgruntled teenager procrastinating homework and finding refuge in internet drama would come up with, and can actually seem like a term that might be used in serious discussion?

edited 27th Apr '12 12:24:57 PM by GlennMagusHarvey

"Pedo Without Plot"?

Nope. Plot doesn't matter when the topic is paedo stuff. The better term is "Paedo-Pandering"

"Pro-Pedophilic Material" and "Pedo-Pandering".

@Glenn - I think I came up with the term "pedoshit." I'm not a teenager, I have no homework, but I may just be a bit disgruntled by how much pedoshit was found on this wiki. I also don't really like internet drama.

I think it's a nasty, descriptive term for something horrible and evil. It's easier to say then "pedophile-pandering porn," but still sounds awful, unlike describing rape as "non-con."

Well I just find it unconducive to productive discussions, since it does have very strong connotations of nasty, ick, and evil, which rile up the emotions.

Whatever term we do use is probably important if we launch a sister site (be it official or unofficial) that contains this content. We also really ought to revise stuff to make sure that it's got a very neutral tone to it.

Speaking of neutral tone...

I know some criticisms I've heard of TVT, from commentary on IJBM, were that TVT implicitly encourages a positive tone toward things, even things that are repulsive. This is because of a combination of a rule against negativity and, while there isn't a rule promoting positivity, an intention of "celebrating" fiction.

If we make a new site to host this content, we'd better be careful—especially for the really sketchy stuff—to keep as neutral a tone as possible. Some stealthily sarcastic negativity (e.g. "Custer attempts to have sex of questionable consensualness with a Native American woman using a three-pixel-long erect penis") is probably fine but it's probably best to keep as encyclopedic/scholarly a tone as possible.

(Yes, I just used an example from an article I wrote, slightly revised. I'm just stating my opinion.)

edited 27th Apr '12 9:44:53 PM by GlennMagusHarvey

There is no neutral tone for pedoshit. If you guys want to plan for a place to persist it, leave us out of the discussion. Such a place is no relative of ours.

Don't derail the original content, nor should we make it sound like this wiki is wanting to sponsor this.

Eddie, you're still gonna be contacted when people want to find a way to access the content they're trying to save. At least, my understanding is that it has to be that way, though I'm not sure. (I'm presonally not interested in preserving the content, but I can understand why the people who wrote the articles would want them to survive somewhere.)

I think I can see Eddie's point of view. If it's cut for being pedoshit, we are not going to be handing off the cut articles to someone else. We can't stop you from digging them out of Internet archives or rewriting them, but we won't help you with it.

@Glenn: "Well I just find it unconducive to productive discussions, since it does have very strong connotations of nasty, ick, and evil, which rile up the emotions."

What other connotations would you want to have for pedophile pornography?

edited 28th Apr '12 12:18:18 PM by Martello

My reading of Article 4(c) of CC-by-SA-3.0, which regulates attribution, made it clear that merely naming the tropers who made the edits in such articles would suffice without involving TV Tropes per se, nor should TV Tropes be thought to be associated with any person who eventually reproduce the content.

Mediawiki-powered system would use the format of [username]@[wikiname] in cases like this, which should minimize TV Tropes' association with these content.

edited 28th Apr '12 3:23:37 PM by SamCurt

You are completely ignoring the fact that these are fictional characters and that nobody real is being hurt. So no, I and others would not want those connotations since the content involved is not doing any harm to anyone.

edited 28th Apr '12 3:33:26 PM by Chariot

Stop being off-topic.

You are aware that I was responding to a question that was asked, right? Granted it was not aimed at me but I still reserve the right to answer it.

Chariot; Your reply sounds dangerously close to Apologia.

I will point out that the logic Chariot is using is part of the same logic that currently fuels the U.S. laws on child pornography, which I indicated in one of the previous threads on this whole matter.

This is way way way off-topic though, and we've been through all these arguments already. I suggest instead of sniping at each other, work on actual solutions to whatever proposal you come up with for preserving this content.

We all have different opinions, whether we think pornos have nudity and sex in them, or we don't, but let's all try to get along.

does a better job explaining than I could and is completely accurate.

As for preserving the articles where are we supposed to talk about it since Fast Eddie has made it clear he does not want Tvtropes to be associated with it?

edited 28th Apr '12 4:34:14 PM by Chariot

Yes, he's clear about that. As I mentioned before, this is possible given we use a CC license (as they only need the work to be identified by the tropers who edited them, not TV Tropes itself). This question wuld be easier to answer in the case of Mediawiki where any article can easily exported into XM Ls by any user as no wiki mod would be associated into this automatic process.

However, this is not available in this wiki. On the other hand, I don't think using the Wayback Machine wasn't a very elegant method either, so I prefer such thing should only be done on PM requested, and on the condition that the copies should not identify TV Tropes at all (rather than the individual tropers). This condition is in fact compelled by CC.

Start a wiki for the material just don't expect any help from Eddie or the other mods in recovering deleted material.

The finer point of law being whether this would compel anyone who adopt the content that way to violate CC? TV Tropes is not the creator of such content.