Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shock site (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was Speedy kept per WP:SNOW, this is clearly a notable topic and consensus is never going going to be reached to delete it because deleting it would be a very bad idea. Of course shock sites are notable, and of course we should have an article on them. --Cyde Weys 00:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a procedural nomination; a new user is requesting to have this article deleted, and seemed to be having some trouble with starting the discussion, so I'm taking care of that step for them. The prior VfD discussion may also be of note. Luna Santin 05:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the reason? Edward Wakelin 05:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Depending on if they make their way here, Talk:Shock site#Deletion_Reccomended! looks to have their rationale. I figured they should be able to have their say. Luna Santin 05:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I understand the nominator's point of view, Wikipedia is not censored. I wouldn't be upset if there were more content dealing with the concept of shock sites and less simply detailing examples, however. GassyGuy 05:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep going through the critera for deletion, especially the core policies WP:NOR, WP:V andWP:NPOV, I fail to see how this page meets any of them. The subject matter is offensive, but that isn't a reason for deletion Mozzie 05:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. After reviewing the reasons found here[1] as to why the article was nominated, I must disagree with the original nominator. First of all, "grotesque" is a very subjective word and open to multiple interpretations. Second, Wikipedia isn't endorsing these websites by writing an article about them anymore than they are endorsing George W. Bush for writing an article about him. Third, we cannot rely on unreasonable hypothetical scenarios when judging the criteria for deletion. It is unreasonable to delete the article because "a hacker" might come to the page and link one of these websites to someone else's webpage. Using the George W. Bush comparison again, we would have to delete that article because it lists his address (1600 Pennsylvania Avenue) and thus someone could use that information to harm him. This deletion nomination is therefore unreasonable and should be denied. --Hemlock Martinis 05:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, let me give both sets of arguments at once. My opinion is somewhat neutral, I've been involved in trying to keep this article from being a liability for some time. The reason behind the actual decision to nominate by a new user are along the lines of "this is gross, why should we cover it," but there are definitely reasons to be concerned here. Mangojuice^talk 05:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Pro deletion: This article is, basically, entirely made up of original research. Most of the article consists of the list of various shock sites, very few of which have really satisfactory source (Goatse.cx does, but it has its own article anyway). Although individual sites have some references, a bigger problem is that the non-list part of the article is completely unreferenced, and probably unverifiable. A web search for the term "shock site" on google turns up around half as many hits when we exclude Wikipedia & its mirrors.. and apart from Encyclopedia Dramatica and Urban Dictionary, nothing really comes close to the level of describing the use of the term or defining it; the rest are examples of use. Mangojuice^talk 05:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Con deletion: First of all, List of shock sites, which got merged to Shock site, was already nominated for deletion four times: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th; each time, the article was kept (the first three debates had "keep" outcomes, while the 4th one was a "no consensus," with a hella lot of participation). Although the content is distasteful, Wikipedia is not censored, and this is certainly a notable phenomenon. Finally, this article attracts vandalism and inappropriate edits from new users a lot... but this probably keeps those users from continually creating new articles on their favorite shock sites individually. Also, the article is sourced, even if the sources push the boundary of WP:RS, that may be necessary given the kind of topic this article covers. Mangojuice^talk 05:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced this isn't a keep, but I do question some of the examples; do we really have any good sourcing of "penis bird" that it belongs on the list? GassyGuy 05:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source for that one is an official letter from Slashdot complaining about that picture being used for trolling; they ask Rotten.com to move it to a different URL. The letter is posted on Rotten.com's page with the picture. Mangojuice^talk 14:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We now accept content hosted by the primary source as third party coverage? GassyGuy 16:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I said, I think the sourcing is generally sketchy, but this is something. Personally, Rotten.com has a reputation for posting complaint correspondence, and they have no reason to fabricate the letter. If you want to discuss individual sourcing issues, I invite you (beg you, even) to join us at Talk:Shock site where we have to constantly explain basic WP policies regarding sources and verifiability. If you have a problem with this one, I don't blame you, but look at all the other ones too: this is, IMO, one of the better sources in the article. Mangojuice^talk 16:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Mangojuice --AAA! 08:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it's a relevant site, a documentable internet phenomena, and doesn't belong on the articles for deletion. --MonkBirdDuke 10:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's handy to have some place to link to when someone out there asks "What's Goatse?" --JDHarper 10:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree, Wikipedia should not be not censored. Rixth 10:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Wikipedia should not be censored. Wikipedia is where all human knowledge should be. 'Nuf said.