Talk:Internet pornography
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet culture. For more information, visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
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] |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. |
[edit] Neutrality
I don't think this is neutral.
To take the most obvious example, in paragraph 1, you say certain types of pornography are 'sick' and 'totally unacceptable'. This is definitely opinion, even if it is a very common opinion, and should be marked as such. Moreover, a good many people think that many of the other forms of pornography that you mention are sick and totally unacceptable.
Seems a good point to me. How's that?
Fonzy - All pornography is illegal somewhere; child porn is probably legal in some places. Therefore, singling out child porn as "illegal" is distinctly parochial. - Khendon
I do not believe that child porn is legal anywhere. Our children are children, they do not become a sexual beeing until their age of puberty. So, show me a country where the children enters the age of puberty earlier than other countries and you have a point.
- What matters here is not your "common sense" reasoning, but what is considered legal or not in jurisdictions that may have standards vastly different from the Western world.
I know pornoraghy is illegal some where. But i dont know anywhere where child pornography is legal. -fonzy. But if it is legal somewhere(which i doubt) its illegal everywhere else. - fonzy
This page seems to be somewhat redundant. The pornography article covers most of this material. If there are no objections, I'll integrate any new material here with that article. --Stephen Gilbert 13:28 Sep 22, 2002 (UTC)
An 86 year old man I'm doing a film on told us about when he first had sex, at age 10. How's that for child pornography? Oh yeh, that would put it at 1926. Another blow to the reactionaries. :-P --KQ
He seems to be an early adopter, and you know very well that is not what this discussion is about.
- No. I did not know that, and I did think it relevant. You would do well not to make assumptions about what people do and do not know.
- My point is: he wanted to have sex, he had sex. To him, it was no big deal. We may find it disgusting but he wouldn't care. In other words, leave your value judgments out of the article. :-) Best, --KQ
- But how's he doing now, sexwise?
Removed ....
- Nowadays, few other Internet industries can say they pull the kind of money that Internet pornography pulls every year.
Internet pornography has undergone the same sort of shakeup as other businesses. There really are relatively few sites that are actually making money.
(Answer to above regarding only a few sites making money)
From an inside industry perspective, that statement is half true. As everyone knows, the internet and what works/doesn't work is in constant transition...several years ago membership and large paysites were the rage and making outstanding money.
What's happened now is that as the online world has evolved, you can basically access anything you want for free from a mutlitude of sources relatively easily; even the most casual user can generally be taught and understands quite quickly how to use downloading tools to get access to what they want.
Hence outright membership sites have been in decline for probably the last 5 years; why would people pay money for things they can access free with a little effort? There are quite a few membership sites holding out against the tide, and some will say they are still going strong, but having worked for one I've seen the figures and they are trending one way.
Another evolution has been the absolute tidal wave of smaller paysites featuring a single XXX star or a particular genre, and these are still proving reasonably profitable, although you will find larger companies are working many of these satellite sites under various names. They are still making money because what they have is still relatively unique and the content contained within still isn't too widely distributed.
Again, in a few years that will change, and these satellite sites will also cease to be profitable, especially when adminstering multiple sites can be cumbersome and hard to organise for a larger company.
The website I administer started as a paysite...much to my chagrin, but as a team of people the decision was made despite what I've seen happening since 2000. It didn't last long in that format, and is now a free site. You can't hold back the tide, you have to go with it. We essentially are in a format that you once found only in large membership-based models, except we do it free.
Our site makes reasonable income from affiliate sales and a VOD theater (video on demand which is profitabile because they offer ease of use and range of choice, and also because they are generally very cheap). Sponsorship will also be an increasing factor as the site grows. But I would argue that the days of the mega-porn sites making mega-bucks, especially membership based ones, are just about over.
Regards,
Madison http://www.theeroticwoman.com
-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madison H (talk • contribs) 05:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
What does this mean?
- "Internet pornography is distributed primarily via websites through USENET."
The whole first paragraph is redundant and uninformative and the article as whole seems to be defensive and somewhat POV. Ortolan88
I removed the italicized text, inserted by 61.9.192.173:
Today there are many forms of internet pornography available, though these should not be made available to children, and adult supervision must be maintained:
While this is certainly a common enough point of view, Wikipedia does not have an opinion on the matter. We can state (as is elsewhere stated in the article) that many people do have beliefs about protecting children from pornography, but we should always be careful to ascribe those beliefs to some person rather than expressing them in Wikipedia's own voice. --FOo 22:37 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
On the proposed list of pornographic websites: I am not sure that Wikipedia is capable of sustaining such a list without causing huge problems. First, it would be an open invitation to spammers. Second, there are hundreds of thousands of pornographic Web sites if the term is construed widely, and the list changes too rapidly for Wikipedia to keep up. Third, even a list of "important" pornographic Web sites would be filled with points of massive contention, since nobody can be expected to agree on what is or isn't pornography. —FOo 14:00, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Limiting it to porn sites with Wikipedia articles might help. Or lead to a spate of articles about porn sites... —tregoweth 15:36, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] My complete rewrite of this article
I have completed a complete rewrite of this article though it could possibly use further improvement. I'm also working on a seperate article to discuss the legal issues related to internet pornography in different contries so as to keep this article at a managable length. I kept a brief summery of the legal situation though with a link to the posted article. --Cab88 09:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Article needs pictures!
