Talk:Shock site

Template:Multidel

Last Measure

The article Computer prank mentions a shock site called Last Measure. Wikipedia's page on Last Measure redirects here shouldn't it be mentioned here? Does anyone know anything about that site?

http://shocksites.bluwiki.org/

Just wondering why this link was removed? Because it did serve as a place for people to edit, rather than this page - and also provided a list of shock sites for anyone who was trying to do research into a link they suspect is dodgy. --Landspeed 06:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Liquinn's personal comments

I agree with the guy that wrote the below information. In my view, who would want to publicise this kinda thing onto the internet? I gathered it'd be someone from Texas or KS. I beleive these sites should be closed down, but there's only so much that can be done to stop these sick people. I mean, they could set-up a site thinking it's a nice girl, and it's a virus which will destroy you. That might not be classed as a bad shock site, but the virus will do alot of damage to the 4000K viewers or whatever.

And I feel strongly that the people who do this are very sick minded to even take pictures of porn, or whatever they do, let alone put it to put it on the internet and this might think children can do this sort of thing when it is indeed sick. User:Liquinn 20:15, 4 June 2007

Liquinn's Conclusion

I think yeah, you should. But the downside to these sites, they can't be stopped. There's probably thousands, but to document the sickest ones is a good idea. The people who make these sites need to pay up. However I beleive they could atleast say and have a page before the image, "This site contains a girl in a bath tub", please click back unless you want to see it. I'd feel sick reading that, but yeah. I hope you guys understand my opinion, and another thing, they won't do that as they want people to view there sick images or whatnot. And the guy who made this page is right.

And plus, they're still a domain, so they still have the right to be up, which is a shame damnit. :<Liquinn 20:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Lemonparty.org inclusion

(UTC) I'm not going to waste weeks of time like this but this website needs to be mentioned with tubgirl and goatse on the grounds that it is part of an 'unholy trinity' of shock sites. Urban dictionary hits for 'unholy trinity' and 'lemonparty' prove the sites infamy as much - its also well documented on google images. I know its not a great source - its no longer 'newsworthy' and makes unlikely book material - but we're not going to find hits for this site on google news or books as 'mangojuice' requests. This user has is on a partisan quest to hold this article hostage (FYI he's also written a piece on how to merge Star Trek characters) and deflects criticism allegations on the grounds that they're personal attacks. Unhelpful. WinstonBerni 15:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Very well said. I will continue, as I said time and time again, to revert his destructive edits, as will the rest of the Wikipedia community. Maybe eventually, this overzealous administrator on a power trip will realize that the community that he likes so much does not want him here at all. As for the personal attacks thing, isn't it funny? I mean, I referred him to meta:Don't be a dick because it is a relevant essay that applies to the situation, and I got a "Final warning" on my talk page, complete with a cute little "Stop" icon. Aftli 16:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is proof that lemonparty is referenced in the 'news.' A search of Lexis*Nexis' news database turned up this hit:

Newstex Web Blogs Copyright 2007 Gizmodo Gizmodo

February 12, 2007 Monday 5:30 PM EST

LENGTH: 55 words

HEADLINE: Crazy Stained Glass PC Sanitizes Your Porn Addiction

BODY:

Feb. 12, 2007 (Gizmodo delivered by Newstex) --

Theory: This modder was so guilt-ridden with all the tubgirl and goatse porn he was downloading he had to go all stained-glass to get the demon spirits out of his machine.

Did it work? Well, we don't see any lemonparty demons, do you?

-- Jason Chen

Stained Glass PC Case [Boredstop]

NOTES: The views expressed on blogs distributed by Newstex and its re-distributors ("Blogs via Newstex") are solely the author's and not necessarily the views of Newstex or its re-distributors. Posts from such authors are provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confer no rights. The material and information provided in Blogs via Newstex are for general information only and should not, in any respect, be relied on as professional advice. No content on such Blogs via Newstex is "read and approved" before it is posted. Accordingly, neither Newstex nor its re-distributors make any claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained therein or linked to from such blogs, nor take responsibility for any aspect of such blog content. All content on Blogs via Newstex shall be construed as author-based content and commentary. Accordingly, no warranties or other guarantees will be offered as to the quality of the opinions, commentary or anything else offered on such Blogs via Newstex. Reader's comments reflect their individual opinion and their publication within Blogs via Newstex shall not infer or connote an endorsement by Newstex or its re-distributors of such reader's comments or views. Newstex and its re-distributors expressly reserve the right to delete posts and comments at its and their sole discretion.

LOAD-DATE: February 13, 2007

Yes it was originally posted to a blog, but the fact that it made it into a newsfeed and a major news database should warrant its inclusion.

Major rewrite now needed

As soon as the page is un-protected, I will volunteer my time to rewrite this article, which is now in need of a major rewrite:

• The article no longer lists much relevant information about each site. The goal of this article was always not only to warn other users of the sites, but to present some history about each site.
• The article contains useless references to things that are no longer in the article - this is mainly because of a certain person who continues to simply delete sites he does not like, and does not completely and correctly modify the rest of the article, preferring instead to just continue in his own ongoing edit war.
• The text of the article is currently horrible - too bad there is no way for me to revert the changes, since an overzealous administrator decided to "ask for the article to be" protected, in order to continue his personal vendetta against shock sites and the general community on this article.

So, look forward to a complete rewrite as soon as this article is unprotected. The rewrite will include references, history about all major shock sites, and we will no longer follow the guideline of a shock site having to be discussed by a major media outlet in order to be considered "major" - as no such references exist for any shock sites. An anonymous user below explained this best:

But when the topic originates on the internet, and rarely leaves the internet, then sources are hard to find. Any news articles you find, regardless as to whether they are from a big news source, are written by normal people with the same amount of information on the topic as you. If the New York Times went and wrote and article about meatspin, they would have come across the same amount of information as you have to make their article, the only difference is that they actually have a voice.

Aftli 17:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I should mention that I will not rewrite the article if there are any major objections, which clearly state why the article does not need a rewrite (except for the user that has been maintaining an edit war here, I don't care about his opinion).

[User:landspeed|landspeed] 3 March 2007

• This article has gradually shrunk over time. Many people may want to know what a shock site (an important part of internet culture) is, and go here, and then later get redirected to e.g. meatspin.com or typicalmacintoshuser.com, without realising it was a shock site. Some people might argue for a degree of flexibility of the Wikipedia rules, in special situations, given that all possible uses of the rules could not be considered when they were created. Does anyone have a source for the Wikipedia policies themselves, by the way (which is not part of Wikipedia or related to their use on Wikipedia?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by landspeed (talk • contribs).

