Really, guys? Part 2



  •  In a previous thread someone pointed out this Wikipedia article.  In Wikipedia's quest to thouroughly catalog all human knowledge, they also give us this , and this   With illustrations, of course. 

    (Warning:  maybe NSFW, depending on where you work)



  •  Why not?



  •  I'm somehow less surprised by these ones.As in-- this is the Internet. I'd be worried if they weren't there.

    The real meat of these articles are not the articles themselves but the revision wars over the official image-- both from those who feel the need to analyze what the [b]perfect[/b] visual representation is, and those who are far to eager to contribute their own images. And by "their own", I don't mean their favorite from their personal Google Images collection, but quite literally their own. 



  •  Ok, the articles I understand, but illustrations? I mean come on!

    I was amused though by the standard "Rate this Page" box at the end. Particularly the "I am highly knowledgeable about this topic" checkbox. Oh, I can see it now, some middle-aged hooker ticking the box as she rates the article: "Complete... well, they do have an image and all but they didn't mention what happens when you catch it in the eye... is that 3 stars or 4...."

     



  • @Lorne Kates said:

     I'm somehow less surprised by these ones.As in-- this is the Internet. I'd be worried if they weren't there.

    The real meat of these articles are not the articles themselves but the revision wars over the official image-- both from those who feel the need to analyze what the perfect visual representation is, and those who are far to eager to contribute their own images. And by "their own", I don't mean their favorite from their personal Google Images collection, but quite literally their own. 

     

     

    check the pearl necklace article

     



  • Jeez. To define it is already quite absurd, but in such detail? This is the work of a maniac. The bit that convinced me was "one or more". Why the need to enter that? And calling "the stereotypical cumshot" a "leitmotif". Is this where illiterate people go to play encyclopedia editor?

    BTW, in what work place would this not be NSFW (apart from a porn studio)?



  • Shouldn't these pages be written entirely by eunuchs? Or at least virgins? I mean, what of NPOV?



  • @TGV said:

    [...]cumshot" [...]

    BTW, in what work place would this not be NSFW (apart from a porn studio)?

    I'm sure there are a lot of places where even the string 'cumshot' (in the http stream as that URL was) would be raising red flags on filters. Yes, they'd be puritanical, but I'm sure it happens somewhere. In America. Or Italy.

    Or, soon it would (sadly) appear - in the UK - as one former 'porn director' said today in the paper (Louis Theroux; if I spelled it right) 'can't be bothered' ('not enough time') to ensure his young (9) son doesn't access porn, so he wants the government to be the parent and do it. I'm left wondering if he can't be bothered doing the parenting, why doesn't he just put his son up for adoption or fostering?


  • @PJH said:

    I'm sure there are a lot of places where even the string 'cumshot' (in the http stream as that URL was) would be raising red flags on filters. Yes, they'd be puritanical, but I'm sure it happens somewhere. In America. Or Italy.
     

    Certain of our colleagues in more "enlightened" parts of the world used to entertain themselves by sending perfectly ordinary business e-mails with subject lines like You wont BELEIVE what this h.o.t.c.h.i.c.k is doing!!!!!!, in effect daring us "puritanical" associates to open what might well be spam with some malicious attachments.

    They had to stop when the powers that be put automatic filters in place that prevented the e-mails from reaching anyone with the judgment to decide that it was just a silly joke, and important communiqués started going missing.

    (The same filters experienced a couple of hiccups when certain words were included in perfectly innocuous contexts within the body of a memo.  No "hey, you can't say that here!" or "so-and-so just sent you a message that had to be quarantined" warnings, just into the bit bucket it goes.  In one case, it even stopped a warning about a virus that was making the rounds because the autofilters saw the name of the virus in the broadcast message and decided that the message "contained" that very virus.)



  • @PJH said:

    Or, soon it would (sadly) appear - in the UK...

    .. if Ed Vaizey had his way also, aye.

    (the Mumsnet thread shows just how blinkered, ignorant, lazy and demanding some parents can be... and then some)



  • @Cassidy said:

    (the Mumsnet thread shows just how blinkered, ignorant, lazy and demanding some parents can be... and then some)
    Great, now I'm wasting my time raging at a 2yr old thread and I can't stop. I hope you're happy with yourself.

