Wikipedia born from porn site "Bomis"

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Wikipedia born from porn site "Bomis"

Post by wexter » Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:52 am

Now everything about Wikipedia makes a little bit more sense;

Wikipedia was funded, hosted, and born by/from a porn search engine and site called Bomis. Bomis Premium was a section of the site that let users pay for exclusive X-rated content. The site also hosted nekkid.info, a place "to see sexy naked women," and "The Babe Engine," an image search engine dedicated to finding pictures of attractive women. Bomis was pivotal to the early years of Wikipedia.

Wales edited Wikipedia in 2005 to remove the characterizations of Bomis as providing pornography, which attracted media attention; The Atlantic gave Bomis the nickname "Playboy of the Internet", and the term caught on in other media outlets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomis
https://www.businessinsider.com/wikipedia-bomis-2013-6
https://thereaderwiki.com/en/Bomis
https://unrealfacts.com/wikipedia-funde ... porn-site/
https://www.wired.com/2005/12/wikipedia ... s-own-bio/

So Basically; Wales (a Rand type libertarian) was a failure selling porn; and because Wikipedia was failing he structured it as a nonprofit so he could muddle through financially.

Wikipedia rests on foundation on porn so all the virtue signaling it does masks the reality of the situation. The origin from a would be pornographer-profiteer-exploiter-failure, from Bomis, reveals the truth of Wikipedia. The same mindset, methods, tone, objectives, ethics, and ethos flows from Bomis to Wikipedia; they are one in the same!

Wikipedia is all about "traffic" and "trafficking" a type of porn "entertainment-addiction" for enrichment (google) or aggrandizement (Wales).

Here is Bomis getting scrubbed from the wayback machine!

http://web.archive.org/web/201410061041 ... bomis.com/

But not scrubbed from Wikipedia circa 2003 ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ated_agent

jwales@bomis.com
abuse@bomis.com

Do all the Wikipedia virtue signalers like Molly White know or rationalize this fact?
Why would anyone expect virtue, truth, honesty, sanity, reliability, or integrity from a product born from and of a porn site?
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
badmachine
Sucker
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:55 am
Has thanked: 530 times
Been thanked: 255 times
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia born from porn site "Bomis"

Post by badmachine » Fri Apr 22, 2022 9:27 pm

wexter wrote:
Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:52 am
Now everything about Wikipedia makes a little bit more sense;

Wikipedia was funded, hosted, and born by/from a porn search engine and site called Bomis. Bomis Premium was a section of the site that let users pay for exclusive X-rated content. The site also hosted nekkid.info

So Basically; Wales (a Rand type libertarian) was a failure selling porn; and because Wikipedia was failing he structured it as a nonprofit so he could muddle through financially.
(color emphasis added)

that's a special kind of failure.
Wikipedia rests on foundation on porn so all the virtue signaling it does masks the reality of the situation. The origin from a would be pornographer-profiteer-exploiter-failure, from Bomis, reveals the truth of Wikipedia. The same mindset, methods, tone, objectives, ethics, and ethos flows from Bomis to Wikipedia; they are one in the same!

Wikipedia is all about "traffic" and "trafficking" a type of porn "entertainment-addiction" for enrichment (google) or aggrandizement (Wales).
despite all those losses you listed accurately, he keeps failing upwards somehow. he has some sort of income i reckon. and is married to a globalist bigshot, and gets invited to Davos apparently (along with the other petit perks of such a life).
Here is Bomis getting scrubbed from the wayback machine!

http://web.archive.org/web/201410061041 ... bomis.com/
i dislike Wales as much as the next guy but the older captures are still there along with the embarassing Bomis babes links. that said, i have seen examples of Wayback censoring links, and URL owners altering robots.txt to disallow crawling which apparently works retroactively.

i am disappointed that the wikia 'trampoline' video seems to be gone tho.
Why would anyone expect virtue, truth, honesty, sanity, reliability, or integrity from a product born from and of a porn site?
the people who expect that from wikipedia are probably the same people who wrote wikipedia. i reckon about half of the USA would now be able to identify wikipedia as biased, with a significant chunk of them characterizing it as 'fake news'.

