Editing Talk:ChildWiki

I dunno about the whole [https://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=ChildWiki&diff=173591&oldid=173585 "graphic" and "sexualized settings"] thing. As {{Wp|Dost test#Criticism|someone pointed out}}, "As everything becomes child pornography in the eyes of the law—clothed children, coy children, children in settings where children are found—perhaps children themselves become pornographic". [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 23:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
:Is that edit by {{U|Koavf}} true and honest?  If it is, then it could be considered as reasonable {{Cambridge-Dictionary|commentary}}.  I, being a Brit, personally can't comment on the {{Cambridge-Dictionary|legalize|legalise}} issues of the wiki, nor the comments by Koavf - so I'm not the best person to give a worthwhile opinion.  All I can say, is that based on the general content of the wiki, you are bound to attract critical opinion.  [[User:Hoof Hearted|Sean, aka <small>Hoof Hearted</small>]] • <sub>[[:Category:Active administrators of this wiki|Admin]] / [[WikiIndex:Bureaucrats|'Crat]]</sub> • <small>[[User talk:Hoof Hearted|talk2HH]]</small> 23:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
::Objectively accurate descriptions are to be encouraged, but what a person considers "{{Cambridge-Dictionary|graphic}}" and "{{Cambridge-Dictionary|sexualized}}" is pretty {{Cambridge-Dictionary|subjective}}. If there's a kid wearing a speedo at the beach, or lying on a bed in typical nightclothes, or sucking on a carrot, or participating in a {{Cambridge-Dictionary|nudist}} {{Cambridge-Dictionary|pageant}}, is that graphic or sexualized? It's a matter of {{Cambridge-Dictionary|interpretation}}. See also the {{Wp|Dost test}} and ''[http://www.leagle.com/decision/19921792977F2d815_11679 United States v. Knox]'', the latter of which established that nudity isn't the only criterion in deciding these matters (at least from a legal standpoint).

::Various sites<!--might as well quote a few examples, so we're not just arguing about abstract stuff: nicechild, jailbaitgallery, imgsrc, magazine-fashion, etc.--> have pics that would be considered non-sexual on, say, the parent's Facebook profile, but are considered {{Cambridge-Dictionary|sexual}} when placed on other sites because of the {{Cambridge-Dictionary|context}} — e.g. a bunch of comments by people saying what they'd like to do with that child. But what they're describing and what the pics actually show are not one and the same.

::If someone adds to the article, "ChildWiki links to material that, in the opinion of x, is graphic in nature and depicts children in sexualized settings" that is a {{Cambridge-Dictionary|factual}} statement if x actually said that. But at least in that case, we are clear that it is just someone's {{Cambridge-Dictionary|opinion}}. It is not as though these are pics of kids surrounded by a bunch of obviously sexual implements such as fuzzy handcuffs and dildos; then I think you could objectively say that they're sexualized settings. Nor are these pics of kids doing anything sexually explicit like touching themselves or anyone else sexually. Then I think you could objectively say that they're graphic.

::If they were, then the pics wouldn't be "{{Cambridge-Dictionary|coy}}" (i.e. making a pretense of shyness or {{Cambridge-Dictionary|modesty}} that is intended to be alluring). Of course, coyness usually means there's some element of {{Cambridge-Dictionary|ambiguity}} that creates plausible deniability. So again, it's subject to interpretation. It seems to frequently happen in life that a person's behavior [http://www.ask.com/answers/456275281/why-do-most-guys-think-girls-are-flirting-with-them-when-they-are-just-talking misinterpreted] as flirtatious, or someone [http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sexually-oblivious-rhino failed to pick up on] behavior that was intended as flirtatious.

::Now, if someone wants to say, ChildWiki has a lot of pics of kids acting in ways that could be construed coy, as well as content pertaining to sex with children, well, that can't be denied. But then, what isn't coy? Even a smile can seem coy, if someone wants to read that into it. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 23:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

==Founding date==
One can't [https://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=ChildWiki&diff=0&oldid=174670 infer] the founding date of ChildWiki by going to the main page and looking at the earliest edit, since some edits were imported from [[BoyWiki]] and [[NewgonWiki]]. The correct founding date is 6 November 2013, as noted at http://childwiki.net/wiki/ChildWiki . See http://childwiki.net/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=1 (A wiki's revision 1 is pretty much the smoking gun when it comes to trying to figure out the founding date.) [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 12:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

==[[Edit war]]==
If people have concerns about the page, it would be appropriate to discuss, in accordance with the [[BRD cycle]]. Otherwise, I'm going to wait a week and then revert you again, because you haven't made any arguments in support of your changes. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 00:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

==Recentism==
With respect to [https://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=ChildWiki&curid=42170&diff=176129&oldid=175939 this edit], please explain why "recentism" is bad. On Wikipedia, recentism is simply noted with a "current events" tag to inform people that events are rapidly unfolding. Recent events are often what people are most interested in; it's why people buy the newest edition of a newspaper, and subscribe to dailies rather than weeklies. I recommend [[revert]]ing, but since this is one of the most controversial articles on the wiki lately, I figured we should discuss first. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 11:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

[[Category:Orphaned talk page]]