Jump to content

Talk:List of shock sites/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Verifiability

Does a high number of relevant hits on Google count as verifiability?

I get the following results:

  • Goatse - 862,000
  • Tubgirl - 182,000
  • "Last Measure" - 182,000
  • Klerck - 113,000
  • Lemonparty - 80,100
  • Meatspin - 40,100
  • Honkee - 26,600
  • Hai2u - 15,600
  • Cherrycake - 3,370
  • Teletorrents - 2,350
  • Bottleguy - 1,470
  • Penisbird - 1,400
  • l33thaxor - 903
  • Highballer - 877
  • Ratemygoatse - 838
  • Tubboy - 836
  • Workse - 524
  • Desertofthereal - 367
  • Mongface - 200
  • Bagslap - 160
  • Biggernigger - 138
  • Pimpmygoogle - 104
  • "Lime Rave" - 79
  • Supermodelsfart - 60
  • Cheapabortions - 34
  • Regentxxylol - 11
  • 1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick - ??

I am aware that quite a few of these are misleading, but this does lend weight to some of the more popular sites' verifiability. (And proves that Meatspin should be in the "Major Shock Sites" section)Foolish Child 12:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I made the argument on Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Game (game) that a Google search could be used directly as a primary source in certain cases; I'd say it was pretty soundly rejected by the opposite side. Regardless of whether it should count or not, I believe that a high hit number misses what we want for two reasons: (1) it measures only the present, whereas if something was more popular in the past it would be good to acknowledge it, and (2) it shows popularity but not that the site in question is a "shock site", that is, it's being used specifically to make people view disturbing things when they don't want to. Mangojuice 12:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I realise it's a pretty shaky source, but for now surely it's better than nothing? And I wasn't claiming that it verified they were shock sites, that's a lot harder to verify (unless forum posts count as evidence ;)), just that it proved their notability. Foolish Child 12:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It's debatable what level of hits shows notability. I think it's a no-brainer that Honkee and the more popular ones must be notable, and also that the notability of Desertofthereal and the less popular ones are brought into serious question by your search. The ones in the middle, I'm not sure. For something like this, I would expect very large google search results; if these things are meme-like, they should be all over the internet. As for citing a google search, that's another matter. I'd say the only thing the community could agree you can cite a google search for is a statement like "Searching for 'Goatse' on Google returns over 800,000 results." Mangojuice 13:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I suppose. But as for the sites that return few results, they tend to be two or more words run together, which are obviously going to return far fewer results than a single word. Add to that the fact that most of the sites are propagated mainly by forums, IMs and e-mail, and I can uderstand why there would be a low number of results on Google. But now I'm just undermining myself, so I'll stop. Foolish Child 15:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind that Klerck was also a person so many of those results could be about him, not necessarily his website. 162.84.207.126 17:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

ADVERTISING????

For my own curiosity... who thinks this article does not conform to NPOV because it is advertising something??? I would just love to know #1 what people think it is advertising and #2 who is smoking what. These sites do not advertise anything or make money by selling products. The reason they are significant is because they are used in trolling. The notion that they are ADVERTISING like coca-cola would advertise "vanilla coke" is the most outrageous flamebait ever. - Abscissa 22:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This article clearly needs to be cleaned up. But I agree, "advertising" may not be the right criticism. I suggested {{cleanup-sources}} which was repeatedly and endlessly reverted by Skinmeister, which got very frustrating, so I stopped bothering. Perhaps it's time to change it back to that? Or just a generic cleanup message? Mangojuice 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, cleaned up, I can support. I am going to also stop short of saying that I fully support everything Skinmeister has been doing -- I've just been going through the histories and it looks like some pretty nasty stuff has been going on. On that note -- I suppose we should really wait until the vote goes through. In the mean time I would strongly encourage everyone to visit the nominator's userpage to learn more about him. - Abscissa 03:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I put the cleanup tag on the article. I also reported Skinmeister for his blatant 3RR violation in removing the advert tag four times. However, I get the feeling he'll remove the ordinary cleanup tag anyway. He's lost all his credibility with me, though, after calling my adding the "cleanup-sources" tag vandalism, and refusing to discuss it after being asked repeatedly. Mangojuice 03:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I can understand why Skinmeister would be upset. If I were an administrator, I would have placed a warning on Mr. Devonshire's talk page about nominating the article so quickly after the last vote. I can also understand why he was probably suspicious of the motives of some users. The people asking that the article be cleaned up are the same people who voted to delete the article on the voting page. So, it's clear the more entries are taken out of the page for them, the better. Thus, I don't think Skinmeister deserves to be criticized so much. He has already been banned for the incident, and being banned is a humiliating experience.--Primetime 03:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
His refusal to discuss edits is a problem. I didn't vote on the AfD until this most recent time, and I voted delete precisely because the article was in such a shabby state of verifiability, which I had been trying to alert the editors of this page to, only to have my opinions summarily dismissed by Skinmeister. He's been blocked now for the 3RR, as has Conrad. I don't want to "kick him while he's down," but I sincerely doubt that being blocked will make him realize he doesn't own this article. If he gets involved with the discussion, I'll consider him a good-faith contributor. Mangojuice 14:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, that does not give him the right to act like a king and undo other users' edits and label them as vandalism without discussion just because he disagrees with them. As for my view on this article being an advertisement, I feel that that is the case because most of the sites listed here have virtually no notability and the article is therefore giving them unwarrented publicity. - Conrad Devonshire 04:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest you aquaint yourself with Internet troll. The sites in question do not need and are not looking for publicity -- that is not why they exist. - Abscissa 05:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm with Abscissa here, your complaint is more of a notability complaint. Advertisements would do something else: portray their subject in a rosy light. Mangojuice 14:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Meatspin

