BoyWiki:Agora/19 November 2015
From BoyWiki
Agora/19 November 2015
BoyWiki for boys?
Has anyone made any efforts to make at least parts of BoyWiki be designed to meet the needs and requirements of actual boys, as in children, and on their terms? __meco (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you have in mind and remember that anything that remotely can be called "grooming" is illegal, esp. in the UK. Keep in mind that we are limited on what we can do under the BL banner.--Etenne (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- What about those boys associated with NAMBLA? I mean, aren't there ANY young people in this community/movement? Because if that's the case, then all claims of wanting to represent the boys' side in this becomes kinda moot, as in self-serving wishful thinking… __meco (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- BoyWiki is not representative, or the voice of any movement. But I understand what you are saying, but you have to understand that what was possible 30 years ago is not possible today. Do I really need to list the reasons why? --Etenne (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm… I wonder if Lysander would have any creative (or constructive) opinions on this matter. Anyway, I posted this also at BoyChat. __meco (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- This reminds me, we should install mediawikiwiki:Extension:Echo so that it'll be possible to ping people. Anyway, ChildWiki was designed to at least give lip service to kids' liberating themselves, although they would need help from adults to do so. There may already be kids editing, or posting to BoyChat, but perhaps they don't proclaim their age to the world, lest people treat them worse for doing so. I know when I was younger, I didn't usually reveal my age online, because I didn't want people acting condescending toward me, or dismissing what I had to say as just the result of a phase I was going through.
- What about the Youth Rights Network; they had a lot of teenagers in their movement, some of whom may have been editors of the wiki. See their article on the age of consent. By the way, if you find that some of their content hasn't been archived as of a certain date, you might want to try another date. Lysander (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- I like the idea of an integrated portal, and a simple wiki. The only thing is how different would the simple wiki be. I feel some of the more 'explicit' articles shouldn't be put into simple language, as that might cause suspicion/be threatening to this site at the very least. At the very worst, like Etenne said, someone might accuse this site of grooming. Hikari (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- And then what would come of that? Lysander (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- BoyWiki might be taken down? Hikari (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Have there ever been any cases of a website being taken down for such a reason? I'm thinking it would fail the clear and present danger test. As Justice Brandeis put it, "The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind." We have a constitutional right to communicate our views and information to children. We just don't have a right to be a wiki that "knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so". 18 U.S.C. § 2242. I wonder where one exactly draws that line. Lysander (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate learning about that distinction coming from Justice Brandeis, nevertheless, the considertaion obviously needs to take into account that what this wiki largely deals with is a Phase 1 Topic, which means that constitutional protection doesn't really apply. Anyway, are the serves for this website in the US? I kinda thought it was in Canada. __meco (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Have there ever been any cases of a website being taken down for such a reason? I'm thinking it would fail the clear and present danger test. As Justice Brandeis put it, "The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind." We have a constitutional right to communicate our views and information to children. We just don't have a right to be a wiki that "knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so". 18 U.S.C. § 2242. I wonder where one exactly draws that line. Lysander (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- BoyWiki might be taken down? Hikari (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- And then what would come of that? Lysander (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- I like the idea of an integrated portal, and a simple wiki. The only thing is how different would the simple wiki be. I feel some of the more 'explicit' articles shouldn't be put into simple language, as that might cause suspicion/be threatening to this site at the very least. At the very worst, like Etenne said, someone might accuse this site of grooming. Hikari (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm… I wonder if Lysander would have any creative (or constructive) opinions on this matter. Anyway, I posted this also at BoyChat. __meco (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- BoyWiki is not representative, or the voice of any movement. But I understand what you are saying, but you have to understand that what was possible 30 years ago is not possible today. Do I really need to list the reasons why? --Etenne (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- What about those boys associated with NAMBLA? I mean, aren't there ANY young people in this community/movement? Because if that's the case, then all claims of wanting to represent the boys' side in this becomes kinda moot, as in self-serving wishful thinking… __meco (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Sandbox
This discussion originally started at and has been moved from User:Meco/Sandbox
I know it is trivial but we need to come up with a better name then "Sandbox", something more BL related. Every time I see "Sandbox", I picture a cat going to the bathroom :) --Etenne (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Trial and error page? But isn't this standard terminology throughout the wiki world? Also, with our focus on young people, it would seem that sandbox (or sandpit) is a particularly appropriate term… __meco (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
