Talk:Shock site/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Shock site. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

Great article on such an obscure topic. BTW I was tricked into visiting this site on Slashdot -- I still have occasional not-so-pleasant flashbacks. Because of this, I am not sure about the utility of providing a direct link. If somebody is perverse enough to see such a thing they can easily copy the text Goatse.cx and paste it into the URL field of their browser. This isn't a big deal, so I will not do it myself. --maveric149

I don't see a reason to warn against downloading the ZIP file because of the process necessary to get from the ZIP to the image. Someone who would go to that effort certainly would have noticed our other warnings. I also do not like bold warnings in article bodies, besides, Stile is much less problematic than goatse.cx, so I have unbolded this warning. Let's not overdo it with the labels, shall we? Even when dealing with .. you know what. --Eloquence 22:55 Nov 15, 2002 (UTC)

Listing parody and tribute sites is not of use to the article. I recommend they be removed from the article. Kingturtle 23:26 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

I disagree. Why is it not of use? I found them quite amusing, and given that Goatse.cx is a prank site, they are a nice form of the "reverse prank". Knowing they can give you a laugh while avoiding the surprise factor. We have parody sites listed in other articles as well (e.g. White House), so why not here? --Eloquence

Wikipedia is not an internet portal. It is an encyclopedia. Articles should be written in ways to encourage reader to read and write other wiki-articles. An external link to Goatse.cx is appropriate. Let Goatse.cx list all the parody and tribute sites. Kingturtle 23:55 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be an "Internet portal" (whatever that is), but external links relevant to one particular article are desirable, and having many of these links, categorized and with good descriptions, is even more so. We have plenty of articles with many external links (e.g. circumcision, global warming) and there is no policy against that; I would also strongly oppose such a policy. The argument that goatse.cx should list the parody sites is ridiculous -- nobody in their right mind would want to visit that site, certainly not for a second time to see what links there are. --Eloquence 00:01 16 May 2003 (UTC)

What I mean by internet portal is something like Yahoo! Maybe I should have said internet directory. Yahoo! organizes site-links into groups and lists, such as Directory > Science > Astronomy > Research > Government Agencies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a written compendium of human knowledge. The References section of global warming is a jumbled mess. The less external links, the better. We want to encourage users to explore wikipedia and help build it. Excess external links go against that idea. Kingturtle 00:19 May 16, 2003 (UTC)

"The less external links, the better" is only true if an equivalent article exists or would be useful. Where this is the case, the internal article should be linked to. Otherwise, an external link is perfectly acceptable. Wikipedia's goal, as an encyclopedia, is to educate (or, as the case may be, to entertain); whatever means are appropriate to reach this goal should be used. Wikipedia's goal is not to keep visitors within the site, this is a policy used by Everything2, where it has failed gloriously. --Eloquence 00:26 16 May 2003 (UTC)

Is there enough to say about the parody sites to qualify as an article, or would they always be stubs? Probably stubs. So in that regard, they're probably left only as a mention on the goatse.cx page until someone feels compelled & able to write a worthwhile article on them. Koyaanis Qatsi

Do we really need links to pages that are expired? Kingturtle 02:57 16 May 2003 (UTC)

No. --Eloquence 03:03 16 May 2003 (UTC)

http://www.goatse.es.org and http://xbo.cx are not active. I have removed them from the article. Kingturtle 03:14 16 May 2003 (UTC)

Why does this page need a detailed description of file names? Of what use is that? Kingturtle 23:00 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Why not? It is relevant factual information. If you download a ZIP file from the infamous goatse.cx, you probably appreciate knowing what the files are before looking at them. --Eloquence 23:09 20 May 2003 (UTC)

The disclaimer I posted is neither stupid nor a hack job. Kingturtle 23:02 20 May 2003 (UTC)

the half linking is also on purpose ? Ant

I don't know what half-linking means. Kingturtle 23:07 20 May 2003 (UTC)

when I looked at it, what I saw was

[[Wikipedia:risk disclaimer|THIS ARTICLE MAY BE CONSIDERED OFFENSIVE

this looks half-linked to me.