why exactly isn't meatspin one of the "major" shock sites? It's easily more famous (at least where I live) than about half of the major shock sites listed. 24.250.119.145

  • I think all of these shock sites have their places. The people I know are aware of very little about most of these shock sites. I would have to say that I could bottleguy more people than I could goatse. It was only a few days ago that I myself heard of bottleguy and some other shock sites, while I had known of (and had sadly seen) goatse. I must admit that I had seen meatspin prior to that a few months, but it isn't all that shocking. Whatever kind of intercourse is going on in that gif isn't as bad as the mechanics of things like goatse and bottleguy.Killerrobotdude 06:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I second the motion to list Meatspin under major. It's easily more noteable than Fuck.org, Mongface, Supermodelsfart and Cherry Cake. And it's the only one of this list that's commercialised. Foolish Child 16:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I third this motion. Meatspin is now the fourth major shock site

-SWF

Goatse

Shouldn't Goatse be listed as a former shock site? The original domain is offline, and nobody is sure if there are any other "official" mirrors, so does this not mean it should be classed as offline? I'll add the external link from the article in the mean time. Foolish Child 16:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No. I may not be "official" but it still exists. Many remmeber Goatse, Goatse T-shirts are still getting sold, the goatse look-aliks websits sam/zoy/fun/org or whatever it is is still getting replies. Goatse is alive and well, even if it is old -SWF