(edited color)

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Wikipedia born from porn site "Bomis"

Post by wexter » Sat Apr 23, 2022 1:52 am

It's not uncommon for folks with personality disorders to "fall upwards;" because they can manipulate the system and avoid accountability. Sociopaths have no problem breaking or skirting rules, manipulating people, denying responsibility, shifting blame, as they tend to be intractably dangerous and basically evil.

The transition from an unprofitable porn venture, to an unprofitable for profit encyclopedia, to nonprofit is just the kind of maneuvering a sociopath might engage in. There are other features and elements of Wikipedia that speak to personality disorder and disordered thinking at both the executive and operational level.

I came to this site (Wikipedia Sucks) about two years ago because users, editors, and administrators (including Molly White) went to great lengths to block the removal of child pornography from their site.

My objection to encountering Child Pornography via a blind Wikipedia link (Wikipedia as a child porn search engine) was rightly taken a threat to Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia would be no more were it widely known that it was the offshoot of pornography and sexual exploitation. It's no surprise therefore that information about Wikipedia as a pornography site has been scrubbed, rationalized, or normalized.

I have gone full circle, The real problem is Google which derives most of its clicks from sites such as Pornhub, xvidoes, xnxx, and Wikipedia (which provides most of Google's free content and labor). Sex sells and sexual exploitation is as profitable as it is popular.
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Wikipedia born from porn site "Bomis"

Post by wexter » Sat Apr 23, 2022 12:58 pm

In June 2003, he set up a nonprofit foundation to run the operation. In a 2004 interview with the website Slashdot, he publicized the mission statement that would definitively distance his Wikipedia future from his seedier Bomis roots. "

During that trip to Davos; he morphed from a schlubby computer guy to an activist with dramatically improved access to information and power. His mantra of an Internet unconstrained by corporate or government interests resonated; Time magazine named him one of its 100 Most Influential People of 2006. The following year at Davos, Wales and Garvey were both named "Young Global Leaders." (Wales, who separated from Rohan in 2008, says he first recalls meeting Garvey in Monaco in 2009. Their romantic relationship began in 2010.)


Some takeaways;

1) WMF does not run Wikipedia - it is a distancing mechanism. Originally it was designed to hide the fact that the foundation of Wikipedia is porn. Now, it is a distancing mechanism to provide exculpation from lawsuits and liability. WMF allows there to be no accountability for content thus Wikipedia can say and do whatever it wants without reproach.

2) Wikipedia has been abandoned by its founder to run itself on its own momentum, by 2009 it became internally irrelevant to its founder. Its another story of "taking credit" while finding distance from accountability.

3) It was a means to a personal end, which was previously described "as falling up." The site is a reflection of its narcissistic founder, it is the story and work product of a sociopath. Wikipedia has a negative bias from its roots in porn; it is a negative experience, a bad work product, a bad content provider, and a bad player.

3) It is what it is, a porn site.

4) It still blocks the removal (and thus hosts) child pornography. That is why I found this forum in October of 2020; with the Bomis realization I have gone full circle.

Footnote: The only thing remaining in the picture is Google's profiteering from porn sites; and the future of Meta recreating Second Life (which devolved from creativity into interactive porn, gambling, virtual land speculation, and consumerism). It is the story of the internet from scientific research; to Archie FTP Search and Veronica (Gopher Search) to mass market entertainment and low-brow consumerism. My guess is that Meta will eventually supplant Wikiepdia to all but the autistic. Eventually, Wikipedia will be land-lined in favor of more accessible virtual reality porn, consumerism, and gambling.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... llaWarfare
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wikipedia born from porn site "Bomis"

Post by ericbarbour » Sat Apr 23, 2022 9:10 pm

Remember, whenever a news outlet mentions Bomis and its failure, Wales screams at them to remove it. He did that to the Independent when they ran an article in 2009 about WP history.

Also remember: Jimmy Wales is an all-purpose internet failure. He also tried to start a search engine
searchbastardscreenshot.png
searchbastardscreenshot.png (142.22 KiB) Viewed 2199 times
And a Yahoo-like web directory called "3apes"
3apesscreenshot1999.png
3apesscreenshot1999.png (72.03 KiB) Viewed 2199 times
3Apes later morphed into Wikicities, thence into Wikia, now called "Fandom.com". Jury is still out on how successful it is. As always, it's a very secretive company and does not release any financial or userbase information. Fandom.com's Wikipedia article is one of the most "screwed down" WP articles I've ever seen.

