Talk:Wifey's World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:

Contents

[edit] Edit War

I've been watching this, and that's it. No more. Normally the procedure is to protect on the 'wrong version', i.e. whatever version it was at when we got fed up, but in this case, due to the living persons policy, I'm protecting on the version with the least personal info. Go to dispute resolution or talk here, but I'm tired of seeing you people mindlessly revert. --Golbez 20:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

From VVVZ ~ December 27, 2006 First, Thank you Golbez for "locking" this version. I was one of those responsible for the regular editing of this Wikipedia entry because of the very personal information constantly reposted over and over. And I do hope that the Wikipedia management consider either permanently locking this entry - or permanently removing it for the privacy and personal safety issues it compromised. Thanks again Golbez, VVVZ 19:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)VVVZ

Is there a way to delete the history? If security and privacy are a concern, then the history should be wiped out. I was able to go back and find previous versions of the article that had links to a news story with their real names in it. 3D jonny 13:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should the names go in the article or not?

Looking online, I was able to find the couple's real names on the second page of Google hits for "Wifey's World". As the owners/performers of a popular pornographic website, these are public personalities. And their names have already appeared in their local paper, online and otherwise. Is there a real reason for not including the names here? The trouble with their neighbors may not be relevant to this website, but the names of the stars would seem to me to relevant. Brianyoumans 00:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I think I have somewhat changed my mind after reading WP:BLP and thinking about this issue. I propose a compromise: leave the names out, but leave the other facts in, and the newspaper reference - but without a web link. If people want to look it up and find the names, that's fine, but we won't be providing them. Would that work for everyone? Brianyoumans 04:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems most appropriate to me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have myself read WP:BLP and don't see anything in it justifying not including the names. I don't have any special interest in this article but I'm tired of seeing biographical articles on wikipedia sanitized to the point of uselessness because things in them offend the subjects, never mind that they are publicly known and true facts. There are good reasons for including the names (comprehensiveness etc.) and no good reasons not to
    • Like I said, I changed my mind on this, after reading specifically the "non-public figures" and "presumption of privacy" sections. I also think that this article is about the website, not about its owners; we can write a good article about the site without including the owners' names. Since the owners are obviously of the opinion that they are NOT public figures and prefer to keep their names off of the web (as much as possible), I think we should do so. On the other hand, if they themselves become notable - say, they are involved in a notable free speech/porno court case - and we need an article on the owners themselves, at that point I would say name them. At the moment, they are simply notable for their connection with the site. Brianyoumans 20:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Very well, they shall remain nameless. Since their photos are displayed so prominently on the website and are relevant to an article on the website, would including one of those photos (non-pornographic of course) be a violation of privacy? Or should we just ask the website owners what they consider appropriate to include?
      • I agree that a tasteful shot of the stars would be appropriate, if something could be found that would clearly fall under fair use. Also perhaps a screen shot of their front page. Brianyoumans 19:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Asia Carrera is a non-public figure, yet her real name is listed? Sorry...saw a dead horse and felt like beating it :) Sabalon 17:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Dead horse yes, and if anything you should be beaten for bringing it up. <g> But you do have a valid point as there's no source provided for the name given for Asia, so it'll pulled for now. Tabercil 17:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

————— The names should be added on Wiki...what is the worse thing that can happen to these sick people? They are the ones who wanted to be perverts on the internet. How much money are these people making by the way. Why are we trying to even stand up for these people? Anyone who wants to stand up for these people are going to Hell with them... These people do not need protection. One day when they both die, they will see how protection they get from Satan.

69.239.205.49 (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is not based upon Christian principles (although it's not based upon anti-Christian ones either). Everything you said is entirely irrelevant. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement needed

Once we get beyond the silly matter of whether or not to include the names of the site's stars/owners, someone should write a section actually about the site - what sort of content does it have? Has it changed over the years? I think more could be said here than the article says at present. I'm not terribly interested in doing the work myself, but others have more interest in this sort of thing, obviously. Brianyoumans 00:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • If you look at the history of the article you'll see that that has been done in the past and if its done again it would probably be edited out for "privacy reasons".