Cleaning out cruft

Actually, I don't like the organization at all. We should not be listing shock sites that aren't major, and we should list them all regardless of whether they're current or no longer online. I would like to remove all but the following from the list: Goatse, tubgirl, Last measure, Klerck, Lemonparty, Meatspin, Honkee, Hai2u, Cherrycake, Teletorrents, Bottleguy, and Penisbird. The google search numbers Foolish Child put up earlier show that the ones I want to keep had at least 1000 ghits, leaving the others in question as to whether they've attained any serious status as a shock site. I'm not going to be WP:BOLD, though, as I'm sure this is controversial, but I think we clearly need to clean the cruft out of this page, and I think my criteria is a decent place to start, at least. Mangojuice 04:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The cruft has been cleansed. Anything added to this page must (like all information added to wikipedia) satisfy WP:V.
brenneman{L} 05:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
To be more specific, I've moved the page to List of shock sites/Uncited as a holding pen until we decide what goes onto this page. There's also a thread I've started at wp:ani regarding this. - brenneman{L} 06:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page until the edit war cools down. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me father for I've edit warred. I'll do thirty Hail Jimbo-s. Anyway, I'm done, so don't protect on my account. - brenneman{L} 06:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Why did you leave most of the links out? A link to a site is enough reference. Now users coming to vote think this page is really this short and vote without knowing how the article really looks like. Lapinmies 07:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The page is really short and this is how it "really looks." Have a look at the policy about bias, and in particular the section on "undue weight." In the absence of any sources saying site Q is a notable shock site, we're (potentially) giving a biased account. I personally don't find a gay geriatric threesome shocking, with or without scrotums. (Scroti?) This page was simply a list of sites whose inclusion was based entirely on the opinion of the editor(s) who inserted them. That's in violation of several of our most important policies. Review the five pillars and re-examine this list. - brenneman{L} 07:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
You are going against consensus by blanking, the afd's prove that. I just dont understand why an admin is picking sides by protecting a butchered version. Lapinmies 07:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The simple fact is that we don't "vote" on verification. I'm sorry that that idea isn't conveyed more clearly and more often, but it (as supporting neutral point of view) is the rock upon which all of wikipedia rests. Consensus on a tiny forum like AfD can say "yes, we want this article" it cannot say "yes, we'll let citations from reliable sources slide."
brenneman{L} 07:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Blanking 90% of an article is pretty much the same as deleting the article. That's gaming the system using a policy, which is against the Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point policy. Things which are obviously true (like the sky being blue, for example) do not need citations, anyway. If you want to change the statement about them being notable, that's one thing. But, you're just removing them.--Primetime 07:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
It does not matter if you find the sites shocking or not. What matters is that the sites are meant to shock the public and used for trolling, links are enough to verify that. If I did not follow good faith, I might even think that you are trying to deceive the people voting in the AFD by supporting this censored version of the article. Lapinmies 07:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to fully endorse the previous comment by Lapinmies, I share the same sentiment. As for A Man in Black's criticism that the sites are not noteworthy, again I encourage you to look in to the history of trolling and Slashdot trolling. This list is a "who's who" of trolling sites and is very important. - Abscissa 16:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that these pages exist is not the fact that needs to be verified. Wikipedia is not a listing of every web page that exists. What needs to be verified is the fact that these sites are somehow noteworthy, and have been widely discussed, and this needs to be done on a site-by-site basis. Brenneman was right to delete most of these links, because no effort had been made to verify that they were indeed noteworthy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the "penis bird" should be brought back; it's better sourced than most of the others. Rotten.com published a letter from slashdot describing its use as a shock site, and Rotten.com is not just some blog or personal website, and has a credible history of publishing communication they've received from people over their content. Mangojuice 16:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work on removing the unverifible sources, Brenemen. The fact that users have commented that doing so is an "underhanded" way of deleting the article is actually support of the article's deletion. - Conrad Devonshire 22:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the following source establishes that Goatse.cx is a shock site; as a Snopes.com article it's definitely a reliable source: www.snopes.com/photos/natural/godhands.asp. When the page is unprotected, this should be added as a reference for the Goatse entry. Mangojuice 03:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel it's appropriate to protect a page currently undergoing an AfD that has been significantly altered from the originally nominated version, as people's votes for keep or delete could be affected by this. I would request a temporary reversion back to the previous version of the article, at least until the AfD is closed. VegaDark 07:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Errr... if I weren't already involved I'd have said "no" to a request like this. I wouldn't unprotect because there's indications that back and forth reversions would continue. I wouldn't edit protect because the history is there to examine, it's straightforward to place a note in the deletion discussion that the article has been substantially changed, and finally but probably most importantly a page must always be protected in the wrong versionTM. To ask to choose which version is protected fundamentally misunderstands what page protection is about.
brenneman{L} 08:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Redactions in blue. VegaDark is right, what I meant wasn't clear. - brenneman{L} 08:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
This request wasn't made because of a disagreement over what the right/wrong version may be, it seems common sense that if you are going to have a page that is under AfD protected, it should be protected as the same version (or at least a similar version) that went up for deletion. I've made note on the AfD of this but I can't guarantee everyone will see the note. On previous AfD notices we say that "A previous version of this article went up for deletion" if that is in fact the case, and If we make note of that on those notices I think that implies it weighs significantly on the AfD process. The current version is a significantly different version than that of what was nominated for AfD and I don't feel that those visiting the AfD since the protection are getting an accurate representation of the page they are voting on without sifting though a huge amount of comments that they are likely to not bother reading. Also, I didn't request unprotection, I am fine with the page being kept protected after the revert, therefore eliminating your concern of further back and forth reversions. VegaDark 08:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the request as the AfD has been closed. If I had known it would close so soon I probably wouldn't have bothered. VegaDark 17:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I've requested that the page be unprotected at WP:RFP. Mangojuice 17:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

come on now

these sites are just nasty there is no point in keeping them up if you really wanted to visit them you could find them else were