Same for Quora, which Jimbo did not help found but had friendly relations with in the beginning. To this day Quora and the WMF are very close. Supposedly Quora's top management contains numerous ex-WMF employees.

He's no "journalist" yet still managed to talk his way onto the Guardian's board of directors. A year later he bugged out of that gig to start Wikitribune, his attempt to fight "fake news" with "crowdsourcing". It flopped. Then it became "WT.social", a "non-toxic social network" with the remains of Wikitribune "folded in". I created an account, and can only say this: it doesn't appear to be very busy, looks like Mastodon or Reddit but with far more secrecy---and is crawling with Wikipedia insiders. Someone named Rainer Schumacher appears to be the only active sysop and is literally the only person routinely responding to posts by new users. "Successful"? I'd say not.

We could talk about the "People's Operator", but that would take a looong time to go over. It flopped too. HARD. If you have lots of time and a strong stomach for corruption, read the loooong Wikipediocracy thread.

This is all classic Jimbo. Prior to the 2005 explosion of interest in Wikipedia, he was like lots of other attempted internet startup specialists, with one stupid flop after another. Today, he makes a big stench in the media about his "latest project". The media runs it, because after all "OOHHHH, he's the founder of Wikipedia". Months or years later it flounders and Jimbo walks away.

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Wikipedia born from porn site "Bomis"

Post by wexter » Sun Apr 24, 2022 3:07 am

Thanks for pointing out "search bastard" as it's questionable tone and ethos is quite consistent with the promulgation of porn as a funding source for Wikipedia.

All the progenitors and descendants of Wikipedia are rooted in the same culture and tone.


Google, venture capital, Ebay, WMF, and press outlets have no problem normalizing bad behavior. At some point the political landscape might shift from tolerance to vilification. Its just a matter of time.

The stated position of Wikipedia is blame the party that calls them out, and then claim to be the victim, thus Wales Circa 2010 stated that “We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore pornography and doing nothing about it.”

https://venturebeat.com/2010/05/16/wiki ... n-scandal/

In 2020 I informed Wikipedia that by providing search services to 8kun they were serving as a child porn search engine. I also stated that they were exposing their users to criminal liability. The response was "Do not post legal threats on Wikipedia."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:8cha ... k_to_8chan

The Wikipedia article itself still states that The 8kun has been known to host child pornography; yet Wikipedia provided a link to a site hosting child pornography and then pushed back against that links removal.

So ten years after Wales statement Wikipedia was "hosting not only hard core pornography but also child pornography and doing nothing about it."

In 2021 a link was again established on Wikipedia that pointed to Child pornography so they had another discussion.

As of the 28th of March 2022 a direct link to Child Porn found its way back to Wikipedia, later to be reversed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1074951957

As of today April 24th 2022 - Wikipedia still expressly and directly links to Child Pornography. The link has been active since December of 2021!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:8chan#Website_link


IT IS THE SAME STORY OVER AND OVER AGAIN. From Bomis porn search engine to the current hosting of links to Child pornography on Wikipedia, from past ventures to current ventures, to future ventures. The tree is rotten to its core.


Postscript in 8kun talk;

I had no idea that 8kun's administrators were so lackadaisical at removing child pornography or other items that will get you a visit from the FBI in short order. It isn't worth directly exposing curious people to a website that is more-or-less ambivalent about child porn

Should read;

I had no idea that Wikipedia's administrators were so lackadaisical and resistant to removing child pornography or other items that will get you a visit from the FBI in short order. It isn't worth directly exposing curious people to a website that is more-or-less ambivalent about child porn



Нам бы повезло, если бы Путин был таким же безобидным, как грязная шлюха
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wikipedia born from porn site "Bomis"

Post by ericbarbour » Sun Apr 24, 2022 9:21 am

wexter wrote:
Sun Apr 24, 2022 3:07 am
The stated position of Wikipedia is blame the party that calls them out, and then claim to be the victim, thus Wales Circa 2010 stated that “We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore pornography and doing nothing about it.”

https://venturebeat.com/2010/05/16/wiki ... n-scandal/

In 2020 I informed Wikipedia that by providing search services to 8kun they were serving as a child porn search engine. I also stated that they were exposing their users to criminal liability. The response was "Do not post legal threats on Wikipedia."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:8cha ... k_to_8chan
I keep telling you to get used to this--they feel invulnerable to any "criticism" of their arrogant thinking. And I have no doubt that dozens of WP fanboys are also 8kun users. 8kun started out sick, and despite multiple ownership changes and the current ruthless censorship of posted images, it continues to attract that crowd of sickies. Your kiddy porn cartoon got blanked? Just upload it somewhere else and post the link.