Oh yeah. I messed it up because I was in a hurry. And so I reverted it, because I couldn't stick around at that moment to fix it. Kingturtle 23:47 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Good thing you reverted it, otherwise I would have. ;-) The disclaimer is completely unnecessary. --Eloquence 23:49 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Goatse.cx is going way overboard with its content. Do we really need such graphic details?

Another parody, showing a wide open mouth instead of a gaping anus, and an ice cream instead of a man with a large penis.
A cartoon rabbit with a pancake on its head opens its anus

Are we going to start giving graphic details of shitfreaks.com and snuffx.com next? (NOTE: DO NOT VIEW SHITFREAKS.COM or SNUFFX.COM; they were just an example to mention for my argument). Kingturtle 04:52 20 May 2003 (UTC)

I do believe they are important to the following warning ('This link takes you directly to the picture described above'). Remember, not all readers or users are 'adults', however how responsible they may be for their own actions. -- Sigg3.net

You obviously didn't read my question. I said nothing about the content of goatsex. I was raising a question about the lengthy, explicit details given in the wikipedia article. How about replacing Another parody, showing a wide open mouth instead of a gaping anus, and an ice cream instead of a man with a large penis with Parody site involving an open mouth and ice cream. Kingturtle 22:00 20 May 2003 (UTC)

With things such as this and the clitoris image (it was a photograph of a clitoris if you didn't see it, taken from a porn page) how about we implement some sort of flag system. Articles that could be very offensive could be flagged, allowing Wikipedia to generate ratings meta information and just so that it is recorded that something could seriously offend. And yes, I do think an article on Goatse.cx is overboard, although it is linked to from slashdot trolling, so it's not usless content. CGS 09:20 20 May 2003 (UTC)

I really like this idea! We could even implement adult filtering this way, like google has with it's image search. MB 14:20 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Wikipedia must be a complete and informative encyclopedia. Please take your offsenses and set up your own Censorpedia if that's what you want. --Brion 17:29 20 May 2003 (UTC)

For heaven's sake Brion, who said anything about censorship? A note saying that an article may be seriously offensive is giving the reader more information, not taking it away as in censorship. CGS 17:54 20 May 2003 (UTC).

MB did, see above. The first step is a "family-friendly" filter. The next step is to enable it by default. The third step is to remove access to "adult" articles without a click-through page (after all, someone might accidentally click a link and be offended!) The fourth step is requiring a credit card to prove one is an adult in order to read clitoris or homosexuality. No slippery slope for me, thanks. --Brion 18:18 20 May 2003 (UTC)

We should abondon Wikipedia! The first step is a "free" encyclopedia. The next step is to overthrow the US government and destroy the world!. Joking aside, I think I should explain what I mean by flag. You see in the goatse.cx article there is a warning that the user might find the site very offensive? Do you have a problem with that? All I'm saying is that we could make that warning part of the system, allowing potentionaly very offensive articles to be spotted before you start reading them or look at the picture (I remember the first time I saw goatse.cx after a link on Slashdot - it's forever burned on my retina now, I wouldn't have minded a flag next to the slashdot link). CGS 18:28 20 May 2003 (UTC).

And actually, having this flag would enable us to be a more "complete and informative encyclopedia", because we wouldn't have to worry about if articles like goatse.cx and the clitoris photograph were too offensive anymore. CGS 17:59 20 May 2003 (UTC).

