Talk:Shock site

This page was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in May 2004. The result of the discussion was to keep the article. An archive of the discussion can be found at Talk:Shock site/Delete.

---

/Archive

make links clickable

should, or should not (every time a still viable site is listed, at least), the links provided to shock sites be clickable (for those who come here looking for instant validation?) Autopilots 06:32, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Bakla.net should be removed from this article. There is little shocking about its content. Big whoop, a super-imposed penis on a woman. Bakla.net isn't even close to the shock value of goatsex or tubgirl. Kingturtle 01:00 29 May 2003 (UTC)

On the other hand, it does demonstrate that there's a range of shockingness in sites that can be considered as such. But I would say the picture-by-picture descriptions of images that are all on a single page is a bit much in this case. -- John Owens 01:10 29 May 2003 (UTC)

I agree - not even slightly shocking. In fact, the information relating to the photographs is incorrect in one major respect - it is not a fake. I added a comment in the text stating that is is PROBABLY not a fake, but actually I KNOW it's not a fake. (see [1] Whether it is or not, it's still not shocking to me - I can't think who might be shocked by it, but then again that's totally subjective. So much so that I can't really see what the point of this page is, to be honest I feel it has no place in Wikipedia at all. But if it stays, at least this section should be deleted. GRAHAMUK 06:57 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Bakla.net appears to me to have two different girls (first 3 pics are one, last 3 are another). Kind of makes it irrelevant to the photoshopping debate —Mulad

Bakla.net is still shocking to those who aren't used to ladyboys.

For instance, Joe Somebody gets a link to Bakla and starts looking at the site, thinking the woman is pretty and attractive. Then when he finds the "Woman" has a penis, it would make him hurl.

But you are right that it shows two different people! - Whisper

• My point is that bakla is a mediocre and dull shock site. it doesn't hold a candle to other sites. If this article is going to list examples, bakla should be left out because it pales in comparison with tubgirl and goatsex. Kingturtle 18:31 29 May 2003 (UTC)

I think bakla should be kept, because the intent of the site is to shock its viewers. We should just clarify in the article that there are different kinds/degrees of shock sites. I also vaguely remember a ghost animation site that was pretty creepy. --Eloquence 19:40 29 May 2003 (UTC)

It really should go. Not mildly shocking, unless one is homophobic. RickK 23:57, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Uhh, eloquence, how did I "break the page"? It works fine on my browser. I use IE 6. --Whispertothewind

You chopped off most of it, see your edit diff. -- John Owens 00:07 30 May 2003 (UTC)

---

For instance, Joe Somebody gets a link to Bakla and starts looking at the site, thinking the woman is pretty and attractive. Then when he finds the "Woman" has a penis, it would make him hurl.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Maybe it makes you hurl, but that's your problem. You are projecting onto "Joe Somebody" (== everybody), something which is an exaggeration (surely?) of something you vaguely feel. Also, consider the feelings of a person who is transgendered in such a way - quite common - knowing that somebody is likely to "hurl" just because of the way their sexual organs is formed is pretty hurtful. Would you "hurl" at pictures of thalidomide victims? Or what if you passed one in the street? It's not like it's even a freaky looking penis, it's just a penis... OK, so its porn and that distorts the argument, it's not like she hasn't chosen to be photographed and presented, etc (or perhaps not, but that's another argument altogether). Anyway, thing is that such people do exist, the shock value is (for most people) is probably next to nil, and there is always the denial route (i.e. it's a fake) if you still can't face up to the reality.

--

1. Not everybody on the internet is familiar with these kinds of sites, and Bakla.net would shock those types of people. I'm familiar with Shocks sites, therefore I wasn't extremely shocked by the naked lady boy. It would certainly shock an impressionable man who got pictures of a "cute girl" only to find she's a lady boy.

2. What makes the person "hurl" is the trickery. The webpage at first makes you think this is just another pretty lady, then it reveals she isn't as feminine as she seems. Whether or not it was done with photoshop, it would still be shocking to the person looking at the photogtaph.