    "I understand the technology perfectly. I worked for an ISP for 10
    years. Of course they should have some responsibility for what they are
    hosting. The ISP I worked for made a fortune out of porn so should
    also have some responsibility about who is viewing it. If the BBC put
    out a hardcore porn film at 3pm, I am sure people would have something
    to say about it."

    You worked for an ISP for 10 years and you think they host content? You think an ISP is comparable to a tv station?

    You ignorant fucking muppet.



  • @DOA said:

    You worked for an ISP for 10 years and you think they host content?

    What kind of crazy-ass imaginary fairy-land world do you live in? Of course ISPs host content. Where do you think content is hosted? Magical elves?

    @DOA said:

    You think an ISP is comparable to a tv station?

    If it's streaming content, then I'd say those two things are comparable. That's not to say the UK should force filters on people, just to say that the two are comparable. Here in the US, we've had porn on actual TV stations for decades. (Cable, not broadcast. But still TV stations.)



  • @blakeyrat said:

    What kind of crazy-ass imaginary fairy-land world do you live in? Of course ISPs host content. Where do you think content is hosted? Magical elves?

    On SERVERS? Which are typically not owned by ISP's... ISP's provide the CONNECTION that lets people access the servers, but not the servers themselves!



  • @ekolis said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    What kind of crazy-ass imaginary fairy-land world do you live in? Of course ISPs host content. Where do you think content is hosted? Magical elves?

    On SERVERS? Which are typically not owned by ISP's... ISP's provide the CONNECTION that lets people access the servers, but not the servers themselves!

    Sure they do. Tons of them. Not 100% of companies host content on ISPs, yes, and not 100% of ISPs run servers which people can rent to host content with. But a large proportion do.



  • @DOA said:

    Great, now I'm wasting my time raging at a 2yr old thread and I can't stop. I hope you're happy with yourself.

    My work is complete.

    @DOA said:

    You worked for an ISP for 10 years and you think they host content?

    UK is a different kettle of fish when it comes to interwebz - hell, we're quite backwards in some cases.

    Many dialup ISPs used to also be hosting providers in some measure - BT, AOL, Demon, Virgin all gave personal web space with a dialup account so many people in UK incorrectly conflate "ISP" with "Hoster". Also, it doesn't help that companies like BT et al have a hosting business in addition to Internet connectivity, so the line is further blurred.

    The advent of hosting-only companies is a fairly new thing in UK (which probably explains why most of my sites are hosted off servers leased outside of our green and pleasant lands)

    Footnote: many people talking about working years for an ISP actually worked a helldesk and have no idea of the internal infrastructure - but that doesn't stop them from passing themselves off as informed network experts. I've had an argument about Apache vhosting with an AOLer that was plainly wrong but because he worked for the biggest USA ISP he must be right.



  • @PJH said:

    [...]Louis Theroux[...]
    Seems I got a few bits of that wrong.


    “I have kids. The elder boy is six and he’s always clicking on things.
    Got the age wrong.
    I’m sure I could work the filter, but there always seems to be something more important I need to do.

    “With the default at ‘off’, that would be simpler.”
    That bit was right. He has more important things to be doing than being a parent. His son needs to be put up for adoption.
    Theroux, a journalist and presenter, worked on his Weird Weekend series when he was just 27, interviewing pornography stars and sex workers to find out more about the industry.

    Allowing himself to be photographed naked by a casting agent in 1997, he now says: “I was puckish and playful, a bit silly back then. And sometimes I didn’t seriously examine what I thought about things.”
    Not a director, but involved with porn. Finding naked pictures of Louis is left as an exercise for the reader.


  • @PJH said:

    Finding naked pictures of Louis is left as an exercise for the reader.

    (No | fuck right off | die in a fire)+

    I had respect for him when he slowly wound up a male porn star in his disarmingly naive way and never got cockpunched. However I caught him in another programme where he was an apologist for a scamming thug, making out that the toerag had been "forced" into a life of crime because others around him were more affluent and he felt he had to rise to the challenge.

    I suspect somewhere he was being satirical but it came across as being so sycophantic he practically lapped his interviewee's sphincter into a vacuum.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.