Nonsense. The only thing we have to worry about is whether they are informative, useful, and usable here under our copyright/license terms. They aren't required to not be "offensive". NPOV requires that we describe and ascribe the relevent points of view on a subject, not that we take active steps to hide information. --Brion 18:18 20 May 2003 (UTC)

What is wrong with having an adult filter option? Or at least some way of flagging particular pages as having offensive material. If we don't have this type of option, then companies that make filtering software will add us to thier lists of offensive sites, and then a lot of people who could use the 'pedia, won't have access to it. If I have a child, I wouldn't want them using the 'pedia, and accidentally wondering into goatse.cx, or some other pages unsuitable for children. I am totally against censorship, but this is something that we should seriously consider working into the 'pedia. MB 18:33 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia's editing model is inherently "dangerous" from the point of those who would censor. After all, your hypothetical child could click on Pokémon and be presented with naughty words / porn / dangerous political ideas that someone has just inserted. I fully expect censorware to block this entire site for a number of reasons -- removing fuck, felching, and clitoris isn't going to change that once we're discovered -- and those foolish enough to purchase their products are welcome to it. Those unfortunate enough to be stuck behind censorware that someone else has purchased to "protect" them should visit http://peacefire.org/ for more information on censorware, and should engage in community activism to get their rights restored and the software removed. If you don't think that's going to be effective, then you are welcome to make a derivitive site that includes only the non-"offensive" content. (Censorware tends to mark a *lot* of things "offensive", including left-wing politics, criticism of their software, and any number of pages including legitimate words in a non-offensive context, like the name "Dick".) --Brion 20:22 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Y'know, you could possibly put a "warning: some may find the content below offensive..." thingie somewhere near the top of the page(like the standard "spoiler warning") though I'm not convinced it's necessary it would be useable without having to write special filter software then determine which things need to be filtered Logotu 20:07 20 May 2003 (UTC)

That would be silly, but fine. --Brion 20:22 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think Brion VIBBER is right. Outside of actually removing pages that could get our site blocked by censorware, there is really nothing we can do to keep the site from being blocked by censorware. But this doesn't mean we shouldn't create some sort of option that can be turned on/off to omit potentially offensive material from the search engine. To help obtain this, I think a flag of some sort, or a standard disclaimer would be a good start. No one should have any problem with this, b/c if you want to see potentially offensive material, you just turn the filter off. MB 20:54 20 May 2003 (UTC)

We've been through this before and I'm thinking about creating an FAQ on the subject. No matter what you think about censorship, the fact remains that if we allow our users only to filter by "adult" content / no "adult" content we already make an explicit choice about what is or isn't "appropriate" for children. Such a choice is, by definition, POV and thus unacceptable by our current NPOV policy. Some parents want their children to be kept away from sexual information, other parents think that children should have full access to all information, others again may have entirely different standards about what it is "inappropriate", e.g. articles critical of certain religions, lifestyles or governments. If we implement any filtering system, it must be a generic one that can be used to meet these different standards, not a simplistic "family filter" checkbox. --Eloquence 22:43 20 May 2003 (UTC)

I am not asking for filtering. I am asking for a simple acknowledgement on that article telling the reader of what is in store. Kingturtle 23:06 20 May 2003 (UTC)

"Its main page contains a gory picture (with filename "hello.jpg") of a man opening his anus and rectum to approximately three times the normal size of such an orifice." I think this is a reasonable and light-hearted description of the page's content -- what more do you want? WARNING: THIS SITE IS EVIL? --Eloquence 23:13 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Reading a man opening his anus and rectum to approximately three times the normal size is not a warning. Once you've read that, it's too late. Something should be said before it so someone doesn't have to read that sentence to decide the don't want to read that sentence.