3. I DID take the denial route because I saw the Goatse giver image manipulated, and I thought that particular image was manipulated too until I learned about the lady boys in Thailand.

But yea, i'm sorry for accidentally wrecking the page that time. Thank the lord Wikipedia saves the previous versions of the article. ._. --Whispertothewind

---

"A shock site is a website whose contents are chosen to be offensive to most viewers." This sounds like the viewers have CHOSEN to be offended. I am going to rephrase the first sentence accordingly. Kingturtle 03:53 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

I think these site examples should go as seperate articles linked from this page (or at least the goatse.cx one which is very popular). -- Ilyanep

I don't, we already have redirects in place, and the current article is a carefully worked out compromise. I do think the "external link" sections should be unified. --Eloquence 22:20 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well then, subarticles...or at least unify the external links' --Ilyanep 22:38 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Please do not use subpages! --Eloquence 22:40 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Someone should add a section on Lemon Party, since it still occasionally gets linked to from Slashdot. Kricxjo 18:46 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Ahh: you were right Eloquence - and the subtle change in the headers has helped me see that :) Martin 23:36, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

What is the URL of Lemonparty? ~ Whispertome

http://www.lemonparty.org. Unfortunately, it's currently defunct and I believe has been so for quite some time. -- 212.229.115.84 4:24 24 Aug 2003 (BST)

How is this shocking? What makes it different from any other gay porn site? RickK 23:59, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

One could find that shocking since it features a group of old men instead of young people. Evice 04:35, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

---

Truely, when I remember the absolutely incredible amount of discussion there was over putting a little picture on the clitoris image, while this article exist and give the most disgusting links with direct access to the most horrifying pictures, I am astonished. I cannot believe that some people complain about the poor insertion or even a media link to a very reasonable image of a clitoris, even with painted nails (what is wrong with painted nails anyway ?) and accept that their kids can get here (mind you, a reasonable explanation of what a shock site is is okay) but from here may go to an incredibly high number of external sites. There are not so many articles with so many external links. Do we really need to make a highway to these sites ? Anthère

I really have to agree. I think having external links on this page is highly hypocritical and very POV (by defining what should be "shocking"). Either way, I just do not see what about those links is encyclopedic. At the very least, we should give the name of the site, with no link. Then if they really want, they can Google it. Paige 16:07, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The solution to avoid hypocrisy is to censor less, not more. There are entirely legitimate reasons to study the psychological and social effects of these websites, and there is no reason for Wikipedia to dictate any kind of moral standard for its readers.—Eloquence 17:06, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)

I can respect that, Eloquence, but we clearly have a double standard here. Even if this article was NPOV, which it clearly isn't (Ladyboy?!), Anthere still had a good point. There should be one standard for what is a qualified external link, and since external links are used as outside references, they too should be informative. While one may get an education from these pictures, do they really need to be discussed in an encyclopedia? There's very little on this page about "the psychological and social effects." Either way, including four sections on paraphilia-related shock sites does offer a moral standard by condemning these things as "shocking," while the vast majority of other shocking things out there are not presented. I'll abide by the majority opinion here, as always, but the links are unnecessary in my view. Paige 21:49, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I would support removing some of the stuff which I do not think really qualifies as shock site (such as the Bakla.net site), but in general I think it's wrong to ask the question "do we need this?" but more appropriate to ask "is there any reason to remove this?". One reason to remove some of the links might be obscenity law in the United States.—Eloquence 21:54, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)

Here is some of the links included in the page

1. http://goatse.cx -- WARNING! This link takes you directly to the picture described above.
2. http://www.goatse.cx/giver.html -- "Giver" subsection with photo of man with oversized penis
3. http://www.goatse.cx/contrib.html -- "Contributions" subsection with ASCII art and reader contributions
4. http://www.goatse.cx/mail.html -- "Feedback" subsection with reader email selections
5. http://goatse.cx/contrib/gap.zip -- ZIP file containing the entire image set. It has 40 JPEG files and is 771 KB in size.
6. http://hick.org/goat , http://goat.cx -- known mirrors or alternative URLs
7. http://www.stileproject.com -- originally located the image set. WARNING! This site contains pornographic and potentially offensive materials. The Stile Project server is located in the Chicago, Illinois metro-region.
8. http://www.fc-uk.org.uk/goatse/index.html -- A satirical interview with Bob Goatse.
9. http://www.dangerz.net/gatasa/article.shtml -- 'Proof' of hermaphrodite theory. WARNING! This link takes you directly to the picture described above.