• • Most policies were developed by the community but some, including the original need for attribution and neutrality were laid down by Larry Sanger and/or Jimbo Wales in the early days... but of course policies don't need sourcing, only articles. Your argument about flexibility has been used before and rejected by the community. If you want proof of that, check out the dead WP:MEME discussion and also the various debates linking to The Game (game). The latter one was an example of a phenomenon for which no reliable sources existed but lots of google hits and so on. Many people argued for flexibility, but ultimately the community embraced policy instead of making exceptions. Mangojuice^talk 14:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No, they didn't embrace "policy instead of making exceptions", at least not here. You are obviously in the minority, and continuing your edit war against the rest of the community harms the community itself. Aftli 16:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE READ (regarding information removed from the article)

Please visit Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mangojuice to voice your opinion on the senseless reverts, and overzealous and inappropriate actions (such as protecting this article) that administrator User:Mangojuice has taken in order to win his edit war on this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aftli (talk • contribs).

It is a critical Wikipedia policy that all additions be verifiable and from reliable sources. Our notion of reliable sources does not include forum postings, blogs, or mentions from user-edited sites like Wikipedia itself, or sites like Urban Dictionary, Encyclopedia Dramatica, et cetera. Normally information that is not sourced is not removed immediately, but some shock sites have been thoroughly researched by several editors and no sources could be found, so they've have to be removed. Notably, these include:

• Meatspin
• meatroll.com
• Hai2u
• Lastmeasure.

• • I'm back from vacation now, and I'll be back to regularly reverting useless and non-constructive edits by Mangojuice and whoever else tries to ruin the article. Sorry this article continued to suffer while I was on vacation. Oh, and lol @ whoever removed Lemonparty as a "major shock site". Aftli 18:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to recognize that these are popular, but without any reliable sources that cover them, we can't include them in the article. As of 2/26/07, none of those three sites get any hits on Google News or Book search, nor any reliable sources on web search (lots of hits, but all forums and blogs and so on.) Mangojuice^talk 01:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately for you and your wiki politics, Wikipedia is an open public media - the encyclopedia that anybody can edit! Your edits will continue to be reverted, as you are the only one in the "major shock sites should not be major shock sites" camp. A shock site need not be cited by a news outlet or book in order to be classified as a "major shock site". 69.117.252.186 05:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • (1) You're not understanding what I'm saying, and (2) Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia policy is on my side, which means that when others get involved they will mainly agree with me. The discussion over sources for those sites has been done to DEATH. There are none out there. And believe me, WP:V and WP:RS are at the very center of Wikipedia policy. Heck, this article barely passes those policies at all. I've actually had to defend it many times against people who wanted the whole thing scrapped.

I may pay the most attention, but loads of other established editors have followed my lead in keeping unsourced information out. Mangojuice^talk 05:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's not unsourced. The deleted sites belong there. Have fun wasting your time.69.117.252.186 04:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• By the way, let's continue to be childish, and if we are an administrator, and we do not like edits that people are making to articles, let's just lock them so that nobody can edit them! What a great idea!!
• Also I'd like to add, in response to your comments on my talk page, that I have in no way encouraged anybody to make disruptive edits or endless reverts. It should be noted that *YOU* are the one engaging in an edit war with the *REST OF* the people that regularly edit this page, and I think everybody's had just about enough of your reign here on this article. Let's be sensible, and stop your edit war. Oh, and stop being an idiot. Aftli 15:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• As to whether or not "everybody's had enough", I really don't think that's true. A couple of new editors with no idea what Wikipedia is have stopped by here to complain that this site isn't just like Urban Dictionary, and have mostly vanished into thin air: so what. If you look at my RfC, you'll find that everyone not already connected to the dispute has agreed that I haven't done anything wrong, and in fact have commended the work I've been doing here. Wikipedia policy will NOT be ignored on this page just because you are annoyed about how policy dictates this page should be. Mangojuice^talk 13:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, and by the way, Aftli, as a shock site owner, you should probably stay away from the editing of this page and leave it up to Wikipedia, as you have a conflict of interest. If you refuse to do that, you should at least come clean about which shock site or sites you own. Mangojuice^talk 15:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice

Personal attack removed. 69.117.252.186

• Personal attack re-added - and it is noted that the RPA (removal of personal attacks) is not POLICY, and this comment should NOT be deleted. Mangojuice is an idiot, pay no attention to the wiki-politics in this talk page. Major shock sites which are considered by the masses of the internet are in fact major shock sites, especially when they all have plenty of links to them. Hai2u, LastMeasure, and Meatspin are all major shock sites. Feel free to add them back to the article - as long as the article is within the "Wikipedia" guidelines, then it's just fine to re-add the three sites any time you want. Aftli 04:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

... As long as you're following Wikipedia policies like WP:V and WP:RS, and as long as you don't engage in disruptive editing. Mangojuice^talk 13:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Just because you don't like an edit, does not make it disruptive. It just makes you overzealous and disruptive in your own way.
  • Attack re-added again. Mangojuice is an idiot. Also, let's abstain from removing comments on this talk page which you do not like, simply because you do not like them (and I'm not talking about the "personal attack".167.206.107.110 14:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this is the asshole that is censoring this article. What a total piece of shit!

Responses from Mangojuice

I have moved this discussion here from my talk page, as it belongs here and not there.

A couple of points: (1) I didn't protect the Shock site article myself (that would be inappropriate, as I'm involved there) but I did request protection and it was granted by an independent user. (2) I don't own the article, but Wikipedia policy is Wikipedia policy. If you want to discuss how Wikipedia policy should be applied in the case of this article, I'm more than happy, and if you want me to try to attract more users to the debate, there are ways to do that, such as the Wikipedia:Village pump and Wikipedia:Requests for feedback (or maybe Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but article requests for comment seem to generally be ignored). However, throwing around personal attacks, requesting that others engage in disruptive editing, and endless reverting are not ways to resolve this dispute. Mangojuice^talk 13:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is a perfect way when we have over-zealous administrators that abuse powers in order to win edit wars. Also, just because you didn't protect the article yourself, does not mean that you are not responsible for its being protected. I might add that I will engage in all of the personal attacks that i wish to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aftli (talk • contribs).

First of all: would you rather open a discussion about my behavior or about what should happen to Shock site? It seems to me like my behavior only bothers you in that you disagree with me over what the article should look like. (I guess you may view the two as linked, but which is more important to you?) Mangojuice^talk 15:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Your behavior as an overzealous administrator that doesn't belong having powers over a community that clearly disagrees with you, since you abuse your powers. This type of behavior should not and must not be tolerated on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aftli (talk • contribs).