Movie spoilers are placed before the information that spoils things. A simple content warning atop the goatsex article can allow users who prefer to to leave. Kingturtle 23:52 20 May 2003 (UTC)

It's easy to decide whether an article gives a lot about a movie's plot away. It's far less trivial to decide whether an article is "offensive". The counter argument here is essentially the same as the one against filtering -- see above. Next thing you know, all our articles about potentially "offensive" human body parts have disclaimers on top. I will then proceed to add such disclaimers to articles about all religions which I do not like, and there are a lot of those. Can you see where this is going?--Eloquence 00:02 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Is there any limit to how offensive we can get on wikipedia? Kingturtle 00:12 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Well no, not if we hope to be comprehensive. Most of the world doesn't agree on what's offensive, and most of the rest of it doesn't care. Hence actions run the gamut from church-safe to hair-curling. Koyaanis Qatsi

Articles that could be considered offensive, such as zoophilia, anal sex, and Sadism and Masochism, are written with intelligence and respect. They are thorough, yet focused and dignified. This article is poorly written, and overly detailed about graphic descriptions. Kingturtle 00:21 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Then it's waiting for someone--maybe not you, and maybe not me--to improve it. Sorry it doesn't meet your standards. I don't intend to work on it, though, as I'm sure you don't. :-) Koyaanis Qatsi

I've been trying to improve this article. Kingturtle 01:33 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Eloquence, please don't imply that I think the goatsex site is evil. I haven't an iota of concern for that site. I am interested in improving this article. I am still wondering why there needs to be so much detail about where the servers are, who owns them, and why there needs to be exact details about names of images. Kingturtle 02:25 21 May 2003 (UTC)

My two cents about this discussion is that, having taken a quick look at this webpage, is that one cannot just say ``Don't look at that website -- it's disgusting." That draws too much curiousity. One has to explain why it is disgusting in clinical detail; & the description of the various images there do a fair job of that. And, for one, I'm glad of the catalogue of contents -- I've been vaguely curious to know if the rest of the site is similar to the initial image, but not curious enough to visit the site; & I have wondered about who would create such a website -- & why.

But to demonstrate that I'm not entirely against Kingturtle's point, let's come to a consensus here before someone decides to make an article about the tubgirl website. (If you like goatse.cx, then you'll love the tubgirl page; if not . . .) -- llywrch 02:50 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Leaving censorship/warnings, etc. aside, isn't the article as it stands somewhat obtuse in failing to point out that the image is chosen to offend, and inserted in unexpected places specifically in order to cause offence? -- Someone else 01:42 21 May 2003 (UTC)

There is a paragraph somewhat to that effect; I've moved it to a more prominent place in the article. If you think it's not clear enough, feel free to edit it (this is Wikipedia, after all...).
-- Paul A 02:21 21 May 2003 (UTC)

If anyone knows the date this website went live, that date should be added to the intro...

Since MONTH DAY, YEAR, its main page contains yadda yadda yadda

Kingturtle 04:35 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Once Slashdot began to display the domain name of a linked URL in brackets following the link (example: "Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]"), people began to set up mirror sites and use public CGI redirect scripts run by sites such as Yahoo! or Slashdot itself <----this sentence needs to be cleaned up and rewritten for the naive reader. Is it saying that Slashdot had, on its website, a link to Wikipedia.org that actually took the user to goatsex? Kingturtle 04:45 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Kingturtle 05:25 21 May 2003 (UTC)

In regards to A link to goatse.cx is often disguised in posts...does often mean in this case: daily? hourly? weekly? monthly on average? Kingturtle 05:25 21 May 2003 (UTC)

I'd say hourly, depending on the time of day in the U.S., of course. There's usually at least one inserted into every article posted, but there are many fewer articles during the wee hours of the night (something like 0500-1200 UTC). It's usually at some point after the inevitable "first post!", "frist post!", "frost pist!", "third post!", etc. posts, though. -- John Owens 06:33 21 May 2003 (UTC)

My observation is that the number has declined drastically after the introduction of the bracket trick, though. Most trolls are too lazy to mess with redirects or alternative URLs. --Eloquence 06:36 21 May 2003 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be exact, but it will give the naive reader (such as me) an understanding of the frequency and severity of the activity. Kingturtle 06:36 21 May 2003 (UTC)