Among these ones, http://goatse.cx, http://hick.org/goat, http://goat.cx lead to *exactly* the same picture. http://www.dangerz.net/gatasa/article.shtml is hardly different, just less gross

http://goatse.cx/contrib/gap.zip is of little interest. The link the web site is abundently provided. If users are really interested, I am sure they can make the effort to look for this file by themselves.

http://goat.cx, http://www.goatse.cx/giver.html, http://www.goatse.cx/contrib.html and http://www.goatse.cx/mail.html are all *very clearly* linked together. I think putting the link just to one of them is really enough. Again, a reasonably bright person can be expected to click on one of the three links provided to access the other 3 pages. Even a very low iq can do that, so I don't think we need to give all subpages.

In short, of 8 links on this page, we could keep only one, perhaps two.

There is a moment where giving all the subpages of a website is not information any more, but just imposing things on readers. It is not even a question of censorship here, but could be confused with pure delight in playing with gross stuff. It is totally wrong to force external links on readers without a justification. Repeating the same links over and over is just wrong. And it will have to go away. Anthère

OK, I took a step back and reevaluated my objections to this page and came to this conclusion: I was being very POV. In essence, I was initially offended by the inclusion of the Bakla links here, and subsequently found the whole thing distasteful and inappropriate. While I still believe that this article does not belong the on the wiki at all, if it's going to be here, it should not be censored. I support the edits of redundant links by Anthère and would still be in favor of changing the Bakla section to at least explain that this woman is, like myself, transgendered and not some kind of circus freak. I still feel that it is a biased approach to say that my own existence is "shocking" to others, however, I do not let myself edit articles when I feel I cannot be impartial and NPOV. I shouldn't have tried to impose my own views here and respectfully withdraw my suggestion that the links be removed or changed to be non-clickable.

this honors you Next Paige. Do not let yourself be hurt. I dared not removing more. And I don't feel like exploring all of them to see which ones would be "less" of a "loss" to remove. Hopefully, these links will die one day. ant

It was silly of me. Sorry. (I will commence with vigorous self-flagellation immediately!)

"[E]xternal links at the bottom of an article are part of the article, and deleting them is not like deleting material from a Talk: page. ... [I]sn't a link just a proposition like any other?" – Jimbo Wales on WikiEN-l "Re: articles about Serbian history," Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:04:47 -0700

That’s a good enough argument for me; I think I had been looking at things backwards. So I’m going to go with a "more is better, let the reader decide" approach from now on, as Eloquence suggested.  : ) Thanks, Paige 15:16, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I would also support removing more.

bakla

It is very common in Thailand for so-called "ladyboys" to act as escorts and prostitutes.

I'm not clear on the relevance of this. Is sie Thai? Even if sie is, does it matter?

The pictures (china1.jpg,china2.jpg,china3.jpg) show a ladyboy that is well-known in certain internet circles, as well as in the bars of Pattaya Beach (not faked).