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves/Saoshyant ^{talk / contribs} 11:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article doesn't suck. -- Chris chat edits essays 12:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - It's an evil, albeit vital part of the internet. Original research can be fixed. --DodgerOfZion 13:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As people have said, censorship isn't a reason to get rid of a page. I personally have gotten use from the article, as every now and then I've used it to figure out what a shock site is without having to see an unpleasant picture. Edward Wakelin 13:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per mangojuice, but isn't it just listcruft. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 15:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I fail to see how any of this has encyclopedic value, but I don't find the nominator's arguments compelling either. -Amatulic 20:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now lets stop being stupid, people 86.42.165.146
• Strong Delete This article contains useless sites that can have no benefit to people at all. Maybe friends can joke eachother into going into the sites, but that's about it. These sites are grotesque and need to be removed, along with this whole article. Some of these sites contain pornography, viruses, trojans, and more horrible things. If a hacker gets on someone's site they could come to this wiki, look for one of these sites, and redirect the homepage he is hacking to the shock site. A friend could trick a gullible friend into going to the site. None of these things have any benefits to anyone at all. People don't even need to know this information because it can not benefit them in any way positive, besides for them to make a mental note to never go to that site... This topic needs to be deleted because of these reasons.Sumperson01 23:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of those reasons fall under any WP policies I've seen, and like I said, I have used the article in question to avoid finding out what some awful site (I'm a very curious person) by going to it. Instead I can read that it's a picture of awful thing X. So, it actually does benefit people in positive ways.Edward Wakelin 23:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't help people in positive ways, but it does help people in negative ways.
      • Err... So being able to satisfy one's curiosity without seeing something stomach-churning is negative? Anyway, I'm pretty sure that there's no standard of "positivity" for inclusion on WP. Edward Wakelin 23:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shock sites are an important cultural aspect of the Internet. Any studies done into the counter cultures of the Internet will always include things like Goatse and GNAA. Its unavoidable and is research worthy. - UnlimitedAccess 01:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I understand why this page bothers some people, and it's a little disorganized by the nature of the topic, but it definitely needs to be kept. It's notable and verifiable. 129.98.197.86 02:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously the concept itself is valid, it's an observable and reported phenomenom, and itself an outgrowth of more traditional juvenile behavior like mooning. It seems to me that the real problem is that this article includes links to sites that cause this sort of problem. That may be so, but itself is not a reason to remove information from Wikipedia, any more than we remove information about software emulators because people might pirate video games, or information from chemistry articles so people can't make poisons or explosives. Or heck, pick a gun based on information about firearms here. Unfortunate though those risks may be, censoring this site just to avoid a person's possible misconduct is not a viable choice. It would be equivalent to an ostrict sticking its head in the sand. (Which if you look it up, you might find that they don't do that) FrozenPurpleCube 02:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the other keeps RZ heretic 04:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Okay, I gave two sets of arguments above, but I'm rather surprised how easily everyone seems to be willing to dismiss our longstanding no original research policy in favor of weak arguments like "Wikipedia is not censored." Yes, Wikipedia is not censored, but that doesn't mean that offensive things should be kept regardless of other policies, just because they're offensive. I want to endorse this side of the argument, because I want to see some discussion of this issue, not just blanket endorsements of Wikipedia not being censored, which is all we've had so far. Mangojuice^talk 04:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, many of us who came in early were addressing the original nomination, which didn't really raise this point. I haven't finished sorting through the article, but so far, all of the sources appear to be primary, which is definitely a problem. However, I was thinking perhaps we could go through and purge some of the most egregious violations. First, though, I must question: has there anything been written on the concept of shock sites? If so, then I'd say keep this, as its unsourced but verifiable; if there really isn't anything reliable on the topic, then I will amend my vote accordingly as it becomes unverifiable OR. GassyGuy 05:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sources and NOR are valid concerns, but I don't see them as especially problematic for this article. Still, this [2] result should be enough to establish that there are some sources out there, though they may be hard to establish, if only because of the various terms used (one place may use shock, others might stick with offensive, or something else, but mean the same thing), but it's still something that is understood to exist. I suspect the best immediate source would be various tutorials on avoiding the evils of the internet, but I'm not too familiar with them myself. FrozenPurpleCube 05:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong KEEP. What's the reason for deletion? Wikipedia is not censored. --Czj 06:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is no reason for deletion and it allowed me to check suspect web sites from work without having to view them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.153.131.254 (talk • contribs) .