DISCUSSION MOVED FROM VILLAGE PUMP

If there is no limit to how offensive we can get on wikipedia, then there should be no restrictions on offensive user names. Kingturtle 00:24 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Offensive content is found in potentially offensive article. You wouldn't (expect to) find offensive content in an article about, say, yellow. Offensive usernames, however, may be owned by users who edit any page, including yellow; the edit history of yellow thus becomes offensive. However, if an offensively-named user wants to only edit offensive articles, that might be acceptable...or not... --Geoffrey 01:31 21 May 2003 (UTC)

KT is, probably deliberately for rhetorical effect, missing the distinction between facts presented being found offensive by some people, and gratuitously provoking offense with non-informational elements of presentation. The first case is defensible, as it is our mission to be informative and our goal to present facts in a balanced, neutral fashion as much as possible; if some people will take offense no matter what, that is their problem. The second case is not defensible, as being able to sign one's edits as "Throbbing Monster Cock" etc is not in any way related to the mission of an encyclopedia. It adds no content, but subtracts productivity as people fight over it instead of working on articles. If such deliberately provocative users gum up the works, the project is not required to put up with it. Now, someone with such a pseudonym is more than welcome to make derivitive works under the GFDL license -- it's a free encyclopedia after all -- but we don't have to keep them around. --Brion 02:36 21 May 2003 (UTC)

To be honest, I am really working through this distinction in my head. Why is gaping anus allowed in an article, but I can't be User:Gaping Anus? Kingturtle 02:41 21 May 2003 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of response which has driven some people to oppose the nickname policy. However, as Brion has said, there is a substantial difference between the two. If we allow users named "gaping anus", we gain no valuable information, yet we are likely to lose contributors and readers. Allowing this (or an equivalent phrase) in articles that inform the reader about a certain subject (in this case, goatse.cx), on the other hand, improves our encyclopedia. If, at the end of the day, we can say that Wikipedia has a comprehensive, non-trolling article about the phenomenon that is goatse.cx, I think that is quite an accomplishment. I for one have already learned quite a bit from that article. --Eloquence 03:14 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Out of personal curiosity, what have you learned from the article? Kingturtle 04:23 21 May 2003 (UTC)

I was not aware of the other pictures on the site, because frankly, I immediately closed it when I first visited it and then have only used it to shock others a couple of times (what has been done to you, do unto others at least twice ;). I had no idea there was also an IRC server, and I found the throatse.cx parody amusing. I will gladly explain again to you my main point: Most people do not want to visit goatse.cx. It's a shock site. Still, many people who have visited it may be curious about its further contents and history. We can provide this information without requiring the reader to visit the site. It may not be the most important information in Wikipedia, but hey, we have information about every Disney character out there, so I don't see why we shouldn't have a comprehensive article about a shock site. --Eloquence 04:37 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Ditto on the value of the content - always wondered what the slashdot sniggering was all about, but didn't really want to explore it first, uh, hand... :-) Stan 03:29 21 May 2003 (UTC)

The point Kingturtle is trying to make, I think, is precisely that there is indeed "a distinction between facts presented being found offensive by some people, and gratuitously provoking offense with non-informational elements of presentation". He would agree that "the first case is defensible, as it is our mission to be informative" and he would agree that "the second case is not defensible". However, he is not such a fool as to think that any and every fact presented in an article must be there only for its ostensible purpose, which is to inform and educate. What Kingturtle is saying is that there is a difference between presenting the relevant facts in order to inform and educate on the one hand, and presention of things which happen to be factual under the pretence of "informing and educating", when in truth the clear and only purpose is to shock and/or offend.

