Do We Need A Wiki
Posted 27 January 2012 - 01:27 PM
Also it would need to be totally unaligned (at least in appearance). Named something like ABDL.Wikia.com. It could still be started by us, but we don't want the divisions in the community to prevent others from coming to it.
As far as the failed attempt, I never even heard of it and I think the lack of hearing about it is the biggest problem for any website (no matter what the content or who runs it).
Posted 27 January 2012 - 01:40 PM
Also my wife just leaned over my should and said, "What is the point? There is already a page about us on the real Wikipedia.org."
Posted 28 January 2012 - 12:41 AM
Also my wife just leaned over my should and said, "What is the point? There is already a page about us on the real Wikipedia.org.
Having an AB/DL-specific wiki would permit greater depth and detail. However, your wife does have a point: Our wiki will never be THE wiki. Non-AB/DLs will still be getting their information from Wikipedia, and maybe using our wiki to fill in details not covered in "the real Wikipedia."
My main goal with the idea of a wiki is to get a more community-minded explanation of who we are since we (DD) do have good search engine positioning that lead new people here and currently the About Us page features only my words.
The "about us section" is actually pretty good for a one-page summary. It has a tight structure that wouldn't have resulted from a series of small adjustments. Of course, an orchestrated team can outperform any single author. However, I don't know how many editors it would take to form those teams. This would be a per-article value, of course. If the editor base is below some critical size relative to the number of articles, the wiki won't succeed. As populations grow, more communities will be able to field enough editors, organizers, leaders, etc. to make wikis work. The larger communities, such as transvestism and sadomasochism, might reach the necessary populations first. This suggests that the leading source of AB/DL information might be a wiki some day. Maybe here and now are the right place and time to start it.
Any advice and suggestions on how best to educate new DL's and outside searchers would be appreciated.
An intermediate step to consider might be for more Dailydiapers readers to get involved with Wikipedia. Please be clear that this is a proposal, not a recommendation. On one hand, it is a ready training ground for those seeking to try a wiki out, and it is viewed as "the real Wikipedia." On the other hand, it could discourage potential editors or diffuse our resources across multiple wikis. In particular, the article linked above (actually the paraphilic infantilism article) has sucked up a lot of my life.
Posted 28 January 2012 - 11:29 AM
One cannot expect respect until one respects other people's choices.
Everyone deserves freedom, it's just logical.
Posted 28 January 2012 - 06:01 PM
Posted 29 January 2012 - 10:32 AM
I think wikipedias page about us is pretty good.
Superficially, perhaps. There are two papers (from the same facility) that describe infantilism as a type of pedophilia. They are cited in that one article a dozen times. That particular fringe theory from Blanchard is mentioned in three places.
References to the theory in the Wikipedia article needed to be weasel-worded to make them more obscure, while still promoting the sources. Before WLU got involved, Blanchard and Cantor were not cited in the infantilism article. This _was_ in compliance with Wikipedia's fringe theories policy.
I don't know if WLU works for Blanchard. He got involved in the article initially, and has stayed involved this time, after Blanchard- or Cantor- related debates elsewhere. Most recently, it seems due to my August 2011 involvement in a debate against James Cantor's motion to delete the gynephilia article in favor of the article on Blanchard's auto-gynephilia theory. Cantor works for or with Blanchard at CAMH. ( Infantilism as auto-pedophilia is a fringe spinoff of Blanchard's auto-gynephilia theory, also called "erotic target location errors.")
Currently, Wikipedia is the dominant source promoting this spinoff: No respectable academic who doesn't work for Blanchard does. Of course, the article doesn't _appear_ self-serving.
Now back to our debate about why we might consider starting a Wiki and why I love MLP so much...
Posted 29 January 2012 - 03:02 PM
If we leave it open for anyone to edit (like most wiki's are) then it would be vandalized and abused more times than one could possibly count. The AB/DL community is already hated enough as it is.