Well, let's try to organize the debate like this. You've started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mangojuice. I'll participate there to address any issues of my own behavior. Separately, I will help arrange for the debate on the Shock site article to be made more visible, so that the Wikipedia community can comment on it more fully. In the meantime, it would really help in discussions if you could remeber to sign your comments (by typing ~~~~ after them): it's hard for others to read discussions when it's not clear who has written what. Mangojuice^talk 18:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd like to point out that there is not much room for discussion - your biased opinions don't belong moderating the article. Let the users of the page moderate it. There are literally millions of articles on Wikipedia with unsourced statements - your trolling around the Shock site article is pointless, please go troll other articles. Aftli 18:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are millions of Wikipedia articles with unsourced statements. This particular one has attracted a lot of attention, but all articles with unsourced statements are problematic per policy and need to be improved. However, just because those articles don't follow the rules doesn't mean the rules aren't right. The Shock site article gets a lot of attention, and it should be an example of what a decent Wikipedia article should be. And by the way, you aren't going to get very far in convincing others that your way is better if you constantly insult me. Mangojuice^talk 21:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I submit that I do not have to convince anybody of anything - your presence is quite obviously unwelcome here. I would also point out that your trolling of the article has contributed significantly to the degradation of it, and also that people are already beginning to line up in droves at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mangojuice to voice support against you. Unprotect the article, and leave it alone - you do not belong there. You do not own this article, this article is not a monarchy, and we are not your underlings. You do not have the right to revert edits, troll the article, and continue in edit wars simply because you are an administrator who does not agree with the content. Aftli 22:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Meatspin

The Ebay Auction for the sale of meatspin.com contains information to prove its notoriety http://cgi.ebay.com/The-meatspin-com-domain-name_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ11153QQitemZ5860825100QQrdZ1 Ciper 16:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Meatspin should definatley be added here. It's on the same level as lemonparty and goatse and way better than fucking PENISBIRD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CornPickle (talk • contribs) 15:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• See the archive and above discussions for why it isn't on the list. Cirus^{Talk/Contribs} 04:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The arguments presented opposing meatspins inclusion were, quite frankly inadequate. That is why I added a meatspin reference here, then Cirus removed it. We should discuss this again. Triumph's Hour 07:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is quite simple: verifiability. I will back the inclusion of Meatspin 100% if we can get an independent, reliable source that describes it. In principle, it would be okay for an entry to remain without a source, but in the case of Meatspin, it was already up for a long time without one. It's impossible to prove that something isn't verifiable... but I think we can wait for a source. Mangojuice^talk 15:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, that criteria wasn't followed for many other shock sites listed here, judging from the discussions above. After all whoever heard of penisbird, meatspin is way more shocking. Triumph's Hour 01:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Popularity is not the same thing. I know Meatspin is much more popular, I've seen the rankings. There are a lot of somewhat popular ones, but verifiability is scarce. Penis bird's derives from a letter Slashdot sent to Rotten.com which Rotten published. If you don't think that source is appropriate (or if you think some other site isn't sourced properly) feel free to bring it up, and maybe we can remove it. But the equalizing only works in that direction: everything should be brought in line with policy rather than away from it. Mangojuice^talk 01:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The wowomg.com redirect and the fact that the phrase Meatspin is censored on MySpace might be able to serve as shaky sources, I don't know, but I suppose they're better than nothing Foolish Child 10:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Compare alexa ratings to all the other shock sites listed, Meatspin is far ahead of all of them, and the only one in the top 100 K

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.goatse.cx --718,083 http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.tubgirl.com 4,777,382 http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.lemonparty.org 108,293 http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.Hai2U.com 356,475 http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.meatspin.com 62,965

Meatspin is clearly more popular than those sites, here are sources. Now you say popularity is the issue, when earlier you said it is veriability, I somehow think you just have some hang up against meatspin or its current owner

Alexa statistics don't mean that much, especially when you compare to a site like Goatse which isn't online anymore. I actually KNOW Meatspin is that popular, but this is not a reliable source. If the rank was in the top 1000, that would be unambiguous evidence. But ranks below that aren't very meaningful. Yes, it gets hits, like a lot of websites do. What we need is a publication of some kind with some kind of reputation for selectivity actually writes about Meatspin. I would love to add it back, if such a source existed, but we need to see it. Mangojuice^talk 21:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone trying to help us get meatspin back on here! I have searched high and low and the only potential source I have found is: http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/10/17/13748/788 - I don't know what other info would be needed. Everyone I run into OFFLINE knows what meatspin is. MangoJuice, do you still feel that this is not enough sources? Meatspin 10:15, 30 September 2006

Where is meatspin?Meatspin redirects here but there is nothing to be found about meatspin.It must have been delted.Would it be ok if i put up information about meatspin again? Dermo69 12:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't, unless you have a reliable, independent source for the information you add. I recently removed Meatspin from the article again, with apologies to ViperSnake -- he found a source (the "Lazy Guide to Net Culture (NSFW)" from Scotsman.com) which we can't use because it itself is based on a previous unsourced version of this article. Mangojuice^talk 14:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reliable source discussing meatspin's sale. It is ridiculous that the site isn't up http://digg.com/tech_news/Meatspin.com_sold_

Not reliable. And it doesn't back up the most important part of the information. Digg.com is a web forum; anyone can submit info if they want. (And we used to have a link to the Ebay auction itself before.. but that only talks about a domain being sold, not about Meatspin as a shock site.) Mangojuice^talk 10:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Meatspin is basically a cynical ploy to get click-throughs. I agree it should not be included; in any case, we're now into the "me too" generation of shock sites and there needs to be something pretty sectacular to elevate it above the common herd. Guy 20:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Archived

Old threads no longer active have been moved to /Archive 2. Mangojuice^talk 13:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Meatspin.com sources

Souces that have been mentioned for Meatspin:

1. [1]: Ebay auction of the Meatspin.com domain name, winning amount $2100.

2. [2]: Article on Politicalcortex.com. Relevant excerpt:

Misenti was an administrator of the duckandcover gaming forums where conversations such as this thread on weapons will go on for months at a time often debating the effectiveness of certain weapons in guaranteeing kill ratios.\\And if that doesn't seem like something CT Second District voters might think is funny then the duckandcover link to MeatSpin.com that features a "chat" environment purportedly featuring desirable singles from Putnam, Chaplin, and other East of the river small towns is unlikely to be representative either.

3. General web statistics: Ghits, Alexa rank, wholinks2me.com

4. User-contributed content sites: Urban Dictionary, digg.com thread

My concerns for each of these sources:

1. This proves that a domain name, Meatspin.com, was sold for $2100. It has some hits statistics, which were posted by the person trying to sell Meatspin: I don't disbelieve them, but it doesn't really mean anything. Oh, and if anyone thinks this proves notability, notice that FARMMEMORABILIA4SALE.COM, a domain name I don't think any of us would call notable, sold for $4500.