I tried to find a reference for this, and couldn't. A name would have helped, a link would have helped more. So I'm not convinced that it's verifiable (if it is, it isn't by me). Martin 22:17, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

"QUOTE: ::::I would support removing some of the stuff which I do not think really qualifies as shock site (such as the Bakla.net site), but in general I think it's wrong to ask the question "do we need this?" but more appropriate to ask "is there any reason to remove this?". One reason to remove some of the links might be obscenity law in the United States.—Eloquence 21:54, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)"

Eloquence, read about the Miller Test of Obscenity. If a site violated US law by violating the Miller test, it would not be up. Very little porn gets snared in the Miller test. I don't think there is any way which the aforementioned sites will get snared in the Miller test. Also, I added back the mirrors because they are THERE. They are alternative URL's which can trick people into the shock site. 67.74.134.193 07:52, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

the goal of wikipedia is not to provide all the links to shock sites, and it is not either its role to provide liberally links to sites that might trick people (just providing them is a sort of a trick). The role is to explain what is a shock site. Nothing else.

That doesn't mean that Wikipedia shouldn't link to the sites, provided that ample warning is given. if someone wants to learn more about the innapropriate site by going there, so be it. The mirrors to the shock sites are staying.

And please IDENTIFY yourself by putting four tildes after your name. WhisperToMe 01:08, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I copy here the comment I put on your talk page

Hello

I would prefer the list of mirror sites not to be in the article. You may mention in the article that they were several mirror sites tricking people to make them see the picture. This is the relevant information. Putting the links is not adding any information if the mirror existence is stated, and if the pict link is already provided.

I will add that I am personnaly shocked by your line The mirrors to the shock sites are staying. Articles are written upon consensus, and that I know, you have not specific right to decide how they are gonna be. Note that I said "I would prefer".

I would prefer that the list of mirror sites do not stay. Anthère

• I concur. Kingturtle 01:55, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
• Thirded. Paige 02:25, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Alright, you can keep it the way you want. Why should the filenames of the Bakla.net pictures not be shown, however?

I'm sorry about that, though. I just got a high temper because it felt like "going backwards". The history shows that someone else put in these links to the other locations, and they stayed for a long time. WhisperToMe 02:54, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

For the record, I am not opposed to listing the mirrors. It is actually useful information because it can prevent you from accidentally viewing one of the mirrors.—Eloquence 03:06, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That brings up another reason why I got so angry. Even if the mirrors are listed, they are much harder to find by someone skimming the article. By having them listed, it is much easier for someone skimming to see that they are mirrors. And that can lead to problems with people being tricked to the mirrors. Also, the article no longer says what goat.cx and hick.org/goat are. It just lists where they are based. WhisperToMe 04:07, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Maybe we could compromise by stating the names of the mirrors, but not linking to them? Martin 08:47, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

this is just fine by me. Anthère

That is a good comprimise. Should the names of the sites be bolded? E. G. "Goatse has two mirrors: goat.cx and hick.org/goat 67.74.135.112 02:48, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I would prefer that only warnings are bolded (the "receiver", "feedback"... should not be bolded imho), not text. But if precisely, one of the goal in writing the names is to warn people, that might make sense. Anthère

Actually I was thinking that they should be bold as synonyms for the heading sites, what do you think? Kind of like: Santa Claus, sometimes called St. Nick, is...only with site names? Paige 06:17, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I quite like that idea. They do need some way to stand out - bold or italics. Martin 09:18, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

I recognise the necessity some could see at giving the names or adresses of these sites. But I still object to those being directly accessible by a single click on the link. Since the only argument really offered to support leaving these links here is to see the name and adress, I think leaving non clickable links is a fair compromise. The adresses are still available, but not as easily.

---

Was that really a "peg" that was being used in gap.zip? Looked more like some sort of toy penis to me.

Never mind, I was looking in the wrong bit.

---

Whats the URL to the Harlequin Baby? I think that site should be included with the other 4 (Goatse, Tubgirl, Bakla, and the defunct Lemonparty) 67.74.134.184 02:15, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Harlequin Fetus (or Fetuses, since it's actually a medical condition) isn't actually a shock site, at least not in the same way as Goatse.cx, Tubgirl, or even the Pain Series. There's actually quite a few sites that carry pics of them. One of them is http://www.asylumeclectica.com/malady/archives/harlequin.htm. But I'd beware, it's easily more disgusting than any of the listed shock sites (apart from maybe the Pain Series, which I daren't view).

