Talk:Wikipedian

• Where does he cite this :)--Etenne (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion

Honestly, I am not comfortable with these entries about Wikipedia editors on BoyWiki and even though they may be antis... I think it shows a certain level of pettiness and I would like you to consider deleting them. Even though they might not accord us the same courtesy, I feel we are above this sort of thing. It really is not relevant to BL culture or heritage. I feel a better approach if you feel strongly about this subject is adding them as a part of the Wikipedia page. --Etenne (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The goal is not really to denounce or shame them but to make it easier to track their activities, find useful content, and be aware of what they're about if we encounter them; also it's important to document the major players in order to tell the story of how Wikipedia ended up being what it is now. When we look at an old deletion debate, for instance, it's helpful to know the background behind the people who are commenting in various ways. Lysander (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Still couldn't this be added to the entry on Wikipedia? Also, I do not feel we should use their real names as their Wikipedia user names is enough. --Etenne (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it suffices to use their Wikipedia name. There should at least be a redirect from the username to the article where the information can be found. Lysander (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's fine, just not his real name and it needs to be a section within the Wikipedia entry for people like that because the are simply not significant enough to merit their own page. However, if he goes on a killing spree ect... I would reconsider at that time. --Etenne (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You know what I mean: as it is, this guy is barely a footnote in BL history. I personally would rather hear a good love story then about this jerk:) --Etenne (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems like I ran into this guy a lot on Wikipedia, or at least saw his name pop up in histories and in debates. I think love stories sometimes become tragedies because of some antagonist, kinda like in The Count of Monte Cristo. The tragedies and the antagonists who cause the stories to go in tragic directions are noteworthy too, maybe even more so because we learn more from failures (whether our own or humanity's) than from our successes. I think the direction Wikipedia went in with regard to kicking off pedophiles and their sympathizers was kinda tragic, because there was so much potential. Lysander (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, but there's the rub. He is only a villain in the small world of Wikipedia (which is where he should remain and where this entry belongs). I think you are giving him too much credit and too much power. In the long run, he is insignificant and best forgotten. --Etenne (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

However, if you want to write about true villains of our time, you could write about those who burned Edward Brongersma's library.... in that case, I am sure you are free to cite names.While I wouldn't put it up there with the burning of the great library at Alexandria, it's certinally more significant then this guy.--Etenne (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a small world? It's pretty high on List of most popular websites. It's like the United Nations or any of these global task forces that bring together ministers of justice and the interior to talk about child protection policy. These organizations and informal summits don't have power to throw anyone in prison directly, but they have a lot of soft power. They influence policies that lead to people serving prison time. The average person, when looking for facts about an issue, will google and then find a Wikipedia article. That in turn will impact what opinions he may form and what arguments he may bring up in debates/discussions. A large part of the purpose of sites such as BoyWiki is arguably to provide a staging ground for information that may eventually be transferred into Wikipedia articles.

Tertiary sources are important. Wikipedia in particular is central to the wikisphere, and a wiki looking to start an initial article on a topic (e.g. child sexual abuse) will often begin by copying some or all of the Wikipedia page. Reporters too rely on Wikipedia sometimes to get a general overview of a topic. Its influences are subtle sometimes but they're there. Lysander (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I still do not think that this guy or that Alison‎ person merits there own page on BoyWiki and should just be added as a section to the entry on Wikipedia. --Etenne (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. A merge is acceptable. We might want to split it off into a separate article, Wikipedian or anti-boylove Wikipedian or something. Lysander (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

To give you a bit of my perspective on things (and this is certainly not shared by all of the wiki council), I see BoyWiki (in part) as a place for young BL and people wishing to learn about boylove to come and find out more about themselves by understanding those that came before them. We can't be dominated by the bad of this age, which is a brief moment in history compared to what has come before. BoyWiki needs to have a balance between what is and what was. --Etenne (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

True, but the solution is usually to add more positivity rather than to get rid of negativity. Wikipedia adds articles about inspiring figures to balance out the coverage of the Adolf Hitlers of the world. We can't just ignore those demagogic figures and fail to learn the lessons from their rise to power. Also, after (or during) any persecution of this magnitude, people will ask "How? Why?" and this makes it easier to answer that question. It's important for the persecuted and their sympathizers to tell the story from their perspective. Lysander (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Also at the risk of being a pessimist, humanity has already failed that lesson and failed it badly.--Etenne (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Also A good thing to know about me as an editor is that while I am not a formally trained historian, when I got my under graduate degree, I had enough credits to have a double minor in both history and sociology. --Etenne (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I hadn't realized this before but this page was a recreation of a page that had been previously deleted by the former curator in 2009 --Etenne (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, he deleted several dozen articles. Some of those might be ripe for review. Lysander (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Real name

He did create an account under his real name, so he pretty much outed himself.. Lysander (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not our way. Plus, I am still not convinced that this is something relevant to boylove and even more so since I found out that this has already be deleted once before for relevance 8n 2009. Right now, I am of the mind that if you do not want to merge this with the Wikipedia entry, that it would be best to delete it altogether. I understand your perspective on this and why you think it should be included but it feels wrong to me, and I have to go with that. --Etenne (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

There's going to be a tendency toward mission creep on BoyWiki because there's no other place for the content. Encyclopedia Dramatica (or, to be more specific, Michaeldsuarez, another person of interest) deleted it from that wiki. There simply isn't any other wiki on the Internet that's friendly to Wikipedia refugees who, after having been kicked off for child protection violations, want to plead their case and have a place to collaborate on their deleted content. Lysander (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)