2. Most importantly, this is not a reliable source: see [3]; basically, anyone can create an account there and post whatever they want to, there's no editorial control on average articles. The author of the article in question has posted 9 things total and has received very few comments from others: in other words, this is just a blog entry. But beyond that, the article is laughably incoherent and uninformed about the internet. The article is trying to discredit a politician because of an aide that politician employs named Misenti. The article criticizes Misenti for being an administrator on a forum site called duckandcover, based on the content of duckandcover. He mentions that the forum contains a link to MeatSpin.com, and that MeatSpin.com links to something else undesirable. This guy doesn't know the time of day: he's probably talking about the pornish-Adult Friend Finder type advertisements MeatSpin.com has, and .. seriously? Anywhere on the internet is three clicks away from porn. And for some reason the author chooses to highlight the singles advertisement but not, say, mention the gay/transexual porn right in the middle of the page. Presumably because the singles advertisement, when he saw it, referred back to towns in the area. Those ads always do: they parse your IP address to learn where you are and put up nearby locations. What we can learn from this is basically only that there is a link to MeatSpin.com somewhere on duckandcover, which doesn't mean anything (I mean, we could find that link ourselves directly).

3. Every site has web statistics, and it's hard to interpret their meaning. It has repeatedly been rejected to use Google, Alexa, or similar sites as sources because they can be manipulated, and because the results are hard to interpret: see Wikipedia:No original research. I'm of the opinion that adding web statistics to other sources may be okay, but they really can't be our only sources. Also, in the particulars, Alexa ranks for sites below the top 1000 are extremely unstable and have very questionable meaning.

4. User-controlled content like Urban Dictionary, digg.com (or any other forum or blog) is not remotely a reliable source because there is no editorial control whatsoever: it's mob rules. It's been rejected as a reliable source for Wikipedia many times, even for inherently hard-to-source topics. Mangojuice^talk 14:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We know now that this does not matter - the people have spoken. Ciper is free to add back Meatspin, as well as any other sites. Aftli 15:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I will continue to revert completely unsourced additions. Sources that cannot even arguably be called reliable will also not count. If you want sites added, find sources and engage in the discussion. Mangojuice^talk 21:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Any additions that fail to meet WP:ATT and WP:RS should be removed. "The people" cannot trump WP policy. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I own meatspin.com. You mention that sources like Alexa are not reliable as their stats are unstable. Would be uploading my stats for the past year of 35,000 visitors per day do anything? I could install extreme tracking on the site with a public login so you could track stats. Just thought I would throw it out there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.225.149.113 (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

I believe you, but hit count is just kind of irrelevant with respect to WP:ATT. Mangojuice^talk 01:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Other shock sites to consider

Would Motherman.com be considered as a shock site?. It is a site, and it is shocking. It is used for trolling, and unsuspecting people get sent there. However, although many people have been duped by it, I don't think that it has been published in the printed press. Does this mean it shouldn't be included in here - as it wasn't published in the Sunday Times or New York Times? --Landspeed 4 March 2007.

Answering my own question. This site is part of the meatspin network, and while one day meatspin.com might have a valid reference, this site certainly doesn't. It is not particularly noteable either, and, therefore, is not suitable to be included in the article, for the same reasons that meatspin.com shouldnt. --Landspeed 19:58 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Recently Phonetrace has become a popular shock site. It tricks the user into thinking the site is used to locate the exact position of a person by the signal their moblie phone emitts. I'm not going to add the page to the article, as I can see some of you, obviously with a lot of time on your hands (Akhilleus, Mangojuice) regard it as a very precious article, so I'll leave it to someone else to add the page. --Tadhg 14:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Find a good source and it can go in. There has been a little discussion of the site before: see /Archive 2, but no one has presented a source. Mangojuice^talk 14:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Harvard guidelines state that a web address is a source, so would the web page and the fact that it exists not require a source? --Tadhg 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:ATT for more on what Wikipedia considers acceptable. At minimum, we need a source that actually writes about the subject, and some basis for believing that the source is reliable. Mangojuice^talk 19:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok after doing a search the only articles I could find were trying to trick people into using the site, so they didn't mention the site as being a shock site. --Tadhg 13:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Other shock sites, eh? How about rotten.com? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 02:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about this before. The thing is, if shock sites are specifically connected with trolling, then rotten.com probably isn't one. But it's definitely a notable site. Maybe we could put a link under "see also"? Mangojuice^talk 02:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it funny how this user thinks of this article as "his article"? He's "thought about this before", debating on whether to "allow" it to be added. Remember, he makes all the decisions here! Aftli 16:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, what do you think, Aftli? Is Rotten.com a shock site in the sense that this article discusses? Should we include it in the article? Mangojuice^talk 17:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should, because the article contains the shock site category. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 05:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone considered putting manbeef.com here? (it is archived here) http://web.archive.org/web/20010331032727/www.manbeef.com/home.html This was a shock site, which caused a lot of concern at the time, was investigated by the FDA. It was a different sort of 'shock site' to the others here, but nonetheless is a shock site. It is also discussed in detail on Snopes.com (which is where the goatse reference comes from). The snopes URL is http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/manbeef.htm --Landspeed 21:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just checked - it is there anyway, but not linked to this article. --Landspeed 21:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely sourced enough for me.. but is it really a shock site? To me, it just seems like a humor site, albeit somewhat tasteless (no pun intended)... no evidence that it is trying to be deceptive about its content, or used for trolling. This brings up an interesting point about this article: never mind the sites, is the definition of a shock site that we have here the right one? Is it adequately sourced? Mangojuice^talk 22:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the definition of 'shock site' here is of one that is immediately shocking, with a grotesque image / video etc, which is instantly shocking. There is however, a category of sites like manbeef and bonsai kitten, which instead are more slowly shocking / disturbing, because they are made to appear 'real', yet twisted/disturbing. In Germany, the phrase 'shock site' apparently tends to refer to a different kind of site - e.g. I have seen one where you are meant to concentrate on the centre of the screen, 6cm away, then suddenly there is a full-volume shriek, together with skull with burning eyes that appears (to shock the user). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.69.22.62 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate orgy of facts about everything and anything that is subjectively notable.

It is a tertiary source, a place where volunteers take published information and compile it into articles that can inform a reader about a topic.

Even if there are facts that a reader should know about a subject, it's not a part of WP's purpose to include that information if it can only be provided straight from a random contributer's observations and research.

There are plenty of other Wikis and user-created-content sites where users are supposed to contribute original research and observation (urban dictionary, blogs, forums, uncyclopedia), but not here. So what if WP is the dominant Wiki-based encyclopedia? You can't go ahead and act counter-productively against its guidelines just because you think you have to get this information included in WP.

The fact is, blogs and forums are NOT reliable sources of information. Sure, you can trust the posters of forums and authors of blogs, but, since there are so many of them, it's hard to tell which ones are reliable. I have encountered plenty of health blogs that give conflicting and/or dubious health advice, I have seen obviously biased blogs publishing smear after smear against unfavored politians, and I have even seen multiple blogs state that the liquid spewing out of tubgirls anus is orange juice. Nothing on Google has ever revealed the original source of this statement. However, in these blogs, they all cited Wikipedia as their source. Do you see the unreliablity of blogs? (And really, about any other user-created-content based site such as a forum)

And google statistics by themselves mean nothing. It's like trying to interpret someone's blood pressure readings without knowing anything else about them. And these numbers can change too, without any documentation whatsoever. To include this information into Wikipedia is to take your own observations of raw data, and make a conclusion (which, however common-sense it may seem to you, can still be wrong), which clearly is a violation of WP's policy exclude any original research and only include attributable information (after all, WP is a tertiary source, and NOT an indiscriminate orgy of information which subjectively seems notable).