Seriously. Even after the current rewrite it looks too dowdy without illustrations. Surely there must be a way to provide some? Mareklug talk 09:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- I added some screenshot pictures appropriate for use in this article. --Cab88 11:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Pictures are offensive..
I don't think the pictures should be included here - especially the first one. I imagine that an encyclopedia would want to be informative about internet porn, but the picture is a little much. I am deleting it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.165.220 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 November 2005.
- Sorry ... Wikipedia is not censored. If you're looking for a place where it's acceptable to censor information because you are offended by it, then you're looking for a different encyclopedia project. --FOo 05:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Dude,you are looking at an article of an adult website...so what would you expect,Donald Duck serenading Barbie. Sugreev2001 13:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Phishing scam
I remember reading in PC Answers once that at one time the most common form of Internet fraud consisted of bogus pornographic websites which asked for credit card details, supposedly as proof of age. Does anyone here know more about this? GCarty 15:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Too defensive
I'm editing the following section under "Legal status":
The concern over internet pornography is largely the result of activists and politicians who have expressed concern of the easy availability of pornography, especially by minors. This has led to a variety of attempts to restrict children’s access to internet porn such as the Communications Decency Act, many of which have either been ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court or are currently tied up in court.
This section sounds like thinly-veiled POV--first arguing without support that "the concern over internet pornography" really is mostly just activists and politicians, then generally implying (with no details) that attempts to restrict it have failed or are hopeless. It also seems unduly preoccupied with the U.S. --Mr. Billion 09:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mention of BBSes
Hi-
There's a mention (in the History section) of how porn was distributed over BBSes. While this is most definately true, BBSes are NOT the Internet in any way, shape or form (hmm, was FidoNet integrated with a few apps that ran on the 'net?). I'm also very unsure about whether or not people were sharing stuff on Usenet before BBSes.
Stilroc 05:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Those are good points. I've made some corrections to the article. KarlBunker 10:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sorry for removing that piece of info without even discussing it. I'll try to keep up with any relevant discussions in case of future edits. -FrostyBytes 22:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Change title?
As mentioned above, BBSes are not the Internet. Should the title for this article not be "Online pornography"? 91.64.30.17 16:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Since BBS's are no longer a major player, I think the title "Internet pornography" best reflects the current situation. Including mention of BBS's makes sense as a part of the history, but I don't think that mention warrants changing the name of the article. In any case, "Online pornography" currently redirects to this article. KarlBunker 16:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge Wii pornography
I think the above article should be merged here because it talks about alternate ways to access porn through the web. --wL<speak·check> 00:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
wtf does that have to with porn, it's the wii article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.208.135 (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recent edits by 24.21.100.43
There are several problems with this edit:
- An image has been removed with no reason given, See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored.
- "Web 2.0" is a buzzword rather than a meaningful term.
- It is claimed that free sites have been "criticized" for cutting into the profits of pay sites. This isn't supported by the reference given, and is simply silly; the only ones who would "criticize" such a thing are those who are losing profits, and the correct term would be "complain about" rather than "criticize."
- It isn't established that the disproportionate coverage given to "PornTube" style sites is warranted by the relative popularity of such sites.
- It is stated that such sites "bypass spam, ads, and troublesome cookies." This is unsupported, and probably incorrect.
- It is stated that such sites "have become the most visited pornography websites on the entire internet." This is also unsupported.
- It is stated that the videos in such sites "are full-length instead of short clips." This is unsupported, arguably incorrect, and "full-length" and "short" aren't defined.
- The edit repeats material elsewhere in the article.
- The writing of the edit is generally poor.
Nevertheless, the mention of YouTube-style sites is a valid addition to the article, IMO. I've added this to the appropriate section of the article. RedSpruce 13:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] PDF article / eassay, where is it now?
If I am not mistaken, there was once under "see also" or perhaps "sources", a pdf essay (sort of) that had the name "Downloaded & Downgraded", or something like that. Now I don't know if it was even for this article, but I don't know wich article it was obviously and I need to find a place to ask. I would really like to obtain this pdf again, I guess it's still out on the net somewhere. But I cannot find it. I've been Googling for it for weeks. Again, it was about internet pornography addiction, rather. If anyone know, or have a clue, please respond. Thanks. / Daniel (SWEDEN) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonn.daniel (talk • contribs) 11:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Porn-site.jpg
Image:Porn-site.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Adultwebsitewarning.png
Image:Adultwebsitewarning.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wow, the lede sure isn't very good
"Internet pornography is pornography that is distributed via the Internet." O RLY? --71.83.118.171 (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Need samples like this?
Need samples like this? http://top100.elfpot.com/ --SbmUser (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
TGP --SbmUser (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 'One laptop per child project' and 'Internet pornography'
Realy need this part ? --SbmUser (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] porn as technology leader
Everyone knows that porn is always at the vanguard of technological advances on the internets. I'd say that's worth mentioning, if someone can come up with some citations. 202.64.168.196 (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