Cleaned out

I have cleaned out a large number of sites with extremely low numbers of Google hits. All the ones I removed had under 1000 hits, except for one that did not even sound like a shock site, just an annoying site to visit. I put in the refs that we have. I was astonished how crappy some of the work on this article has been; I plead with any other editors of this page, don't take this as hostile, try to improve the article. As examples: (1) Supermodelsfart gets only 60 Ghits, but was listed as a "major site". (2) Klerck.org had one of the highest, but was listed under "former shock sites" while Goatse (also, technically, a former site) was still in the major sites section. (3) Minor spinoff websites like ratemygoatse and tubboy are not notable; rather, they give some credibility to the idea that the one they're based off of is notable. Mangojuice 20:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

For reference, the "you are an idiot" site is the one that I don't think is a shock site; probably used for trolling, but a different kind. Mangojuice 20:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi Mangojuice. I personally don't like the single list format. When I first visited the article, I wanted to see the most shocking site and just ignore the rest, so it's helpful to have the most infamous at the top. Also, when you removed some of the items, you didn't say which ones and how many, and I didn't want to look through the now-combined list to try to find them. I wanted to look at the ones you removed, and I was thinking I probably wouldn't want them removed anyway unless they weren't genuinely shocking.--Primetime 22:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

protection

Could an admin protect this site against deletion attempts? The fact that it is constantly nominated is a problem.

And I agree about "you are an idiot." 24.250.119.145

Reversion

Just to let everyone know, I have reverted the article to the last version by Aaron Brennemen. And addressing any users who might accuse me of censorship, I am simply asserting my right as a Wikipedian as is stated per WP:V. If simply removing unsoursed text from an article is the same as "underhandedly" deleting it, then that is proof that the article merited deletion in the first place - Conrad Devonshire 00:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ohhh... maybe something in-between? So we don't just flip back-and-forth? - brenneman{L} 00:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
What do you propose? Also, I noticed much of the material being removed actually has citations.--Primetime 01:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I looked at your version of the article and you are right that some references have been added. - Conrad Devonshire 01:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh just stop. This is getting old. If the article merited deletion, then surely one of the four attempts to delete it would have succeeded. Avertist 01:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
What is "getting old" is illogical arguments such as that. One could use the same argument to claim that because all assassination plots against Adolf Hitler failed, he did not rightfully deserve to be ousted. - Conrad Devonshire 01:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Not quite. I don't ever recall a referendum for Hitler's removal being given to the German people. ;) Avertist 01:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I admit that was a poor, inflammatory comparison which I should not have made. A better example would be claiming that because the Southern American States voted leave the Union (partially out of support for slavery), that what they did was acceptable. What I am trying to point out is that it is ridiculous to judge the validity of something just based on what others have said about it without examining the facts. In order to determine the validity of something, the facts about the thing itself, not what others have said about it, should be examined- Conrad Devonshire 16:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Re-protected

I've re-protected. I'm going to spread some love here by pointing to WP:DEATHRAYS and a nicely non-specific section on "disruption." Three reverts isn't a right, and if anyone does a full revert once I've unprotected I'll use that clause. How does everyone feel about that?
brenneman{L} 01:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You accidentally protected the wrong version. I would suggest restoring your cleaned-up version, then re-protecting it. - Conrad Devonshire 01:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
brenneman was right to come along and protect the page if there was an edit war, without paying attention to the current version of the page. You can't just protect whatever version you prefer, Conrad. In any event, this whole thing has become entirely rediculous and is like some 3 vs. 3 battle for control of the article. It does not look like it is going to be settled calmly any time in the near future. May I humbly make the suggestion that the article get protection from anonymous edits, and the users who were involved in the edit war spend some time working on other articles? There is a lot more to worry about on Wikipedia than this article. - Abscissa 01:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
☆Aaron, you did the right thing.--Primetime 01:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I've realised I was a bit oblique, so now that I know we're all here I'll restate: I'm going to unprotect and anyone who does a full revert will find themselves blocked per policy. Can I have any "Aye" to indicate understanding? - brenneman{L} 01:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
If I say, "Nay", can you just leave it protected indefinately? kthx!! .... I'm done with this article, I only believe that I ever made one edit to it... now everything in my user history is about jews and shock sites... :-) - Abscissa 01:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Aye - ;) excellent decision. Avertist 01:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Aye, I definitely want to see editing move forward, and that can only happen with discussion. Mangojuice 02:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

On your own heads be it...