• Strong delete It's articles like this that severely weaken and cripple Wikipedia's credibility. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a repository of useless, senseless crap, which is what "shock sites" are. Honestly, I can't fathom how anyone who has ever listened to the vision of Wikipedia as espoused by Jimmy Wales can support the inclusion of this or any other junk article. Wikipedia is supposed to add to human knowledge and increase our understanding - that is the purpose of any encyclopedia. Instead, Wikipedia is gradually becoming more and more of not just a pop culture resource (with endless television episode guides and character profiles), but a resource of useless trivia. Even Jimbo has acknowledged these problems. If we want Wikipedia to be taken seriously, if we want Wikipedia to be accepted as an encyclopedia, then we're going to have the cut this crap out of the loop once and for all. If anyone here is interested in the true mandate of this project, which is to help build a free encyclopedia, they will vote to delete. IMHO, anyone who votes to keep this and other articles like it is not interested in this mandate, and is instead contributing to the demise of this fine resource. metaspheres 18:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree that the list isn't necessary and will probably just turn the article into a "post your own shock link" page. If this page has a list, it should only contain info on shock sites that are notable enough to have their own articles. I don't believe, though, that the whole article should be deleted, as shock sites are a notable internet phenominon. I also suspect that the user's personal taste may be influencing this deletion nomination. Grotesque or no, Wikipedia is not censored and content shouldn't be removed just because certain users find it offensive.--Rouge Rosado Oui? 21:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - The reasons given two years ago, along with many of the comments above, are more than enough to keep this page This isn't PuritanWiki. Tarc 23:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Maybe the article should be merged with Internet troll.--Rouge Rosado Oui? 02:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The question should not be, "Is it offensive?" but rather, "Is it encyclopedic?" The question of offensiveness is moot. There are plenty of things in any encyclopedia - even Britannica - that one may find offensive. For instance, articles about human anatomy or sexuality. As I have stated in my comment, Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform and educate. This is the goal of Wikipedia and this is why we have featured articles and Wikipedia:Wikipedia 1.0. Articles such as this do not conform to the mandate of Wikipedia and if this project is to ever achieve parity with "closed-source" encyclopedias (Britannica, Columbia, Encarta, etc.) these articles will have to eventually be phased out. If not now, then in the near future. But I can assure you that it will happen, and it's already been slowly occurring since late 2005 when it became clear that the quality of articles in the arts and humanities and culture (as opposed to science) leaves much to be desired. Let us not avoid the inevitable but quickly set things into motion. The sooner Wikipedia cleans this junk out, the sooner we will arrive at a high-quality 1.0 release, and even better releases beyond that one. metaspheres 08:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Metaspheres, I'm afraid I must disagree. While you may be right to have concerns over the contents of this article, as I'm sure there are folks who see this sort of thing as the place to troll, that's not a reason for deletion. It's a reason for concern, and attention, but this article is still about a real phenomenon, which is itself the outgrowth of yet nother aspect of human behavior. It probably does need some study and documentation, as it is important for the social sciences to study humans as they behave, and ignoring it doesn't do anybody any good. in fact, that sort of stick your head in the sand and just believe what you want to believe mindset has been the bane of social science for a long, long time. It really needs study by clear-minded folks, and if Wikipedia wants to help with that, it won't be by deleting this article. FrozenPurpleCube 18:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But you see, what you have just described is original research. As far as I know, there are currently no academic works on "shock sites." If Wikipedia's policy on original research is still in effect (last I checked, it was), then this is one for the sociologists and culture critics. Once they've come up with a thesis or two and published their findings, then more power to everyone who wants to include this junk. metaspheres 20:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In case you failed to notice, the article in question does cite sources in the references section. Your claim of "original research" holds no water. Tarc 01:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow. Did you look at those references? Because they (1) don't back up any of the substance of the article, they're only in the list. (2) Even for the sites, some of them are kind of sketchy in backing up the inclusion of the site or its status as a shock site. (3) Not a single one of them is clearly a reliable source. Mangojuice^talk 02:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Precisely. metaspheres 09:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, I have looked at the references and while not perfect, it is a start. Better effort could've