---

What's snuffx.com? I think I can guess what's at shitfreaks.com... Othersider 12:10, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Separate entries for separate sites?

The separate sites should be described in separate entries, especially when they get as large as the Goatse.cx discussion. I'm going to break that one off. --The Cunctator 13:04, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I disagree - I feel that the single article was more informative than the now two seperate articles. Martin 19:46, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Martin is correct. The merging was the result of a careful consensus decision.—Eloquence

I concur with Martin and Eloquence. Daniel Quinlan 05:29, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

To me, the article looks an absolutely hideous mess. Perhaps it's an exercise in self-reference? ;)

A general article shouldn't be a collection of independent articles on specific examples, tacked together one after the other. The purpose of any article should be to give a general overview of the subject. Obviously that involves, in part, describing the best-known and most influential examples, because that's necessary to understand the subject. But these examples should be presented with context, showing how they fit into the general scheme of things. ("This is the earliest example", "this is the best-known example", and so on.) Enough information should be given about them to tell the reader what the sites are, but beyond that, only information that illuminates the general subject should be included. (In case anyone thinks I'm being inconsistent here, I want to stress that I don't think the details should be removed from the Wikipedia altogether. I think that details about a specific example in a general article are fair enough until there's enough material to split them off into a separate article of non-trivial size, but I see this as an unfortunate and hopefully only temporary necessity, rather than something to be strived for.)

With the single exception of the opening line in the section on goatse.cx ("Goatse.cx is a widely-known shock site, with internet trolls heavily promoting (or secretly linking to) the site"), nothing in these sections tells us anything about these sites' importance to the general subject. Information on, say, the location or detailed contents of goatse.cx (or any of the other sites) in a general article seems to me no more relevant than information on the location or prominent landmarks of France (or any other country) in the country article. I'd be interested to know how Martin found the single article "more informative".

Anyway, where was this "careful consensus decision" made? I've skimmed through this talk page and its archive, but I can't find the discussion. (When referring people to previous discussions, please provide links!) -- Oliver P. 03:44, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think the article should be pared down somewhat. A lot of the sites don't really even fit into the description:

• Goatse.cx: Definately keep this one, as it's the best known.
• Tubgirl: Keep this one as well, another well known one.
• The Pain Series: This should never have been added. Not only does it barely fit into the description, but it's only well known in the Something Awful forums.
• Bakla: Don't know how well known this is, but I suppose it can be kept.
• Lemonparty: It's been restored recently, but I don't see much reason for keeping it there.
• Rate My Goatse: Not really a shock site; most of the pictures aren't offensive, or originate from Rotten.com or gay porn sites.
• Rate My Poo: Doesn't really fit into the category.
• Faces Of Death: This shouldn't even be here; the movies themselves are shocking, but there's no offensive material on the site.
• Last Measure: Same problem as the Pain Series; not well known, and just a collection of shock site images. Good as an example of websites that mess up your computer, but I don't think it fits into the category. 81.129.115.246 23:48, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Last Measure isn't really a "shock site" by Wikipedia's definition, although people who read the article so that they will know what to look out for would want to know about it. Also, its description needs to be fixed up.

Harlequin Fetus is very shocking and ought to be added. --An anonymous stopping by

I disagree with your assertion that the Pain Series is only well known in the Something Awful forums. I've seen it often in small message boards and occasionally even on Slashdot. And I'm part of a cabal of Slashdot trolls that's very partial to Last Measure. -- anon, 14:31, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Well, what's its URL? WhisperToMe 20:49, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's listed above. It's at http://www.asylumeclectica.com/malady/archives/harlequin.htm, it's a rather disgusting birth defect that no baby survives from very long. It look rather painful, too. - Lord Kenneth 20:58, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

---

I think what we should do is split the article into two articles - one talking about Shock sites and how they're used, etc, the other one listing the most notorious shock sites. 81.129.118.94 11:46, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Last Measure's popups may still be blocked by MozillaFirebird, but the main page with the "GAY PORNO" voice, and the poo-faced lady ARE NOT.

