Talk:Seedfeeder

Good article?

Dare I ask, do other editors think this article might be close to meeting GA criteria? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, there's no harm in nominating it just to see if someone else agrees. I'll do that soon. casualdejekyll (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll I see a reviewer has left some comments. I hope you'll review and respond ASAP, and I would encourage other page watchers to take a look at well. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:49, 23 October 2021

@Another Believer I was.. uh, just about to ask you if you could handle it because I've had some off-wiki stuff come up. So, uh, this is awkward. casualdejekyll (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, well, whoever feels like doing this and has the time is welcome to complete the task. You'd best know that a thread has been started by the editor who nominated the article for deletion back in August, despite the keep decision at that event. My view is that since the article has now (twice) been resoundingly KEPT at AfD, there is nihil obstat for it to proceed to GA. But who knows what will now happen. In addition to the sources in the thread below this one, the AfD listed four more foreign-language sources, namely

• by Sophie Janinet on Les Inrockuptibles (in French)
• by Christos Demetes on News 24/7 (in Greek)
• Umberto Del Boca on TVdaily.it (in Italian)
• by Helena y Anxel on 20 Minutos (in Spanish)

as probably reliable, so you might wish to look at these in addition; if the article is supported by sources that we can agree are reliable, then the matter will be resolved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll: "whoever feels like doing this and has the time is welcome to complete the task" -- you're the one who nominated the article! Are you saying you're abandoning the nomination? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw the "ok, well" follow-up comment before I saw your ask and reviewed the ping in my notifications. I am currently traveling, so I am not sure I will have time to review. Also, looks like some sourcing discussions need to take place before this article is promoted to Good status. I will let User:Chiswick Chap decide if the review should be closed for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources 2

Chiswick Chap, a discussion of the sources used is occurring at WP:RS/N#Best practices / limitations for articles entirely reliant on unreliable sources and coverage based on those unreliable sources. I agree that the bad sources must be removed before a GA nomination can be taken seriously. Also, more images, without censorship, would be appropriate. -- Valjean (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I contributed to the discussion. In my view, you are prejudging whether the sources are "bad"; that is the matter under debate. It is clear that the GAN must hold until the source debate has concluded properly. I already suggested that more images be added on the GAN page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Seedfeeder, the child porn accusation, and Jimbo's defrocking

Seedfeeder was a big part of the 2010 issue of Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons. In response to that event, Jimmy Wales deleted Seedfeeder content as well as other images. Who knows what Jimbo was thinking, but one perspective of that whole story is that Wikipedia never hosted child porn but Jimbo's response to the accusation was to attempt to delete images relating to sexuality. Because Jimbo did that, the Wikimedia community stripped him of his administrator rights. Both that pornography accusation and the Wikimedia community assertion of power over the founder got a lot of press attention. While we have third party documentation of both of those events, we lack third-party documentation that part of the conflict was over Seedfeeder content.

If we want other sources about Seedfeeder content, in my view, the sources about wiki porn and Jimbo apply as additional sources here. For clarification, I do not think anyone ever interpreted Seedfeeder as child pornography. Jimbo's Commons talk page at commons:User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 4 has some of the controversy about what he deleted. One of the discussions about deleting Seedfeeder content is at commons:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_4#You_do_realize,_if_you_were_anyone_else....

Perhaps to improve this article, someone could also add images to the "Reporting of child pornography" to show what Jimbo deleted in response. The entire situation was strange because Jimbo drew attention to Wikipedia's image hosting in a wild and suspicious way without normal wiki documentation. There are records showing that the Wikimedia community approved of many of the images he deleted. WARNING, I am about to link to artist biographies containing images which Jimbo deleted as inappropriate. These are people that Jimbo grouped with Seedfeeder - Félicien Rops, Franz von Bayros, Martin van Maële, and Édouard-Henri Avril. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Blueraspberry - is there precedent (or indeed policy support) for using Commmons talk pages as sources? Since the article's sources are currently being debated, rather than linking to sources that do not establish notability, it would be most helpful to identify undisputed WP:RS and add them to the article; any other actions will become moot if the article is deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Here are some reliable sources referring to the deletion of Seedfeeder art and the community punishment on Jimbo.

• "Wikimedia: 'Fox News's campaign against us is nonsense'". the Guardian. 17 May 2010.
• Winter, Jana (May 17, 2010). "EXCLUSIVE: Shakeup at Wikipedia in Wake of Porn Purge". Fox News.
• "Wikimedia pornography row deepens as Wales cedes rights". BBC News. 10 May 2010.

While these stories say that Jimbo deleted content, they do not say what content. On those Commons pages users identify content, including Seedfeeder and those other artists that I mentioned.