been made into cleaning up the arcitle reather than carrying on a frivolous AfD for a myriad scattershot of reasons. Tarc 20:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but even if I agreed with you about anything being OR in the article, the problem of original research is not so endemic to this article that it warrants deletion. This article isn't about a theory of behavior that leads to the creation of shock sites, but describing a real and observable phenomena, that nobody is going about denying that they exist. There is a wide gap between theory and observation, that sometimes that NOR policy doesn't cover very well. And yes, there are people writing about them, here's a book [3] on the subject of disgusting websites. Not serious and academic, but enough to demonstrate some interest. On TV, there's this report of a Consumer Reports article [4] which indicates that this exists, not to mention this [5] bit of news which uses the term to describe the actions of the German gov't. (and they aren't the only gov't to take action [6]. This page [7] describes them from a security perspective. Even though they use different terms, I think it is clear what they are talking about. Since they are a firm providing tech support services, I'm reluctant to add them to the page, but they do show that there is interest in the subject. I suspect there's more in discussions on content-filtering, protecting children, and whatnot, but I must admit, I have little familiarity with them, so I'm not even sure where to look. Still, I don't find your objections, either in terms of what Wikipedia should be, or OR, very persuasive. FrozenPurpleCube 21:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up to add this [8] link, which is a Whittier Law Review article on the subject of internet domain names. I think that satisfies the question of whether there is any possibility of any valid sources. I'd prefer something more substantial like this article, but this should show that it can be achieved. (And in this case, the shock site refers to Macromedia Shockwave, which is one of the things complicating searches on this subject) FrozenPurpleCube 21:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is regularly pruned of vanispamcruftisement and there are sources for these being described as shock sites. Guy 18:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• VERY Strong keep Yes, I actually had to go the extra mile with the "VERY" portion, this article is more of a resource for people who want to actually AVOID these kind of sites, so they will know when the link they are going to is real, or just a skillfully devised prank to gross you out! But, I'll only go by these words...IF you allow us to add Meatspin to it, it's more popular then Lemonparty, Tubgirl, and Goatse combined! ViperSnake151 19:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's also spam. Guy 23:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep for reasons stated above, and that it's good to have this article in existence when someone asks in a forum "what's Goatse?" after someone posts a link. -Ich (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The article you are looking for is goatse.cx. Guy 09:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. However, I'd say that it would look better with notable sites only. --UNKNOWNFILE 02:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - It is reality and it is mentioned in Wikipedia policy. --Ineffable3000 04:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. metaspheres argues: "The sooner Wikipedia cleans this junk out, the sooner we will arrive at a high-quality 1.0 release...." I respond that we won't reach 1.0 by screening all 1.4 million articles and deleting those that don't belong. The more common vision of 1.0 is that it would represent a selection from among all the articles. There's a large middle ground of articles that wouldn't go in 1.0 but that shouldn't be deleted. JamesMLane t c 09:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my comments at the AfD for Time Cube and Wikipedia:Five pillars. The vision of Wikipedia, as outlined by Jimbo, is as a free encyclopedia. Which is to say, an encyclopedia along the lines of a traditional one such as Britannica or Encarta. The only difference being that it is free (obviously) and perhaps just a bit more "liberal" in it's outlook and what is included - for instance, including articles on localities, institutions, software programs, etc. that wouldn't normally be included in a traditional print encyclopedia. But, not so liberal as to go ahead and include articles (such as this one and Time Cube) which literally add nothing to the "sum of human knowledge" (per Jimbo's original vision) but actually take away from it. I'm serious - articles like this one have become so numerous that like reality shows on television, Wikipedia will begin lowering one's IQ. Most visitors invariably will come across these articles if they spend more than a few minutes here. What you're basically saying is that Wikipedia 1.0 will be the actual encyclopedia and that this, the original Wikipedia, is just a "knowledge base," a repository, if you will. That's fine. Then Wikipedia should redefine itself, and Wikimedia should fork Wikipedia into two, similar to the original setup with Nupedia and Wikipedia. One, the actual encyclopedia with informative, educational articles, and the other, a repository of mostly useless pop and Internet culture references. metaspheres 16:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia's not censored. This is a silly nomination. Bryan 17:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.