  • I've un-protected. Everyone be on your best behavior, and have some tolerance for the wrong versionTM being on the page. MJ has made a good start below.
  • I'd also ask for indulgance to continue editing this page following unprotection despite having exercised adminstrative rights on it. Even one objection will be enough to stop me from doing that, so don't be shy.
  • Since I can't have my cake and eat it to, if it's decided that I'm trusted to edit, I'll change "don't revert or I'll block you for disruption" to "don't revert or I'll place a note on ANI and I 99.36% guarantee you'll be blocked for disruption."

brenneman{L} 06:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Site by site discussion

In order to try to get the contents of this page under discussion, I propose to start a discussion of the sites one by one. I think there's no real need to discuss Goatse, Lemonparty, Tubgirl, or Last Measure: those are obviously good examples. I also think there following are obvious candidates for removal, due to their low number of google hits: Regentxxylol, Cheapabortions, Supermodelsfart, Lime Rave, Pimpmygoogle, Biggernigger, Bagslap, Mongface, Desertofthereal (see Talk:List of shock sites#Verifiability for the numbers, these are all under 500). The following weren't included above, but have very small numbers of google hits: Jiztini (49), Fist.tk (371), ShrewsburyCollege (39). If I'm making a mistake on one of these, I think we should see some sources; I'd expect a lot of google hits for something that's really a shock site.

Other entries worth keeping (but perhaps we should discuss)

  • Hai2u. See Wikipedia:Deletion review#HAI2U for a source describing this as a shock site; not a reliable source. Google hits probably inflated.
  • Bottleguy.com; seems to have some significant exposure; Google image search brings it up 3rd; google hits probably not inflated.
  • Penis bird; page on Rotten.com is evidence of it being used as a shock site.
  • Meatspin; an awful lot of hits on Google; they can't be that inflated.
  • Teletorrents.org; see www.teletorrents.org/banners.php this for evidence from the site that they want it used for trolling.

Other entries probably not worth keeping:

  • Klerck.org. Lots of google hits, but Klerck is a well-known troll. I didn't find much evidence that klerck.org was much of an example of a shock site.
  • Cherrycake; google hits probably inflated; minimal evidence found.
  • Highballer; virtually all google hits don't refer to the pic; could not find evidence.
  • Ratemygoatse; not a shock site, this is a rate me site / variant of the Goatse thing.
  • Tubboy; not worth mentioning on its own, perhaps mention under tubgirl, as a variant.
  • Workse; could not find any references to this anymore.
  • Stretch; just a variant of Goatse, probably not worth mentioning, there are loads of them.
  • Skinny; I found the site searching for "Skinny +phreak" but found no references to it in the 1st three pages.
  • Faggotry; loads of google hits, but they refer to the common term, mostly. Faggotry.com is the 4th result returned; I would expect higher if this were much of a phenomenon.
  • Porkhole.net; a search for "Porkhole" returns 416 hits, but this site isn't even on the first two pages.
  • Honkee.org; a search for "Honkee" returns 31K+ hits, but most are unrelated, as a variant spelling of Honky. Even searching "Honkee +shock" returns no relevant results.
  • LJabuse and denisepaolucci: we can skip this; we already have Last Measure.
  • You are an idiot: not a shock site.

Remember, a shock site is not just a nasty image, it's defined on shock site specifically as one being used to trick people into visit it via trolling. This list is not a list of offensive viral videos and internet memes; it's about shock sites, which is a more specific phenomenon. Okay.. anyone disagree with my proposed fate for any of the sites? Let's discuss and stop edit warring. Mangojuice 03:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, this is just a first pass. We do have to eventually conform to WP:V here, I'm just trying to clean out the less worthy examples, as a preliminary step, hopefully leaving us with examples we have a prayer of verifying with a source. Mangojuice 03:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I have never stumbled upon any of the sites in the last list except "You are an idiot" and the varians of "Last Measure". In fact the only place where I have heard about them is Wikipedia. Lapinmies 06:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I think most of us can agree to delete You are an idiot. I'm pretty sure nobody considers that a shock site. VegaDark 06:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I just did so, but someone put it back. Let's try this again... Skinmeister 18:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that some of those Google search results could be deflated, for example Goatse is a single word, and therefore will return far more results than something like Ratemygoatse, which is three words and allows for many alternate spellings/spacings. Having said that, I do still agree with the deletion of most of these sites Mangojuice named, especially You Are An Idiot. Last Measure rip-offs and other shock site variants can be mentioned in the section for the relevant original shock site. Foolish Child 12:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok.. Skinmeister? Primetime? I'd like to delete those on the delete list; seems like everyone else agrees, but I want to hear from you two. Mangojuice 13:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