[edit] Article ruckus

Folks, let's face facts. The article appeared in the Arizona Republic which is the state's largest newspaper. By definition, that makes it a notable and presumably reliable source. At the very least we should acknowledge that the news event mentioned in it did occur. What we do not need to do at this point is to mention their real names - that I would argue does need to appear in the article. What I've tried to do is to fashion a citation which will be a suitable compromise - it clearly points to the newspaper, but it does not refer to any online copy. Tabercil 22:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree that this is the right move, this is basically what I had suggested. One of the last changes taking out the names had a summary that said they were taking out the names because of concerns about stalkers; I can't see that that is a reasonable justification. If someone is malicious enough to want to harass or injure, they are going to be able to find that Arizona Republic article online with the names in it; it was in the second page of Google results for "Wifey's World" when I ran a search. Brianyoumans 22:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If it is online why is it not linked to? Mathmo Talk 21:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Because User:VVVZ rightfully raised a ruckus about the fact that their real names were mentioned in the article, citing privacy. In this instance, I removed the direct link per WP:BLP; see Wp:blp#Privacy_of_names. Tabercil 23:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
          • There is a huge difference between mentioning a person's name on wikipedia and linking to an article which happens to mention it. I skimmed over the section you referred me to, still see nothing in there that is relevant to this external link. Mathmo Talk 08:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • lol, just checked out User:VVVZ. Is a blatantly obvious single issue editor. I'd say there could be conflict of interest behind why they kicked up such a huge fuss. Mathmo Talk 08:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
      • He might be an SPA, but that doesn't mean he's not right in this case. The only two mainstream mentions of Wifey's World have been (to my knowledge) Wired and the Arizona Republic. As such, they're very minor celebrities right now. If/when that status changes, then mayhaps adding their names might be warranted. Tabercil 14:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, someone is sure working hard to keep their names off of this page. I'm not sure why when almost every other page like this one clearly states the stars names when they are public knowledge. I don't think that I've ever seen one individual so hell-bent on keeping public information off of Wikipedia. User —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brythonic (talk • contribs) 19:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted and stubbed due to BLP concerns

It was brought to my intention that there were serious BLP concerns regarding the revelation of this couple's real names. I originally tried to delete and selectively restore revisions without the information, but it was far too ingrained in the page's edit history to do so without violating the requirements of the GFDL; the article will have to be rewritten from scratch. For now, I have created a stub, and protected the article indefinitely until this dispute is resolved. Proposed edits to the article can be made on this talk page with the {{editprotected}} template. However, proposed additions must strictly adhere to our biographies of living persons policy; this couple has explicitly stated their desire for their names to remain private, and per BLP we must honor this. --Krimpet 21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Uh-huh. This stubbing surprises me not in the least. Thank you. Tabercil 22:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. Here's what I proposed to add to the article. Note that I have posted this so all the assorted refs clearly show what they refer to:

The couple are high school sweethearts who were born born circa 1965<ref>The ''Wired'' article came out in 1998; "Hubby" was then-33 years old and "Wifey" was 32.</ref> and married circa 1986.<ref>''Wired'' mentions they had been married 12 years.</ref>
The business started when "Hubby" posted some polaroids of "Wifey" on the [[Usenet]] newsgroups in 1997<ref name=wired/> with her eyes hidden.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wifeysworld.com/faq_ww.php?page=03|title=Wifey F.A.Q. page 3|accessdate=2007-08-07|publisher=Wifey's World}}</ref> Surprised by the favorable response, the couple continued to post steadily more explict images. By fall of 1997, they were doing "brisk" mail-order business of their home videos. In the fall of 1998, they launched the website.<ref name=wired/>

Comments? Tabercil 22:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Don't forget, this "Article is a pornography stub, help by expanding it"

A main sub-section of the Wikipedia entry for Pornography is Objections. Further to this, it has a section on the effects of pornography on society.

Since the website's effects on society and objections to it are being directly described in the article published in The Arizona Republic (which we should not forget is a very largely read newspaper), the article definitely warrants an inclusion.