Posted 29 January 2012 - 05:51 PM
I for one dont think its a good idea. There is already enough out there for abdls, creating a wiki that anyone can adjust is inviting arseholes to come along and just plaster pedo's across the pages. Also do we really need such a resource, DD and a few other sites already have plenty on the subject.
not a good idea in my opinion.
Nappies, are my last, best hope!
Posted 03 April 2012 - 10:56 PM
I'm firmly against pre-approval moderation because that would produce an edit backlog and would discourage editing. Those that don't understand wikis are fearful of free editing, but that is the powerful feature that encourages people to contribute (Wikipedia's "be bold", etc). However, I agree with restricting edits to DD members. That way, abusive editors (etc) can be dealt with. Also, using the DD login/registration process which is separate from the wiki would discourage spammers.
For me to contribute, the license would need to be such that the info would remain freely available to copy, etc, and unable to be sold. I would be extremely upset if someday the wiki info we all worked hard to build was sold to the highest bidder.
Posted 08 April 2012 - 12:47 AM
I hope the wiki page accumulates to a great size, and I would be more than willing to assist when I have the time available.
Posted 09 April 2012 - 12:31 AM
Posted 09 April 2012 - 10:03 AM
Posted 09 April 2012 - 03:08 PM
Posted 12 April 2012 - 10:42 AM
Posted 06 May 2012 - 11:59 AM
The wiki also clearly states that ab/dl is different from paedophilia and that most of us neither need or want any form of treatment.
As I see it there is no need make another here or anywhere else, much as your aims are lordable I think that to all intents and purposes what you are trying to make already exists
wet messy and very happy
Posted 12 May 2012 - 02:04 PM
I honestly think the existing wiki is quite adequate... The wiki also clearly states that ab/dl is different from paedophilia....
Cantor, Blanchard, and Barbaree state "[Freund and Blanchard] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." (pg 531). This source is cited TEN TIMES in the Wikipedia article. It has one page on infantilism, using the term "infantilism" five times.
Blanchard's (and Freund's) theory (that infantilism is a type of pedophilia) is represented (or misrepresented) in three places in the Wikipedia article, including its own section. Freund and Blanchard's article listed diaper-related cases as mostly pedophiles and a few masochists. It did not use the term "infantilism" or any established synonym.
The text supported by these sources waffled from infantilism being a form of pedophilia to infantilism NOT being a form of pedophilia in December 2011 to avoid removal. The fringe theory doesn't have the independent support necessary for inclusion. Both of the above were written by Blanchard et al, and so are not independent.
There is only one active editor seeking to promote these sources and that theory (even if it means misrepresenting them). Since only two active editors are involved, the status quot will likely persist until others get involved.
Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:33 AM
Over the posts here, there are many equally good reasons for having a wiki page, but can I ask the question why? Why do we need one. Wiki has an adequate one, and for further information, a google search can find many sites including this one.
Secondly, in my opinion, to produce a quantitive wiki page needs qualified experienced people - doctors / specialists / pscyhs etc to state their opinion and to sign it. Unfortunately, despite what these people think in private, very few will publically associate themselves to the AB/DL world. The simple reason is it will associate them to all the extremists that exist in this world.
For years, the ABDL community has being trying to dispel the pseudo association to pedophilia, which by creating the Wiki on or linked to a site like this, could almost be fatal. Members here have appeared on TV / radio / news with the intention of dispelling this, and due to the alternate agenda of the media, have failed.
This has been the problem with the public image of ABDL for years, and will not change with one more wiki page. I think, all this will do is add focus to the site where 1 - it is not needed, 2 - could lead to the closure of a wonderful site.
I personally think that this concept, although a good idea, could lead to huge financial and legal problems for the site owners, and indirictly, the members.
"If you carry your childhood with you, you never become old. Why rush to end life when happiness is in the blissfulness of childhood innocence."
"We all die, the goal isn't to live forever, the goal is to create something that will." - Tom Stoppard
Posted 03 February 2013 - 09:07 AM
I think a wiki could still be very useful to th community in some non-traditional ways, though: Listing products, product photos, reviews, places to buy adult diapers online, etc. I found this site because of the diaper list.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users