My decision

Since this page has been needlessly reverted to the "uncited" version, the page List of shock sites/Uncited is redundant. I am therefore considering redirecting that page to this. - Conrad Devonshire 01:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Some users have complained of my alteration of this page's name, which I felt to be insignificant and not capable of causing argument, and unfortunately did not mention here. Feel free to change it back if you wish, and I will let it be. - Conrad Devonshire 03:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Well Jjk54 put back the original title, leaving this here. Now, we have List of shock sites and List of shock sites (uncited). Stop the insanity! Robert A.West (Talk) 05:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Moving toward a reasonable resolution

I have deleted the cut & paste version of List of shock sites. The content at List of shock sites (uncited) has been moved back to its original location at List of shock sites, and I have deleted the ensuing redirect at List of shock sites (uncited). I do not mean by this gesture that I'm in any shape or form endorsing the current content of this unencyclopedic page, nor do I intend to suggest that Devonshire does not hold at least some valid points—he certainly does. I restored the status quo for 2 reasons: first, that most of the participants in the discussion commendably initiated by Mangojuice may not continue to participate if the page was altered to bring it in immediate conformity with the content policies of the encyclopedia—and since I view the discussion to be critical at this stage to bringing us to a sensible resolution, it will not do to have it side-tracked—and second, the page List of shock sites (uncited) is an entirely unsatisfactory inclusion in the main space because it is not a subpage (as List of shock sites/uncited would be) but a full page, giving the erroneous impression that Wikipedia's main space may legitimately be used for uncited contributions. I have no wish to see contributions of the type Moe's list of Awe$0me websites (unsourced and unverified version), and we should not do anything to suggest that it is in any way acceptable.

I ask for patience from those to whom the foundational content rules of the encyclopedia mean a great deal: I hope that means all of us. We have a page here that is not in conformity with some of those rules. There is some disagreement at present as to the degree; but I think most of us can agree that it does need to change. The only way that this can be done reasonably is through discussion—so please lets do that. The alternative is the status quo, that is to say, a page that will continue to get regularly nominated for deletion, and will almost certainly get deleted at some point (with the inevitable Review, out-of-process restoration, revert warring, perhaps a wheel war here and there, an nth AFD, redeletion...). Lets not go there, please. Lets discuss.

No assumptions of bad faith, no calls for user RFCs, no labelling people XYZ, no casting aspersions on the impartiality of extremely well-intentioned and capable administrators who happened to be offline for 4 hours and 45 minutes prior to a complaint, no moving pages here, there, everywhere in what can never amount to any kind of solution—none of this, please. Lets just discuss the issues—we might get somewhere. Very kind regards —Encephalon 06:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Paring down

I've just removed several sites: Regentxxylol, Cheapabortions, Supermodelsfart, Lime rave, Pimpmygoogle, Biggernigger, Bagslap, Mongface, Desertofthereal, Jiztini, and Fist.tk; these sites all had very low Google hits, and no one disagreed about any of them. I left ShrewsburyCollege, which may be at least verifiable. I also removed Stretch and Ratemygoatse; those are really just Goatse variants and not worth mentioning in their own right, and we have Goatse on there already. If anyone objects, feel free to restore, but please leave a note here saying why you did so; give reasons specific to each site, so we can separate spam links from actual shock sites. Mangojuice 02:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, on to phase two. Any objections to removing my "think we should remove" list? That's Klerk, Highballer, Cherrycake, Tubboy, Workse, Skinny, Faggotry, Porkhole, Honkee, and LJabuse/denisepaolucci. Mangojuice 01:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I object. 11 seems like a good-enough cleanup to me.--Primetime 01:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I raised a bunch of issues about these. Are these even really shock sites? By which I mean, used for widespread trolling? Were they ever? It's pointless to say that the list should be any particular size; the list should include real shock sites and not include random offensive web pages that aren't shock sites. If I were to pick three on my "phase two" list to particularly debate... Klerk.org: the entry only says it "contained several images" -- was this even a shock site? Tubboy: this is just a doctored version of the tubgirl image, was this ever really a phenomenon on its own? Honkee.org: the description talks about anti-semitic and homophobic posts; this doesn't seem to meet the definition in shock site. Mangojuice 03:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
And remember, we still have to source every one of these entries. I'm hoping we can remove the ones that aren't really significant shock sites first, as there's no way we'll ever be able to source them. Mangojuice 03:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I object as well. The very fact that you mention this as stage two suggests you're planning on gradually pruning the article of a sizable amount of information. You previously voted to delete the article, removing all information would be a good way to make the article delete-worthy. I agreed that the article needed to be pruned intially, I believe the article is fine as it is now in terms of length and number of sites.