The article provides two distinct views from both a social and legal standing, notably:

"As a parent and homeowner in the area, I am concerned that this business would be established or moved to our area"
"In order to protect your neighborhood and your children it is imperative that you take action now, warns the glossy mailer from the Northeast Valley Coalition Against Pornography"
"It is not illegal to operate a Web-based adult business from a home"
"(A) manager of Citizen and Neighborhood Resources, said there was nothing Scottsdale could do"

The article is important in both the history and context of Pornography, specifically the rise of internet based pornography, it's effects on society and public feeling towards the matter.

Granted, as per the discussion regarding the BLP, the proprietors names could be omitted from the Wikipedia entry - but not referencing and linking to The Arizona Republic article would be grossly negligent in relation to documenting the (hugely successful) website and it's place within the ongoing debate regarding pornography and it's effects on society.

Your current proposal for the article just reads like an advertisement for the website, something a Wikipedia entry should definitely never be - it only references a very old Wired article (which is not current thinking on the matter and too reads like an advert) and simply the website's own FAQ. This is not a high standard of editorial whatsoever and does not portray the current, up-to-date views and facts in relation to the website, which have been independently published in The Arizona Republic.

Furthermore, the entry on Wikipedia could make reference to the fact that the website's proprietors do not want to be publicly named. This could reference the fact they have expressed this themselves (as discussed here) and that this is partly due to unwanted attention from members of the public. This could be cross-referenced again to the effects that pornography has on society, specifically the effect that it has on some specific users of it and their apparent willingness to seek out the persons involved in it's production.

This case also portrays the fact that not all publishers of pornography wish their identity to be made public or wish to be within the public eye, or indeed have a certain degree of accountability within the public domain for what they publish. This generally goes against the grain of general public perception on the matter (due to a lot of pornography publishers and 'stars' embracing their high profile) and hence is definitely of importance and note. Hutglib 04:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

  • But there's a major problem with the Republic article: linking to it pratically begs a repeat of the BLP violations which were just cleared out. So if the Republic cannot be used, then the only reliable source I have for the article is the Wired article and the Wifey's World FAQ. Now if you're willing to write additional text and post it here, then I can review it for said BLP concerns and then add it to the article. Tabercil 23:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This article has been deleted and then restored due to claimed BLP concerns. Yet the main point of BLP is to be extra careful that you do not put in information that is false, and stressing the importance of sourcing (in a sense the re-emphasizing of the core wikipedia policies). So what is the problem that we are having here? There is none, their names have been reliably sourced to a publication in the media (The Arizona Republic). Mathmo Talk 03:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    From the third paragraph of WP:BLP: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP)s must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." This couple has specifically expressed their desire to keep their names private, and we need to respect their concerns. --Krimpet 04:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, they have clearly gone to some lengths to keep their identities secret, although without complete success. With regards to the AZ Republic article: my compromise was to use facts from the article, reference it, but not link to it; if someone wants to go look it up, fine, but we won't make it trivial to find the article from the Wifey's World entry. I see nothing wrong with simply saying, "AZ Republic, 5 Jan 1999, p. 23" (not the real info, btw). I don't see the identities as vital to this article. Brianyoumans 07:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think she and her husbands name should be made public by wikipedia. She is the one who puts herself out there on the internet and makes money off of people desperate for action, the least she can do is disclose her name and the least we as wikipedians can do is make that information public! Oh baby that feels so good im about to bust! 03:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Protection

I'm very surprised to notice the page is STILL fully protected... Mathmo Talk 07:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Not anymore. Semi-protected.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I dropped the protection down a nothc as I believe the issues the article had about the real names of the subjects being inserted have gone away... but if they reoccur, then I'll reup the protection. Tabercil (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "notable pornographic website"

This article says that it is a notable website, but fails to explain why it is notable. Could someone with more knowledge fix this?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oral sex mention

it should be talked about in this article about the fact that this web site is mainly about ORAL SEX and cum swallowing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.51.242 (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is that important? - furrykef (Talk at me) 16:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If you can find reviews of the site or other sources that mention this, put it in the article. Brianyoumans (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)