Sorry for the ranting, I kinda got carried away, but it's a little frustrating that editors who don't seem to understand the guidelines (and why they exist in the first place) are so adamant on ignoring those guidelines just because they think that Wikipedia should be something that it is not.

And by the way, Aftli, WP is not a democracy, it is a community based on consensus and working towards creating an encyclopedia under the guidelines that have been laid down by its founders and are followed by the community. So just because you and those who agree with you dominate this talk page right now with your vision for what the article should be, doesn't mean that administrators and other editors will side with you. Blueaster 05:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out the inherent contradictions in "not a democracy" and "based on consensus". As well as the specious logic that leads us from "based on consensus" to the statement that the voiced majority opinion is irrelevant. I would also like to point out how ridiculous a concept it is that administrators and editors, who pay no more attention to any one article than any other, (and thus don't particularly care for the well-being of this specific one), would be better aware of what is important and relevant information to this article than the users who have making use of it and contributing to it for months. Upthorn 11:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Importance of maintaing Wikipedia Integrity on the shock sites page

I have noticed that Wikipedia contains a huge number of pieces of information (and whole articles) without sources or references, and yet the pages seem to remain. Is there a particular reason that the Shock Sites page has such special, near real-time enforcement of the need for sources and references, and near total-control by locking most of the time?.

Most of the pages describing episodes of TV series, or events within movies, do not have sources for that information. Surely those pages should have a reference that the TV episode / movie exists, but refrain from describing the content of the episode / movie at all, as there are no reliable source for that information?.

Another example is the article on Parachutes : it contains a lot of information about parachutes, almost all of which is not referenced at all!. Also, I have a reference, published in a respected publication, which shows there is no evidence to support the use of parachutes, and that their routine use could not be recommended safely when jumping from planes. Should I use this source to delete large portions of that page?. I feel that these points are important when discussing the policy on the shock sites page, so should be discussed here in order to make things more clear for other users considering these issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Landspeed (talk • contribs).

It's true that many WP articles fail to observe WP:ATT properly. But that's an argument to fix those articles--it's not an argument to relax policy on this page. Especially not when it's reasonable to assume that some of the editors might profit from any extra publicity the article will give to their shock sites. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer Landspeed's question more directly, a lot of research was done to weed out non-notable sites that had been added to the list. Look back at the talk page archives (particularly Talk:Shock site/Archive 1) as well as Talk:List of shock sites. Generally, unattributed information is kept around with the idea that it will eventually be attributed. Here, a lot of work has confirmed that much of the material removed cannot be properly attributed, which is a different situation. As for the general argument, see Wikipedia:Do you ever go fishing?. Mangojuice^talk 15:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Two Alternative Wikis for those who want to create a more comprehensive article on shock sites

As I said before, to include unreferenced content or information from unreliable sources is not a part of Wikipedia's mission. But I understand that some people want to create a more comprehensive article on Shock sites that would have to go beyond WP's rules. So as a consession, here are some Wikis where you can go wild without having to worry about "oppresive" guidelines and administrators.

[4]

[5]

here's to freedom. Meep. Blueaster 00:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably Encyclopedia Dramatica too. And let me add that I wouldn't object in the least to an external link to a shock site list elsewhere. Mangojuice^talk 13:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It is fortunate that your opinion no longer matters here, as it goes completely against consensus, which you are preventing. I will continue to revert your destructive edits. Aftli 16:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I just found this website, which seems to be growing: http://shocksites.bluwiki.org Maybe this could could be made into a well-managed list of shock sites?. I guess there will be people there who will moderate it to keep it tidy, but it could keep the list of shock sites away from Wikipedia and reduce the traffic on this forum? :) Edit (19:47) - I have added this external link to the list of shock sites. Added by landspeed on 6/3/2007, 19:38

This is ridiculous

I just spent a lot of time including other shock sites in this article. Why are they not worthy of mention. People should be informed of these sites. How would you like it if your son or daughter inadvertanty clicked on a link to nimp.org or gimpyd.com? This article's purpose is to include information on all of the shock sites, not just goatse and tubgirl. Whoever is reverting these edits is doing a great disservice to this article and should be banned for vandalism. Fuck Off! This is flagrant censorship, This is America, This Isn't Right!

Yeah, people should have the right to know about this. Amazing what people put on the internet these days.

See WP:ATT. If you can meet that standard, the information can be included. However, this isn't Urbandictionary.com or some private website: there's a standard of source-checking and reliability here. After a lot of research, we've turned up completely empty on those sites. Help would be appreciated, but at this time, it's unacceptable to keep that stuff there without sourcing. Mangojuice^talk 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading the heated argument on this page, and I have to go in favor of Aftli. First of all, your statement "we've turned up completely empty on those sites" makes no sense. And second, regardless, I don't see how sites need a citation if it is a shock site. If it's a shock site, it's a shock site! Why is "sourcing" needed? Eridani 23:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Because not all "shock sites" are inherently notable. I could spend, maybe, a half hour and create one of these sites. Does that mean it should be included in the article? No, of course not. This is an encyclopedia, and it has to meet encyclopedic standards - specifically WP:ATT and WP:NOTE. This article is supposed to be a formal survey of shock sites - what they are, and what their cultural role is. It is not a list of shock sites, nor is it a collection of things relating to them - it is a sourced, encyclopedic article, and must meet standards as such. --Haemo 23:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides, this article's purpose is NOT to serve as any sort of guide or warning, it is just to inform anyone interested in Shock Sites. Besides, if goatse and tubgirl have been allowed on the article, then what constitutes "censorship"? Blueaster 03:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe censorship isn't the right word, but even if this is "just to inform anyone interested in shock sites," it should be a little more complete, and that's the point I'm trying to argue. It seems that this "verifiability" argument has been used as the only reason to exclude these sites from the article. So I ask, what constitutes verifiability?? Just because there isn't a mainstream news media article on meatspin, HAI2U, or last measure does not make them "unverifiable." Click Here, Here, or Here and then tell me they aren't shock sites. This is a new phenomenon that kind of falls under the category of current events. Just like in all of the other current event articles, the information is going to change rather rapidly, and although it may not need to be in the article ten years from now, it is pertinent at the moment. Furthermore, if you want to argue tubgirl and penisbird's place in the article, how can you call a Rotten.com (one of the original shock sites) article trustworthy media?? When it all boils down, as an encyclopedic entry "shock site" is a pretty insignificant aspect of human history. If there is going to be such limited information in this article, it might as well be deleted. The Goatse.cx and Kenneth Pinyan articles are all the shock we need. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.174.196.41 (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia:Attribution. That's what we consider verifiability. Mangojuice^talk 11:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This article will now follow WP:IAR when it comes to sourcing. Since this article isn't going anywhere (numerous discussions have been had on whether to keep it), the "rules" are preventing us from modifying the article and making it as it should be. Mangojuice has been reminded on [His RFC] to WP:IAR where appropriate. I will continue to revert all destructive edits by him. If you would like to add a site to the page, please make sure you discuss it on the talk page first - but we will allow sites without "sources" from "major media outlets", since none exist for this type of material. Aftli 15:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