If you want to check to see if a site is a shock site there is a simple method: click the link. Within reason, you should know whether or not it is meant to be artistic or shocking. I would argue a shock site, confirmed by someone (else) looking at the site as such, deserves to be on this list whether or not it has its own article as little known shock sites can easily be used as easily in trolling as major shock sites. 24.250.119.145

Tubboy wasn't a doctored version of tubgirl. Was it used as a shocksite extensively? I don't think so, at least not outside the forum it originated from. Sadly (or fortunately--I'm not sure), I cannot find the pictures. Kotepho 05:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't? All I could find about the contents of Tubboy came from a google image search, where I basically found a tubgirl image with a guy's face pasted over hers.

And to 24.250: I suggest you read WP:V. Ultimately, this article has to conform to that, and we must remove shock sites for which there is no reliable source documenting them as a shock site. This, I admit, is a high burden for a shock site, but WP is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper: we're not supposed to be the first to report on something (WP:NOR). Yes, I voted delete previously, because I felt such hostility from certain editors that I thought this article could never be made to confrom with WP policy. However, I'm now trying hard to get it to... and the first step is to get the article to a point where it only contains true information. The next step is to find verification for that information. Now, no one answered my questions: were Klerck.org, Honkee.org, and Tubboy actually used widely for trolling on their own? (We have to stick to ones that were used widely, or there would be no hope of finding good sources on them.) Kotepho says no for Tubboy. Mangojuice 12:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I know that Klerc.org and Tubboy were used for trolling (Klerck.org was created by the famous troll Klerck, what do you expect it to be used for?), but as to the scope of their use, I have no idea. Honkee I've never come across used for trolling, the only place I've seen it linked was fairly anti-semetic anyway, they'd have probably found it funny. Oh, and why is Fuck.org still on this list? You can't argue that is more shocking than it is funny. Foolish Child 15:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Good point about fuck.org. As for Klerck, I looked at Klerck's contributions to slashdot, and while there's a link to the klerck.org page, his comments are usually obvious trolling via offensive comments; not sure they're related. Still, this needs to be described better. What was there? Mangojuice 17:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Hah, wish I could help you, but I can't remember. Foolish Child 19:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove fuck.org as a non-shock site. I wish someone could describe Klerck.org, but I think it's unincludable at this moment. If anyone feels confident that the images on klerck.org were offensive (as in, if you've seen them or heard they were offensive somewhere independent of this list), please feel free to add it back. I'm including an edited version of the entry below, if anyone wants to cut&paste it back. This version is more relevant to its being a shock site.

*'''Klerck.org''' was a website that had several offensive images from other shock sites. The former webmaster of the site, [[Klerck]], was a well-known [[internet troll]], particularly known for trolling on [[Slashdot]], where his signature included a link to his website. After Klerck's [[suicide]] in early 2005, his website was taken down.

I'm also merging in "clone/knockoff" entries with the entry they were clones/knockoffs of. Mangojuicetalk 21:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm re-inserting Honkee and Klerck. Your own Google-hit list shows them at the top, even though they're offline. You integrated some offline shock sites with Goatse.cx, even though they're imitative of it only in name. Their content appears to be much different to me. You also didn't really integrate alot of them. I'm also adding an external link section for that "Moid" compiliation. The removal of the penguin-black guy sex thing I agree with, though.--Primetime 22:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it was my Google search. Foolish Child 22:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Klerck had a high hit count, but was it a shock site? Did you see it? If so, great, go ahead. Honkee, on the other hand, had a high hit count, but it's a common word. It's described as having offensive commentary primarily. Urban dictionary doesn't even mention Honkee as a shock site, and it does for most of the other ones. www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=honkee No objection to moid. Mangojuicetalk 00:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Urbandictionary, now that I look at it, may be a good way to divide the shock sites that have received real attention from the ones that haven't. Goatse, Tubgirl, Lemonparty, Hai2u, Bottleguy, and Meatspin all have entries that refer to the site. This is totally not a reliable source, but it's one way to verify that the sites have received attention. Mangojuicetalk 00:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Klerck.org is directly linked (still) from the Gay Niggers' website, if you check the link in "ARE YOU GAY?" it leads to "klerck.org/spin.gif", which I presume is Meatspin. Wether it having been directly employed by the high profile authority is an kind of verification, I don't know. Just offering up the knowledge. Foolish Child 01:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Meatspin has been recreated at this YTMND: (not safe for work) ridinspinnas.ytmnsfw.com/ ridinspinnas.ytmnsfw.com/ if someone wants to mention that. VegaDark 02:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Various YTMNDs have parodied/recreated different shock sites, but I'm faily sure YTMND isn't a reliable source. Foolish Child 02:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It works for me.--Primetime 02:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't work for me, and it doesn't work for WP:RS. But for right now, I'm just trying to get the article to a state where it contains only information I believe. Later, which will be the hard part, we're going to have to source everything. And I really think that this article is going to eventually be AfD'd again, and if we want it kept, we'd better try to conform. Mangojuicetalk 10:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Any YTMND reference shouldn't be used as a source of the shock site existing. What I was saying is for defunct shock sites, one could say "While the site is now down, it has been reproduced on several other websites such as YTMND" (and then add a link to said YTMND). VegaDark 20:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Mirrors of shock sites