On their front page right now: the following "news items". Note the one I marked. They don't even TRY to hide it. Some of those same "fine gentlemen" are also on Wikipedia right now.
8kunnews.png
8kunnews.png (69.51 KiB) Viewed 2167 times

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Wikipedia born from porn site "Bomis"

Post by wexter » Sun Apr 24, 2022 12:27 pm

To me personally, Wikipedia roots as a pornographic search engine (Bomis, hard and soft core) was a "find" and revelation because it exposes the overview of fact over time. It answered the question I asked in 2020; "Why was it impossible to remove Child Porn from Wikipedia?"

Looking for answers, I came to this website in 2020 and found a depth of knowledge about the details but no conclusion other than "Wikipedia sucks." It is a correct conclusion, it is what it is.

Yes the details of dysfunction are interesting, and finding details of dysfunction is interesting, Eric, your in depth knowledge of Wikipedia players and problems is interesting. Because of this site I now know more about how Wikipedia functions internally then I could ever gleam on my own.

As I mentioned, It might be a striking detail that the felony conviction of a major politician is scrubbed within minutes. Its interesting to me that Wikipedia allowed the De Sade family (via useful idiots) to re-frame the Marquis De Sade into a good guy. In the overview these bizarre details are as pervasive are they are irrelevant to the overview.

It is also an interesting detail that less than one hundred self appointed gatekeepers and power players of Wikipedia dominate the platform (surprisingly a very small group of people such as Glane23, Molly White and less than 100 others, many of whom are autistic).

It is no surprise that Wikipedia-WMF were "structured" in such a way (structuring) to evade civil liability; in case law they have become judgement proof. The shift to non-profit was also financial structuring.

All these details distract from the overview. It is by design that Wikipedia defends itself through a never ending intractable battle over every tiny change. Speak to the details and lose the nefarious overview.


The chronology of porn, and child porn, on Wikipedia provides a fatal overview for anyone that wants to acknowledge it. It proves that from inception to now; porn and child porn is present, hosted, accepted, tolerated, memorialized, and defended as a matter of practice and policy.

Individual instances and details that embarrass Wikipedia get disclosed from time to time; but the problem is in the overview.

The chronology of pornography and child pornography that embodies Wikipedia runs from 1996 to now 2022, 24 years! How embarrassing is that? Child Pornography is one of three jugular issues for Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's importance and synergy to Google is also in the overview; by inference then Google profits from pornography. Section 230 is also an important element in the Wikipedia story.

These are the three core overview elements that need to be talked about and supported by fact. History of Porn, Relationship to Google, Section 230
Those are the three jugular issues, critical issues, that speak effectively against Wikipedia.

"Wikipedia sucks" grouses about Wikipedia while a chronology of fact builds a case against Wikipedia.

(The chronology sets up a Weinstein effect where bad behavior is accepted until it no longer is accepted; it could be that bad behavior shifts to the next big thing - Meta perhaps - with Wikipedia land-lined, still around but less relevant. The narrowing of Wikipedia participation speaks to its declining relevance.)
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Wikipedia born from porn site "Bomis"

Post by wexter » Wed Apr 27, 2022 10:08 pm

WIKIPEDIA THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS
https://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php ... king_Glass
Edward Buckner and Eric Barbour, 2013


“I’m the new economy -- I’m the internet”
Jimmy set up Bomis in November 1996. Tim Shell, a gifted computer scientist and fellow member of the ‘Objectivism’ mailing list was staying in Chicago and trying to break into the dotcom business, which was just beginning to take off. They started the Bomis web site, for ‘Bitter Old Men in Suits’, as an ‘online marketing venture’ developing ‘new and innovative ways to sell products over the Internet’.