People were reminding me to ignore the rules, in other words, to use my admin tools even in a content dispute, as long as it's clearly appropriate. I once again call upon Aftli to stop editing this article because of his conflict of interest as a shock-site owner, or at least to be up-front about it: what shock site do you own, exactly, and what is your real interest in expanding the list? Mangojuice^talk 15:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, we will not "allow sites without 'sources' from 'major media outlets', since none exist for this type of material." This absolutely goes against WP:ATT and WP:IAR is rather poor justification for this. I've semi-protected the article for now to allow discussion without edit warring, but I will upgrade this if need be to full protection... and I expect Mangojuice (talk · contribs) will voluntarily refrain from overriding this protection.--Isotope23 16:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And based on the latest addition of unsourced material, I've fully protected this for the time being.--Isotope23 16:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I just hope that all users refrain from snarky comments, unhelpful sarcasm, and over-broad claims of support from the "community", because this situation has escalated far enough, and any more immature snark and whining will definately be "destructive" to any progress. <3 Blueaster 22:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Article RFC

This is a request for comments from the community. At issue is the question: should we allow the inclusion of examples of shock sites without sources?

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

If you have been involved in this dispute, please feel free to add a statement. However, please do not edit the statements of other users, except to endorse. Please keep responses to other users' statements in your own section.

Statement by involved user Mangojuice

About a year ago, when the list (formerly at List of shock sites) was being cut down, a lot of research was done to find references of any, even vaguely reliable sort for the sites in the list, after we had cut out ones that barely even get google hits or Alexa rank. For most sites, including Hai2u and Meatspin, I did a lot of research myself trying to find any reliable sources. Nothing has been found that can qualify as a reliable source for Meatspin, and the best thing I found for Hai2u was from the forum rules of an underpopulated Anime forum, mentioning that shock sites such as (short list including Hai2u) should not be linked, and people could be banned for this. These sites do get lots of hits from forums, blogs, and so on, and they have entries on Urban Dictionary and Encyclopedia Dramatica, but these have been rejected many many times by the community as reliable sources. Probably the best source is a list of shock sites the owner of a shock site put up after discussion at Talk:Shock site: he appeared to actually understand how Wikipedia works, and he put up his own list of shock sites on his own shock site webpage. Still, not independent, and as the individual opinion of one person, not reliable. Normally, I wouldn't be aggressive about removing unsourced information on any article, but in this case, after so much research was done that came up empty on such a wide variety of material, I have been. I just don't think it's acceptable for that work to go to waste by giving up and allowing unverifiable material back in. See Talk:List of shock sites for the early history of the efforts to reduce the list; see Talk:Shock site/Archive 1 for the later history. Unlike the more recent Talk:Shock site/Archive 2 archive, there is a lot of attention from established users who actually care about Wikipedia policy.

Some arguments that may come up against my position, and my rebuttals. (1) What's the rush? Sources will eventually be found. Response: several editors have worked hard to find sources and have removed the sites for which no reliable sources could be found. When sources are found, we can add the information then: plenty of time and effort has been spent on finding them: it's doubtful good enough sources exist. (2) This is not the kind of topic you can expect reliable sources for. We should be willing to accept less reliable sources. Response: The Wikipedia community has repeatedly rejected the idea that we should bend the need for reliable sources because a topic is hard to source. See, for instance the deletion debates over The Game (game). (3) The list isn't very useful if we limit it to just the sourceable examples. If this is an argument for removing the list entirely, it may be a good one. If this is an argument for not limiting the list, see WP:USEFUL -- many things are useful, but aren't appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Mangojuice^talk 17:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Others that endorse this statement:

• Strongly endorse - this is an encyclopedia, and no article gets a pass on guidelines, no matter how much some editors would like it to. Also, I commend [[User:Mangojuice for his level head and civility on this topic. --Haemo 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Well said. — MichaelLinnear 06:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments by outsiders

Keep in mind that Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Users not previously involved in this dispute please add your comments in this section.

My feeling is that there are a lot of things on the Internet that would be extremely hard or impossible to document using the current attribution rules, and this is certainly one of them. I also think that the article as it currently exists is almost worthless - it would probably be better write a general description of what a Shock Site is, but not include any examples and refer to an external list than leave it the way it is.

Maybe the solution is to create a special class for Internet phenomena that relaxes the normal rules, or to simply declare them out of scope for WP - although the latter seems a bit extreme.

TriMesh 22:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There are two purposes that this article can serve: to document the internet phenomenon of shock sites, and provide information about the culture and history behind the; and to keep a canonical, ever-updated list of shock sites, so that someone who is given a suspicious link can check it against the wikipedia list to determine whether it is safe. Both of these purposes are valid purposes for an encyclopedia to serve, and because maintainers of shock sites go out of their way to prevent the sites from becoming documented, neither purpose can be served if the inclusion of non-sourced sites is disallowed. Furthermore, I believe the rules in question here are actually for determining whether or not a site is worthy of inclusion in wikipedia are in regards to creation of a specific article for the site in question, and hence are actually completely irrelevant to determining whether a site may or may not be mentioned in this particular article. Either way, there is no purpose served by maintaining this article in its locked state. Although semi-protection may be called for, to prevent actual vandalism, wherein maintainers of shock sites may deface the article by uploading the images from the site onto the article. Upthorn 10:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just been provided with this link to an official wikipedia policy, which seems especially relevant in this case, as the rule requiring a "reliable source" is in direct conflict with the ability to keep this article useful and up to date. Upthorn 11:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at WP:IAR-abg. "Ignore all rules" is not about ignoring principles, especially ones so fundamental as verifiability, and WP:IAR should certainly not be used to justify ignoring the concerns of other editors. Mangojuice^talk 15:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, everything I see in the link you just supplied just supports my citation of it here. Have you read it? Let me paste the portions that I percieve as justifying my citation of it in this case:

There are multiple legitimate purposes for this rule to exist. For example:

• It prevents Wikipedia turning into a beaurocracy where nothing happens, and helps cut down on red tape. No-one can read all the rules, and it encourages people to be WP:BOLD
• It means things can be done which might be against the word of the policy but passes the esscense of them. It's the equivilent of "Use your common sense" - a typical example is if you think something notable is being deleted that doesn't quite fit in policy.
• It tries to prevent people getting obsessive and stressed over little things. Stop worrying about the little things - if you're doing things for the greater good that's all that matters.
• It allows to consensus to adapt over time, allowing rules to change. Since Wikipedia is consensus, think of it as Wikipedia's Jury nullification.