---

The link to the "RIP Goatse" cartoon is blocked by the target site. It seems to be interpreted as hotlinking. Maybe we should ask the admins to allow referrals from wikipedia. Marnanel 00:28, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Erm, is it ok if someone with a stable stomach and knowledge of Finnish try to translate what is on the goatse.fi page? The hello.jpg image is there, but so is a caption in Finnish (or is it Swedish? More likely the former...) WhisperToMe 00:15, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Splitting this into two sounds like a good idea (one for shock sites, another for examples with detailed descriptions). It would also make sense to dig up some specific examples of hidden links from Slashdot or other forums to these sites. I am also thinking that sites, which try to scare visitors (look at the picture for 30 seconds and then it changes into some scary face and a loud cry is played through the speakers), might also be mentioned in this article.

http://outspired.yo.lv/whatswrong.swf http://www.jaybill.com/article.php?articleID=49 (a copy of the above?) http://www.liquidgeneration.com/sabotage/vision_sabotage.asp http://rubberpants.phenominet.com/index.waldo

I don't know if this is relevant to the goatse.cx, but check it out: http://web.archive.org/web/20030124023707/http://thejokefactory.org/NTJF/Food/bigapple.jpg

Paranoid, 21.02.2004

It's surprising that people have put so much time into this entry. There is a copy of the RIP goatse cartoon on stileproject.com

---

This article is way too long with too much listing of details about examples instead of discussing the actual subject matter. I completely

agree with Oliver P. above; move the site blow-by-blow descriptions to articles of their own.

194.47.144.5 08:34, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree, reading it felt like reading a laundry list of all the specific details of each shock site, taunting the reader to see for himself without adding anything to the general discussion of the shock site phenomenon. I agree that explaining the content of the shock site is good as a warning tool for readers, but with all the extra details (captions on images, etc) the tone is that of a freak show, rather than an article examining public fascination with/abuse of said freak show. In my opinion such extraneous material could be edited and more general discussion. I also feel like the article should include something on the people who seek out these images (for instance the regulars at rotten.com). Laura Scudder 22:12, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cheesy Thighs?

About a year or more ago my roommate came across a site called cheesythighs. It features a woman with spread legs and some type of completely gangrenous/rotten pus. It is easily the most disgusting picture I've ever seen, but seems to have disappeared from the net, which I find strange. Any recollection of it anyone?

I don't know what you're talking about, but I suspect it may be what I know as "metoday", from the filename. Here is the offensive image, and yes, it is pretty disgusting. -- 21:39, 27 Mar 2004 (GMT)

Hey! That picture appears in the Pain series! WhisperToMe 21:49, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Do we need all these?

Some of these images are significant in that some are foudn in others, but this article shouldn't become the repository of all things shock images... Dysprosia 10:55, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Is there any good reason why none of these links are active?

Darrien 11:11, 2004 Apr 24 (UTC)

The Pain Series was shut down due to TOS violations. I dunno about the Tubgirl.com redirect site. WhisperToMe 22:58, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "active" as in "clickable". i.e. Is there any good reason why none of the links in the article are clickable?

Darrien 07:06, 2004 Apr 27 (UTC)

---

Rotten.com?

Why is Rotten not listed among the shock sites? Isn't it one of the original purveyors of disgusting imagery? They are referred to in the discussions of a few other sites, but should have its own section.

There is rotten.com. Of course, it can be listed here. WhisperToMe 23:20, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Question, what exactly does wilwheaton.org's whois information have to do with anything? It's more than likely false, i mean check out nero-online.org's info while you're at it. --Goat-see 03:29, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Which is why the phrase "according to the WHOIS information" is there. It describes the source so people know that it can be fabricated. WhisperToMe 06:11, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I really think Goatse should be moved to a separate article. Mainly because it's getting lengthy, but also because of how well known it is (compared to any other shock site). A summary should be kept, of course. Fredrik 13:36, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Separate list?