Kingturtle brilliantly demonstrated the truth of this by writing what was essentially the same article on a different and non-offensive topic, at Microsoft.com. When we look at that same entry, shorn of it's offensive shock value, we can immediately see that its level of detail and style of presentation is inappropriate. Tannin 07:49 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Goatse.cx is a poorly-structured article in desperate need of rewriting, yes. What that has to do with demanding that warnings be added about "offensive" material, I don't know. --Brion 07:58 21 May 2003 (UTC)

I was not speaking about warnings, Brion. That's a seperate issue. Tannin

Not much of a point, without a goatse article to complete the comparison, though, is it? Microsoft's raison d'etre (pardon my lack of diacritics) is not its website. Goatse.cx's is. Which of the logical fallacies would this be, now? -- John Owens 07:59 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Microsoft is an important organisation of global significance, Goatsex is a trivial prank site. Now which of the logical phallusies would that be? Tannin

You and Kingturtle are delibaretely missing the point. The Goatse.cx article is there specifically to provide readers with information about that shock site without them having to view its offensive pictures. Microsoft.com may be a shock site to Linux users, but most people are probably quite happy with visiting the site and finding out about its different sections. We list the contents of goatse.cx so that readers can find out whether there is anything they want to view on that site (e.g. the MP3 or the giver.jpg picture) without having to go through the "gaping anus" entry page. It also allows those who know that it's a popular site but who have never dared to visit it to figure out what all the fuss is about.

This all should be obvious, any I am increasingly convinced that you and/or Kingturtle are simply not comfortable with Wikipedia discussing certain subjects in precise language. That is of course your right, but we will not change Wikipedia's standards because of your personal feelings. --Eloquence 08:29 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, you have got the wrong end of the stick, big time. Indeed, were you to put that theory to people that know me, you'd quite possibly cause a serious injury, they's laugh so hard. (I speak for myself only here, obviously. Kingturtle may (or may not) be the biggest prude this side of the black stump, I wouldn't know.) It is not me that is missing the point here. What you are saying is that Wikipedi users need to be protected from the evil site by having it all explained to them in nice, safe black and white text. It's a trivial site that exists only to garner publicity, and has no broader significance. There is absolutely no reason for it to be covered in any depth, when interested people can go and look for themselves if that's what they want. (Oh, and by the way, as a matter of detail, I do find the Microsoft site more personally offensive than the goatse one, substantialy so. I could bore you with the reasons I find it so depressing and offensive if you wish, but this is probably not the place to do so.) ----

goatse.cx is no more or less fringe than the various other Slashdot trolling phenomena, Google records about 9000 hits for the phrase. It may or may not be "evil", I certainly found it offensive, and would prefer not to be exposed to sites like it without knowing what to expect. I would also be opposed to uploading the goatse.cx picture to Wikipedia (say, to illustrate the article about anus) for legal reasons. What I fail to see is how the article about the site is "gratuitously provoking offense with non-informational elements of presentation". It is doing the exact opposite: helping people to avoid offense. So I still do not see any reason for you to want to remove or shorten the article so badly, other than a general discomfort with the subject (note that I wrote "and/or"). --Eloquence 08:58 21 May 2003 (UTC)

It's exactly the same as that craze we had a while back for "Micronations" pretending to have some sort of actual significance. I have no objection to the article itself: the site exists and has some minor (very minor) noteriety. But there is balance in all things. Listing the individual filenames? Hoolie Doolie! Why don't we do it properly, and add in the absolutely vital information that some of the page layout was done with BluntPage but there was also some hand tweaking of the HTML code using Wizzo TexEdit (V. 2.03b, with service pack 2, or possibly service pack 3a depending on which source you believe) to correct an issue with margins overlapping on the third illustration down from the left? As Kingturtle demonstrated, even for a site that is much more important in every possible way bar giving jollies to smirking teenagers, the level of pointless detail in the entry is absurd. Tannin (PS: I did note the and/or. Now that I've taken care of the "and", KT can deal with the "or", if he likes. Or something.)