The verification challenge here is citing a source which connects the unnamed art which all these sources describe with the actual list of art. The best records we have, so far as I know, are those discussions on Jimbo's talk page. I suppose that the wiki verification protocol would be that if we had one source identifying the list of deleted artists, then that gives more legitimacy to including citing these mass media news stories about the complaint and Jimbo sentencing. I think it would be appropriate to name the artists which Jimbo deleted and which the community raised in discussion for restoration, because that gives context to these news stories without which people will not understand them.

The media coverage from 2010 all made this out to be a purge of inappropriate content, but based on the records we have, community conversation was about content which Jimbo deleted while the community opposed. I regret that the Wikimedia community has few resources to organize and tell its side of the story, because the available media tells a story that Jimbo saved the Wikimedia community from inappropriate content when the wiki community was inactive. My perspective is that the community was already monitoring content with underappreciated thoughtfulness and editorial procedure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using Wikimedia talk pages as sources, just information from reliable sources like the three above. If the media narrative is that Jimbo deleted inappropriate content then that is the narrative we must go with. However, I'm not sure it is: for instance, The Guardian says at the link above that the rest of [Wikipedia's] editors were furious Wales had taken the very un-Wikipedian approach of making a major decision with such "singular judgment", clearly disagreeing with the 'porn' label on many of many of the less extreme images. — Bilorv (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Whatever the narrative is and however anyone reports it, how would you feel about including that narrative and citing those sources in this biographical article, given the context that those news articles are discussing a collection of art which we know to include content from Seedfeeder? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we can include any of this here. Firstly, the 3 sources don't seem to mention Seedfeeder so it would be OR by Synthesis to say so. Secondly, we can't use Wikipedia discussions as sources any more than we can use Wikipedia articles. Overall, none of this actually establishes his notability, and nor do the existing sources. Unless there are usable sources that establish notability, the article is in deletion territory. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Chiswick Chap up until the last sentence, which is a non sequitur: we just had an AfD in August that closed in "keep", and having another deletion debate would be disruptive. I notice that the four sources I raised at that AfD (and in the first one in 2015) have still not been included in the article. If that's because people don't think they're reliable then that's alright, but I don't think anyone has commented on them. — Bilorv (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but no, it's not a non sequitur, and to reply to your correct suggestion on sources: there has been a surprisingly rational conclusion to the discussion of the sources' reliability, with a proper analysis of both the sources and the authors involved (see the concluding statement in the GAN), none of which can be shown to be notable. In the absence of other and better sources (searched for by multiple editors over a period of at least five years), the article is seen not to be notable, and should be deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I've literally just pointed you to four sources that are yet to be commented on by anybody, anywhere. — Bilorv (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I just commented in a new section. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Non-English sources

Bilorv found these non-English sources.

• Janinet, Sophie (12 November 2014). "Seedfeeder, l'homme qui illustre le sexe sur Wikipédia - Les Inrocks". Les Inrockuptibles (in French).
• ΔΕΜΕΤΗΣ, ΧΡΗΣΤΟΣ (30 November 2014). "Τέχνη ή πορνό; Ο φαντομάς Seedfeeder που έκανε ακατάλληλη τη Wikipedia". www.news247.gr (in Greek).
• Del Boca, Umberto (13 November 2014). "Seedfeeder e il sesso su Wikipedia". tvdaily.it (in Italian). Archived from the original on 4 August 2021.
• Helena y Ánxel (17 November 2014). "Seedfeeder, el anónimo y mítico ilustrador de la 'guía sexual' de la Wikipedia". 20 minutos (in European Spanish).

I ran them through automated translators and in my opinion, each one of them includes original critical commentary not found in other sources. I think they all contribute to WP:N. Thanks for the research Bilorv. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll try on adding them to the article, but I have a confession to make. I'm not that good of an article writer, and my GA nom for this article was of the drive-by type that the GA page warns against. Whoops. casualdejekyll (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Claim re: Seedfeeder Wikipedia article

User:Alalch E. has removed the following claim:

In 2016, Brian Feldman of the Daily Intelligencer considered the Seedfeeder Wikipedia article the "best wiki entry about Wikipedia" in a "definitive list of lists of the best and worst of Wikipedia".

References

Do any other editors wish to weigh in on the relevance of this claim? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That information belongs on this talk page, in the {{Press}} template, not in the article. —Alalch E. 00:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Added. —Alalch E. 00:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe add a gallery of Seedfeeder's art

Some people don't want to leave the page

So maybe, add a gallery for their art. Morpeko (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Building off this, some illustrations may have been removed at some point on certain articles listed within this one (eg. the lactation one), so this seems to be a sensible preservation act. 50.109.126.225 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)