Maybe we could have a separate page for just a list of links, and keep this page for the information. Both pages could refer to each other.

On slightly different subject, considering all the weird hentai and anime pictures in the pain series, this picture: http://vcl.ctrl-c.liu.se/vcl/Artists/Anaktis/Adult_Stuff/Disturbingly_Cute_Herm_fox.jpg could fit right in. --24.194.68.19 02:00, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That artist has some serious issues... Matt gies 02:40, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There's absolutely gobs of that kind of furry art out there, so unless it's well known and commonly used for shock purposes there's no point in including it IMO. Same as any other random freaky pr0n image you might come up with. DopefishJustin 01:45, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

True or false??

True or false: This article should be marked as an X-rated article, that is, a page where you must be at least 18 years of age to visit. 66.245.102.55 00:51, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

What the heck? The warning is enough, man. WhisperToMe 02:40, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Last Measure

User:Paullusmagnus believes that we should not discuss Last measure in as much depth as it is right now in the Shock site article, as he argues that the site is not well known.

I think that it should be discussed in detail, as there is a lot to note about the said site, and that I think that we should record as much details as possible so that people can learn all about the site without actually having to go there.

Any opinions on this matter? WhisperToMe 05:39, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

• At one time, even http://goatse.cx was not well known. Word gets out man. Goat-see 18:05, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
  • It's not quite a matter of how well-known it is — I think that some of the information is just unencyclopedic, period. The page on Google doesn't say a thing about what http://www.google.com looks like (although its spare design does deserve mention, which I suppose it gets via screenshots). If it did, it wouldn't talk about what each link goes to, and what the comments in the HTML say about how they automatically put the caret in the search box. According to Alexa.com, Last Measure's [2], its traffic rank is 1,162,937, so I wouldn't call it so important that we have to know more about it than we know about Google, one of the most famous website designs in existence.
    • Normally, one wouldn't need to do that either. But the reason detailed descriptions are HERE is because a shock site is unpleasant to visit, therefore people should learn everything they could know about the site here without going there. WhisperToMe 01:33, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
      • But do they need to know it? The technically inclined can simply turn off javascript and image display, but I can't see anyone else caring. (We could perhaps recommend that for the interested...) Paullusmagnus 01:56, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
      • And what about the pictures themselves? This is also done with Goatse. WhisperToMe 02:08, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
        • By this logic, the pictures might merit description (Last Measure has no original pictures though, right?), and, although reading about them is better than seeing them, I can't really imagine a time when the fact that the picture is offensive, and a vague description of the content would be helpful to anyone. In general, if the exact content is relevent (legal matters?), it'd need to be verified directly, anyways. Paullusmagnus 02:41, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
        • Many of last measure's pictures are not "original", but it has several where I don't know where they came from. WhisperToMe 03:03, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
        • Telling people that "we're an encyclopedia that doesnt explain what this site does, shows you, and says" is rather.. stupid. Your proposed edit to my page's description removed ALL of the mirror sites, all of the information, and left it with a gist of "don't go here, it makes popups and might make your machine crash." And the DETAIL is unencyclopedic?? Goat-see 04:35, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
          • We are an encyclopedia that doesn't say that Google's front page HTML has virtually all of the whitespace removed and no comments (apparently) to speed up load time. We are not in the business of describing web pages past their function, so I don't see anything wrong with "don't go here, it makes popups and might make your machine crash." I didn't even see anything about crashing computers in the mess that I wanted to remove, and insofar as I don't care about what keystroke brings up the credits listing, a shorter passage would be more informative. Please don't take it as an attack on you that your site is getting less description than it was previously: "go.com", the 8th most popular site on the web according to Alexa [3], has only passing mention on the web portal article, and nothing else. So, yes, putting in all this detail about Last Measure makes it look like we're either trying to promote it or something.
        • Describing the web page is what is done on the shock site page. All of the pictures must be described, and all (or most) of the locations of the said site must be shown, or the warning flops on its face. WhisperToMe 16:19, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
          • But what good does the description do? Wikipedia is only meant to store all useful knowledge, but the exact content of these pages falls into the what-I-had-for-breakfast sort of stuff. I can't think of a reason that anyone would care. And having so much random information completely hid the fact that it tries to crash your computer from me. People skim the stuff that they don't want to know, especially if it deals with shock sites and trolling, because they don't want to be disgusted, and they don't want to devote too much brain power to thinking about trolling (which is exactly the troll's desire). Paullusmagnus 18:43, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
            • Well some of the information COULD go, but don't delete all but the first paragraph. That totally defeats the purpose of documenting it. Also, it doesn't try to crash your computer, that's a side effect of my javascript that I hevne't worked out yet. Goat-see 22:52, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm with Paullusmagnus here. The description of the site has too much irrelevant detail. Fredrik 18:49, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
          • There may be some detail there that could be considered irrelevant. But the general description of the actual Last Measure page (e.g. the pictures and the text on the actual page) should stay, because the other shock sites are described in that way. However, perhaps the previous WHOIS can go. And maybe the counter can be put in the external links section. WhisperToMe 21:02, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the depth the article goes into is inappropriate; I feel something discussed in this much detail merits its own article, Last Measure, instead of it being a redirect to Shock Site, just as goatse.cx has its own. Ich 16:00, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Pain Series: A job worth doing that no one will want to do