Additionally, the portion under "However, many people seem to misunderstand the sprit of the rule, and think it's a convienient excuse to ignore anything they disagree with. This goeszagainst the intention of the rule." contains no examples of reasons not to cite it which are applicable in this matter.

Specifically,

* Don't cite Ignore All Rules for acting like an idiot. Civility always applies, and don't try to disrupt Wikipedia.

Noone here has been acting idiotically. Though certain users on have been perhaps less civil than they could have been.

* Don't abuse Ignore All Rules if you're an admin using admin features.

Neither I, nor anyone whos viewpoint would be supported by IAR has admin priviledges.

* Don't use it as an excuse and don't use it out of pure laziness. Ideally, read the relevant policies so you know when you're breaking them.

This is not out of laziness. Users of this article have demonstrated that they are well aware of the polices, but strongly disagree with them, at least in regards to this case. Although I would still like to point out that this guideline seems to contradict part of the reason that IAR was made in the first place -- that No-one can read all the rules.

* Don't use it to hide ignorance. If you are ignoring all rules, cite WP:IAR.

This one is a restatement of the point just prior, with an added demand (which has now been met).

* Don't use it to try and create rifts in the community.

I'm using it here to try and close one.

* Don't try and use it to get around WP:CONSENSUS. Deleting stuff that people disagree with in an article, for example.

This behavior seems more to typify the administrative action taken on this article -- removing sites that are the administrator disputed the classification of, and getting a second administrator to lock the article because editors were trying, in good faith, to make the list contained in this article a comprehensive one. Upthorn 14:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You apparently missed "It means things can be done which might be against the word of the policy but passes the esscense of them. It's the equivilent of "Use your common sense" - a typical example is if you think something notable is being deleted that doesn't quite fit in policy." -- THAT is the point. The whole notion of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and how it is created is based on the idea that information be verifiable. How does putting unreliable, unsourceable information up here match the essence of that rule, and while we're at it, the essence of WP:OR? If we're talking about some detail of the rule that doesn't make sense here, I would agree. And in fact, the sources that are used here are not especially reliable, but they're minimally acceptable: in other topics, those sources would be totally ignored: here, we depend on them because of the nature of the subject. But in any case, the argument that we can accept unsourceable material when the topic warrants it has been repeatedly and resoundingly rejected by the community, many times... so reversing that trend here would in fact not be ignoring the rules, but ignoring the community, which is very different. (See the history of WP:MEME for instance: the proposal was essentially created to support the idea that for internet phenomena we don't have to have reliable sources, but it ended up (1) being rejected, and (2) emphasizing sources anyway. Mangojuice^talk 14:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

please add

http://www.porkhole.net/keara.html Liquinn: Site doesn't work, hopefully that can be fixed asap. It's a list of shock sites, please add it to the external link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frogz Contributions/66.167.71.104 (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

I for one am in favor of the link. I'm not sure what objection is being made when it has been removed before. Mangojuice^talk 17:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure when that site started acting like that since i had no problems before, but it doesn't take you to a list anymore, it takes you to some sort of search engine. I'm sorry to say it has no use anymore. —The preceding comment was added by Mrengenious (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Lynux.com might pay to be listed here also: 202.89.152.245 00:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't accept advertising, sorry. Mangojuice^talk 01:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

More description details

I think article description of the two examples is to bland. Say that there's a "man stretching his anus with his hands" is not veritable enough, we should precise that is far stretched (to about 10 cm diameter?) with clear display of red internals; for tubgirl saying "orange/yellow liquid" may mislead to think about urine, it would be better to add "a dense orange/yellow liquid resembling diarrhea".

I think these precisions will better prepare those that want to look at the images, reducing part of the "shock-effect". A more "medicine-like" explanation would help too. --BMF81 12:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC) PS. Also a link to grotesque body in the see also section is very pertinent.

I'm not sure I see why this is necessary. It's a shock site... anyone visiting it after seeing this article can presumably expect to be "shocked". Why would we as an encyclopedia be concerned with reducing that effect?--Isotope23 17:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}. The current content is descriptive enough that nobody will be surprised; it is more descriptive than the request above suggests. CMummert · talk 17:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Meatspin redirects here

Can someone please tell me why meatspin redirects here when there is no mention of it on the page? 82.5.75.13 13:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, good catch. I tried and failed to WP:RFD that redirect a while back, along with several others. Isotope has now deleted that redirect as unecessary. Mangojuice^talk 14:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I forgot to comment here after I did that. I salted the page because it was a protected redirect, but that can always be adjusted in the future if it is determined Meatspin should be included here (or get its own article).--Isotope23 14:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD Merge

Brilliant - an AfD just merged a bunch of trivia, and unsourced material here, which is exactly what we've been trying to keep out of this. Can an admin, say, delete it?

Also - why was this pp-protected? I don't see any reason for it. --Haemo 21:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Example of a shock site (With a source!)

Ogrish.com can be added to the page whenever it is unprotected. It hosts all sorts of sickening autopsy media and other violent footage. Here is the reliable source I found from News.com [6] and another one from the Financial Times [7]. It also received a mention in [8] towards the end of the article. — MichaelLinnear 03:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ogrish.com has an article. Andjam 04:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It should still be mentioned in this article, as Goatse.cx is. — MichaelLinnear 04:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. This is definitely adequate sourcing. Mangojuice^talk 14:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--Isotope23 14:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I added it. — MichaelLinnear 05:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed some of the words in the Ogrish blurb to reflect past tense.

The main article for Ogrish explains the merger with Liveleak and the renaming but the paragraph in this article led you to believe it was actively functioning as Ogrish.com. The only changes I made were to show it's history. Coradon 07:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