Something's been bothering me lately about some of the sites we list. I'm pretty comfortable with the idea of a shock site like meatspin.org or lemonparty, which shows a single image on their main page; it's like there are two different kinds of "shock sites" we're referring to. Goatse is a site but also it's a particular image, one that has propagated all over the internet; it's a meme in addition to a shock site, and it is really a good example of this kind of thing because the site is strongly associated with the image. On the other hand we have ones like last measure and moid and klerck, (and for that matter, rotten.com, which we don't have), which are entirely different: they are websites that host a lot of offensive content (at least, with klerck, we believe so).

My feeling is, single-image sites are much more likely to be notable than host sites. Surely goatse and tubgirl and many other images reside all over the internet now, but that doesn't mean that every website that hosts them belongs on this list. If they do belong, I think maybe we should have a separate section for them, as it's a different kind of phenomenon. Mangojuicetalk 10:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Rotten isn't on this list because it isn't a Shock Site. Having offensive content somewhere on your site isn't the sole requirement of being a Shock Site, a shock site is an address that clearly has NO OTHER PURPOSE than prominently displaying an offensive image for trolls to link to. So while smoke.rotten.com/bird smoke.rotten.com/bird is a Shock Site, www.rotten.com Rotten itself isn't. Oh, and while Last Measure may not have a single main location, I'd say it's probably the site we have most chance of verifying (after Goatse.cx obviously). Foolish Child 11:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess since Rotten.com predates the shock site phenomenon, it's not the intention of the site to be part of trolling. On the other hand, just because it wasn't a shock site at one point doesn't mean that it isn't one now. Moid at least seems to be a repository of repugnant images, but the description you just gave pretty much rules out Honkee.. would you agree? Mangojuicetalk 20:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, Honkee wasn't a shock site either. I'm not sure about Moid, I haven't seen it. From the sounds of things it isn't, but I'm not sure if I want to visit it just now. Foolish Child 12:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

YTMND

OK, while I'm aware that You're The Man Now, Dog, because of it's nature, will probably never meet the criteria for WP:RS, here are the results of searching it anyway.

  • Goatse – www.ytmnd.com/list/?search=Goatse 192 Results
  • Tubgirl – www.ytmnd.com/list/?search=Tubgirl 28 Results
  • Lemonparty – www.ytmnd.com/list/?search=Lemonparty 26 Results
  • Meatspin – www.ytmnd.com/list/?search=Meatspin 11 Results
  • Hai2U – www.ytmnd.com/list/?search=Hai2U 7 Results
  • Bottle Guy – www.ytmnd.com/list/?search=Bottle+guy 4 Results
  • Last Measure – www.ytmnd.com/list/?search=Last+Measure 3 Results (However it obviously doesn't fit the format well)
  • Cherrycake – www.ytmnd.com/list/?search=Cherrycake 1 Result
  • Porkhole – www.ytmnd.com/list/?search=porkhole 1 Result
  • Workse – www.ytmnd.com/list/?search=Workse 1 Result
  • Highballer – www.ytmnd.com/list/?search=highballer 1 Result

I exclude searches where all the results were irrelevant. I couldn't finish, but I'll do the rest later. Foolish Child 12:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_shock_sites/Archive_2&oldid=1143732355"