I still disagree about the level of detail for the reasons above, but I can see your point about lots of goatse.cx-like articles popping up. What do you think about my compromise?--Eloquence 09:47 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Yes, Eloquence, much better. It reads like an encylopedia article now, where before it was more just a prank. Well done. Tannin

Is this better, then? ;) -- John Owens 09:34 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Ahh John, I do enjoy your sense of humour. :) Perhaps what we need is to put the hard word on Jimbo for an extra server so we can start up the Parodypedia. Between Kingturtle's Microsoft.com, my comment-without-commenting (listing it on Brilliant Prose), and now your Goatse.cx edit, once the word gets around, we will have more hits than Google! Tannin

END DISCUSSION MOVED FROM VILLAGE PUMP

regarding tub girl...this article says she is dead...but if she is dead, then how can she be going #2? Kingturtle 21:39 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Ugh. By mentioning tubgirl, I'd mean to encourage anyone to point to that webpage. Well, what's done is done, & the current description is as tasteful as possible. (Although I would have said simply "it involves diarrhea" & left it at that.)

I've been meaning to throw another 2 cents into this discussion, apropos the change of the name from "goatse.cx" to "Shock Site" -- this appears describe a subgenera of websites. Sites that have no function other than to insult or offend the viewer. I stumbled across an example of this this offensive website, but have seen a number of other web sites with practically the same content, word-for-word. I usually see them at the end of a flamewar, where one party is either clearly losing, or has exhausted her/his patience with the opposing party who has demonstrated an incredible level of stupidity.

There also was a usenet group alt.usenet.kook & a related website that listed The Usenet Kook of the Month, but I'm not sure if the website exists any more. In effect, both of these were an attempt to publicize individuals for their bull-headedness, bizarre beliefs & annoying tactics used to force people to listen to their unpopular beliefs or essays upon them. (Think of someone like Lir or Michael.) However, these individuals so described as "kooks" were shameless about their tactics, & probably not a few were encouraged even by this negative attention.

My point is this: the idea of Shock Site leads into a lot more territory than I suspect many people here think. And much of that will result in original research, & expressing NPOV about some of the individuals involved. But it is a topic that has barely been touched in either academic research or internet journalism. -- llywrch 02:31 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure these sites are really in the same category ( http://www.isgay.com is also worth mentioning). But they could be covered here for the time being.--Eloquence 02:40 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Regarding the additional info, I don't want that taken out of the article. And I definately do not want the link to the Frogse site in the parodies area taken out until it gets shut down. Then I am fine about that. Kapesh? -- Whisper to the Wind

Sorry, I don't know what "kapesh" means (it's from a non-English language, I assume?), but if you mean mean "is that OK with me?", then, sure, no problem. Tannin 04:39 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that's what Kapesh means. Thank you. :) - Whisper.

Cool! One more question -- what language is it from? Then I'll be able to say "Yes, I really did learn something from this page". :) Tannin

Obvious questions about hello.jpg have not been answered:

. Who is the man in the photo?
. Was he a paid model? Or is he the owner of the site? Or was he a sex slave? Is he still alive?
. Why did he pose?
. Who was the photographer?
. Was the photo taken with the website in mind? If not, what was the original intention of the photo?
. Is the photo digitally altered? If not, what proof do you have?

Kingturtle 06:23 22 May 2003 (UTC)

I agree. 3 Wikibucks for a well-researched answer to any of those questions. AxelBoldt 01:43 24 May 2003 (UTC)

number 5 above: somewhere to store a couple kilos of cocaine on the way back from Bolivia? Koyaanis Qatsi

Hmm, the goatse.cx server seems to be serving up nothing but blank pages (I should resist the urge to say it's "shooting blanks", shouldn't I?). You don't suppose we managed to slashdot it, do you? ;) -- John Owens 21:50 22 May 2003 (UTC)

I think Kapesh is arabic, though I could be wrong. I learned about the word back in Elemntary School. - Whisper

It's spelled 'Capisce?' and is Italian, for 'Understand?' --FOo

Ah, so I spelled it wrong >.< - I think its Capische, now. But that's not as important as the fact that I also want the information about the "Topic" line of the Goatse pages in the document. - Whisper

We should remember that some of the sites are ephemeral, and that we are recording descriptions for posterity, as well as giving guides to current sites.