I just looked through the entire pain series (morbid curiosity). I couldn't tell what all the pictures were, and was hoping this page would help.

The lists of what are shown in the Pain Series, here, are not comprehensive. There are several other images in each photo.

Personally, I'm gonna be weaselly and say: I've paid my dues. And I'd rather not go back to those photos. ::Shudders:: Let's just say I'll have bad dreams tonight.

So... any candidates for accuracy work re: the Pain Series? Mike Church 05:27, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I thought I did that already! WhisperToMe 05:33, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

wilwheaton.org

I don't think this thing redirects on a strictly random basis. I messed around with it for a bit (in lynx), and got redirected to wilwheaton.net about 90% of the time (I stopped after about 30 tries when I got spin.gif and realized that lynx has the rather disagreeable habit of automatically downloading and opening image files in Mozilla). Kairos 06:18, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

teentitparty.com

Some anon users want to keep that site. Hmm... what should we do? WhisperToMe 21:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

im curious, have sites ever been removed from that list, say on account of it not being well-known or something? Frencheigh 21:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I actually don't think they have. I put in a shock site that isn't that well known, but is notable because it shows Nick Berg getting killed. WhisperToMe 22:06, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let Teentitparty.com STAY!!. wikimaster 26:06, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this one is ok to stay. It's sufficiently shocking and gross, but it's also quite funny. As long as there is a professional description of it and not this typical "OMG, so gross, lol Wilkipedia is teh Hitler" type commentary that has been popping up all afternoon, I'm all for adding this to the list. If we add it to the list, it will become quite well known in no time at all. THE INTERNET OVERLORD 26:08, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let em stay. It's legit enough. User:moreshock:moreshock 27:05, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please note that both wikimaster and internet overlord have ONLY edited this page, and that the user calling him/herself moreshock is actually User:4.155.120.156. Sockpuppets all. And "internet overlod", this is an encyclopedia, we don't put things on external links lists so that they will become quite well known. RickK 05:09, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

I really don't think this one needs to be in this article. Kairos 09:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

concidering google hasnt even spidered this site yet, nor is there mention of it elsewhere (according to google), this is about as unknown as it can be. so i imagine the, uh, vigorus attempts to keep it here are attempts to make its debut. Frencheigh 22:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the point that the others are making is that Wikipedia should not be used to make a site more popular, if it isn't already popular in the first place. WhisperToMe 03:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

last measure

I was redirected here from last measure, which this article doesn't explain. Are "shock sites" also called "last measure" sites or something, and if so, could we explain why? func(talk) 01:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The information WAS in this article, but someone moved it to "List of shock sites". WhisperToMe 01:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)