Talk:GodsGirls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Pornography Portal This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on June 9, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

GodsGirls rapidly built its strong reputation for quality in the alt.porn web genre, because of its professional photographers and makeup artists, and the popularity of some of the allready established models who were now part of the site.

That and a few other recent additions to this article read like ad copy. I'm not saying you work for the site, but it's written from an obvious perspective of advocacy. You should read through Wikipedia's guidelines and tutorials on maintaining a nuetral point-of-view in your writing.

The staff at SuicideGirls have also been known to kick members off the site, with no warning, for any public postings on the member's forums, or journals, that don't agree with the owner's personal politics.

Phrases like "has also been known", along with "some say" and "it's been said", are also potential kryptonite to a good article. Usually they do not precede a reliable news source, as this sentence did not. And while these allegations could very well be true, they need to be stated in a less one-sided manner and link to a reliable news article - assuming they are noteworthy and verifiable enough to have been reported in the media; if not, reconsider whether they belong in an encyclopedia article rather than a blog. There isn't supposed to be any original reporting or hearsay on Wikipedia.

--relaxathon 17:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm an SG member and I can tell you that the owners can and do arbitrarily remove members from the site for various reasons. From the FAQ:

8.02 What kind of behavior can get my account suspended?

Having a public profile that allows you to post to the boards is a right that is very easily lost. The general rule of thumb is do not scare or make uncomfortable any other members or SuicideGirls and do not make the jobs of the people who work on this site harder then need be.

Do not make racist or sexist remarks.

Do not attempt to hack the site or run scripts on the site. Do not use a fraudulent credit card when joining the site.

Do not violate our terms of service.

8.03 I think America deserved 9/11. I think black people are stupid. I think the Jews are trying to take over the world. Can I espouse those viewpoints on your site?

No you can't. Freedom of Speech does not apply to posting on SuicideGirls. We are a private club and may remove you as a member of our club for any number of idiotic statements, including but not limited to: sexist statements, racist statements, conspiracy theories, hurtful remarks, threats of violence, demands upon the staff or members, delibrate lieing, attacks upon the staff, just good old fashioned idiocy.

If you think this rule in some way infringes upon your liberties or freedom of expression I suggest you read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873), a critically important exploration on the ethics of tolerating opinions that you find repugnant and what a private citizen is obligated to do in the face of speech they disagree with. Mr. Mill suggests that private publications and people may not use the law to surpress other's opinions but they have no obligation to promote or associate with people who hold those opinions. Mill differentiates between not helping others find opinions of which you disapprove (which he thinks is acceptable) and actively working to prevent them from accessing those opinions in other publications, mediums or forums (which he condemns).

They will also terminate ("zot") an account at the request of an SG, no questions asked. It's the "don't make the Girls uncomfortable" zot. Cigarette 00:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I know, theres truth to the hype, but this is just a set of guidelines that are not all too uncommon for an online discussion forum. If the site claimed to not practice this kind of moderation and did, maybe there would be a scandal. But it seems like they're just doing exactly what their FAQ says they will, which isn't all that encylopedia-worthy. --relaxathon 06:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know. I was just sayin', is all. I'm actually ON SG.  :) Cigarette 21:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Launch Date

This is probably just me nitpicking, but the delay from 21st April to 1st May is not over a month - it's 10 days! I've changed it to say "A couple of weeks later" Stonysleep 18:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership

The following is a reposting from Wikipedia:Help desk - -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, my name is annaliese nielsen and i am the founder of the company seen at godsgirls.com. godsgirls.com is owned by godsgirls LLC not by offworld media group. ownership of godsgirls can be verified with a simple who is lookup.

The article about godsgirls can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godsgirls. It cites www.suicidegirlx.com as the source for it's claim that godsgirls is owned by offworld media group. suicidegirlx is hardly a reputable source. that website is full of gossip mongering and slander.

We appreciate wikipedia's efforts in providing factual material in it's articles and appreciate the corrections that should be made to this article. thank you! -annaliese

I've changed the information in the "Ownership" section of the article to (a) conform to what was in the Willamette Week Online [1], which is a reputable source, and (b) include other information from sources such as the Arizona state government website. I strongly advise other editors not to change this information without a clearly reputable source. Parties to lawsuits, particularly those posting on weblogs, are of questionable value; at minimum, don't flatly repeat what they say, but rather use language like "XYZ claims that .... ".

Ownership of this website is an interesting subject, I think, and I encourage others to follow up on it. Here are two links I thought interesting but not citable in and of themselves: [2], [3]. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)