New direction for the article

Well, since the most recent AfD closed as keep despite extremely little sourcing, I think the article needs to take a new direction. First, it's apparent that the current form has the definition wrong. This is OR, but here's how it's used in the sources I've seen. The Scotsman.com source [9] defines a "shock site" as a site with offensive content with the built-in idea that the site might be used as part of a trick where one expects to see something not offensive but instead is sent to a shock site. This is the definition as endorsed by the article now. However, the other sources, [10], [11], [12], all use the term "shock site" to merely refer to any website that hosts shocking content. Mind you, none of these last three sources are actually about shock sites as a topic (though, the scotsman article is), but rather are about certain events relating to certain websites that are described as "shock sites". Anyway, this second definition seems to be the one that sources use, so we need to revise our definition. Second, we need to do away with this list of examples, it's caused nothing but problems. As many, many newer users have pointed out, the list isn't comprehensive. Since most (virtually all) potentially offensive websites don't appear in reliable sources at all, we really can't have a comprehensive list. Furthermore, the sourcing we do have totally sucks. The only sites we have at all reasonable sources for are ones that already have their own articles: Goatse.cx and Ogrish.com. Therefore, I think, it is reasonable to eliminate the "examples" section and replace with a list, which will be a plain list of other articles on shock sites. Third, we could stand to have a little more actual text. For one thing, the "anti-shock" site phenomenon could be mentioned; the Scotsman source backs that up. Also, there seems to be a coherent story about shock sites in general: Goatse.cx and Ogrish were both shut down because they were so offensive; Stileproject and Rotten.com have not been, but have been the subject of serious complaints. This seems to be a general issue we could write about and we have the sources to do so. Mangojuice^talk 21:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

cc.org

i move that cc.org be included on the list of shock sites, it has made me vomit many a time —The preceding Frogz unsigned comment was added by 72.244.127.175 (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately I have no reference for it, therefore impossible or something to add it. Unless someone else does.

Sources

MangoJuice, you are wrong! From WP:ATT: Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. So what you are having such a hang-up about is finding secondary sources for "descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge" - primary sources!

That tub girl exists can be verified by anyone without specialist knowledge. That tub girl is shocking can be verified by anyone without specialist knowledge. That tub girl is wearing a mask can be verified by anyone without specialist knowledge. That she is squirting an 'orange liquid' out of her anus can be verified by anyone without specialist knowledge. If I were to state that her name is Ralph & she is 12 years old & the 'orange liquid' is blackberry jam with food coloring I would, in fact need a secondary source!

Whether or not a website exists can be verified by anyone without specialist knowledge. Whether or not a website meets the definition of a 'shock site' can be verified by anyone without specialist knowledge.

Now, my beef with the 'shock site' page is this: As an encyclopedia, I expected WikiPedia to explain what in the heck is going on in the picture. Not to have a debate about whether or not it's technically a 'shock site.' Information about who is in the picture, who took the picture, what is the orange liquid, etc...

Whether or not there is a canonical list of 'shock sites' is tertiary. Perhaps at the bottom of the page, or perhaps not at all. That would be up to the community & has NOTHING to do with attribution!

The primary purpose, to define 'shock sites'.

The secondary purpose, to define or give information about search terms such as 'tub girl', which redirect here. Have fun with your little tug-of-war!

• The above comment was added by Ofortuna (talk · contribs)

• We'd love if you could dig up some more verifiable information for us to use in the article. As for the "orange liquid" bit, someone at some point put into the article text saying that it was orange juice. I don't know if that's true or not, and neither did they, nor, as far as I can tell, does anyone else. Which is sort of the point: I'd rather have no info at all in there than something someone made up that can't be verified. Mangojuice^talk 20:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just using tub girl as a generic example of what is wrong with your misinterpretation of the secondary source rule. I really DO NOT WANT to know (EEEEEW!) Although, having just opened a Kerns, could it possibly be Mango Juice? I keed. It is somewhat of an interesting coincidence, though...

Thanks for tolerating my opinion (and sophomoric sense of humor).

My apologies for dropping that at the top of the discussion, my first comment on WikiPedia. I think I may have figured out how to sign my name, too!

Ofortuna 07:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Mango juice is kind of expensive, I doubt they'd have used that. Although, it is less acidic. Aaanyway. You are right, simple observations aren't original research. So, saying that Tubgirl depicts blah with orange liquid is not OR. What is OR, though, is classifying Tubgirl as a shock site without any reliable sources to back that up. I mean, we could also make the observation that on Yahoo.com one can find pictures of large amounts of nude people taken by Spencer Tunick. That's easily verified, but including it here would imply that this is considered to be a shock site (and, moreover, some people surely do find those photos offensive). Now, I think Tubgirl probably is generally considered as such, and Yahoo isn't, I'm picking extreme examples here, but I think this illustrates why we have to avoid that kind of OR. Mangojuice^talk 16:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Rotten.com

Do you think we should add rotten.com to this page? The site is pretty shocking, and it has it's own article, which also has quite a few sources. --AAA! (AAAA) 03:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

At a cursory glance, yes, I think it would qualify for the same reason as Ogrish above. --MichaelLinnear 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'll get started on it when I get the chance. Cheers. --AAA! (AAAA) 06:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you guys think about my comments at #New direction for the article? I think Rotten.com certainly belongs, but partly, that's because the current article seemingly gets the definition wrong. Mangojuice^talk 15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, after looking it over it's very intriguing. A new approach like that might create an article with more "meat" to it. --MichaelLinnear 05:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There's many shock sites. How do you determine whose the authority on them? Dave Rebecca 19:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The typical Wikipedia approach: look for independent, reliable secondary sources. So far, for shock sites, I haven't seen one source saying X is a shock site and another saying X isn't, but if it came up, we could just mention the difference of opinion, and possibly favor one side if one source had a better claim to authority. Mangojuice^talk 20:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Major Shock Site Inclusion

Surely if the article cannot contain the major shock sites because they are unsourced, then maybe the next best thing will be to include them in the discussion page. CC 06/08/2007 21:25 BST

Unprotect?

Should we give unprotection a try? I don't like to see articles of such minor controversy full-protected for months on end. At least semi-protection. I was going to make a few improvements. BenB4 05:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It is semi-protected right now, you should be able to help out right now. --MichaelLinnear 05:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Like... seriously....? who cleaned this whole area up?? This repressented one of the great freedoms of the web and it's a crime against wiki that it's gone. CheShA 01:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Snopes.com

Hello,

Somebody has stupidly put a link as reference of a shock site. 80.118.163.12 09:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Er, did you read the link? It actually references Goatse.--Isotope23 16:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit, it's not the best reference. It does call Goatse a shock site, though, which is why it's there. Still, it's a very tangential mention: if anyone can do better, it would be appreciated. Mangojuice^talk 18:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I admit. Regards. 80.118.163.12 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Link to redirect

There's still a link to List of shock sites, which has been merged with this article. 59.101.141.121 11:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? I looked and wasn't able to find it. --MichaelLinnear 22:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that...allegedly

The section on tubgirl describes an article "claiming that the subject matter is allegedly popular in Japan." That's excessive weaselling. If we say "claiming that", then we've already distanced ourselves from a POV endorsement of the claim - we're not saying the claim is true, but we're saying that the article says it's true. With "claiming that...allegedly" it sounds like the article cited is also distancing itself from the claim. (In which case, who made the actual allegation?) I'd strongly suggest removing the word "allegedly"; the article in question did really make the claim, and so we can say that for sure without extra weasel words. 216.59.228.3 12:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Mangojuice^talk 20:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Insultmonger.com

Has anyone heard of Insultmonger.com? What is Insultmonger.com? --Blake3522 07:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)