Jimbo foresees the internet as central to technological development in the forthcoming century (“I’m the new economy -- I’m the internet”).With the savings from his work as a futures arbitrageur, he sets up a small internet company: ‘Bitter Old Men in Suits’ or Bomis. Bomis is a ‘web ring’, a sort of telephone directory for the web which will soon be made obsolete by the new search engine Google.

The only business model that works is softcore pornography. Bomis starts with a regular “Bomis Report”, with Baywatch Babes Ring rankings. Pamela Anderson is first with 10,429 visits on January 23 1998, Donna D’Errico some way behind with a mere 3,546 visits. Later, the site features links to hardcore pornography (‘Cum guzzling sluts with their mouths full’).

Bomis becomes successful enough to support Jimbo's idea for an online reference work that will attract legitimate forms of advertising. In 1998 he moves from the cold of Chicago to set up shop in San Diego.


JakeisaSellout

To me in a PM he had this to say; "Wikipedia is entangled with Google" and his statement echo's my personal conclusion.
Jake goes on to suggest that "Nobody even knows if the current strategy of Wikipedia charging super users like Google for priority access..." I cannot verify that statement but it is logical posit.

Google does what it wants to do, for example it is still paying Russian Youtubers, and is totally opaque. Wikipedia provides cheap entertainment-content and labor to Google and in search priority it is just as important as Youtube.

Details about Wikipedia (and Wales) are too many to mention, and frankly they are not worth mentioning

An example of a detail is the declining number of new administrators year over year; from hundreds per year at one time to a number you can count on your fingers. Essentially, so what! the site went from anybody can edit it to nobody but a few autistic insiders rule the roost. Even the founder (Wales) has moved on to bigger and better and has no skin in the game...

Eric What is the Mission Statement Here?

Do you want to talk about the details for years? Or do you want to speak to the Jugular?
Personally I think the Jugular is Section 230, Google, and Embarrassment for Wikipedia including Bomis Child Porn et al.

Google did not cause Bomis to become obsolete it simply absorbed Wikipedia by proxy.

The Real Story

The story is Google.
Like Twitter is to Musk (he could just build a better product; he wants to buy the momentum of the infrastructure with OPM)
Wikipedia is to Google (they tried to build their own product, but it was much better to leverage Wikipedia which has been rooted into every search result)

Follow the money, ethics need not apply
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Wikipedia born from porn site "Bomis"

Post by wexter » Tue May 24, 2022 11:42 pm

Another "nice point about Wikipedia" instead of curing the fact that they continue to link to sites engaged in illegal activity; the knee jerk reaction of Wikipedia is to retaliate against anyone pointing out malfeasance on their part. The Wikipedia administrative mob is incredibly scared of "user talk" pages; that point out instances of Wikipedia being used for illegal purposes, child pornography, or propaganda. They look past some very biased user pages, but they are not pleased with being called out. What are they afraid of?

The odds of getting banned in retaliation for whistle-blowing is actually greater than having a clearly egregious article adjusted, deleted, or examined.

So far I have sent off letters to Google (as a matter of policy never communicates on anything), Wikimedia Foundation (which isolates itself from the dirt it is responsible for).

My next step is to complain to the Florida Attorney General; with retaliation being the basis of my complaint against Wikipedia

The following law has yet to hold; there is a weakness in the injunction;

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/23/11008315 ... l-desantis

"When a digital service takes action against problematic content on its own site — whether extremism, Russian propaganda, or racism and abuse — it is exercising its own right to free expression," said CCIA President Matt Schruers in a statement.

As enacted, the law would give Florida's attorney general authority to sue companies under the state's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. It would also allow individual Floridians to sue social media companies for up to $100,000 if they feel they've been treated unfairly.

"Social media platforms exercise editorial judgment that is inherently expressive. When platforms choose to remove users or posts, deprioritize content in viewers' feeds or search results, or sanction breaches of their community standards, they engage in First-Amendment-protected activity,

I will make the case to the Florida AG that Wikipedia retaliates against user calls to address-remove egregiously illegal and unprotected content from their site. By hosting unprotected speech against their own policy, by blocking users trying to address that concern through their process, and by sanctioning users in retaliation for removing unprotected speech, Wikipedia has logically lost protection from legal recourse.

Any cases of retaliation I can cite would be appreciated?
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

Post Reply