Wikipedia has removed our article.

Wed, 02/09/2011 - 17:24

#52

doubleintegral

nineteenthly wrote:

There are places, for instance Netcipia.net , which will let you set up a wiki for free.

I prefer Wikia since it is based on Wikipedia's software and is more familiar to just about anyone.

Consequently...

http://bodyinflation.wikia.com/

Who wants to take a turn?

Stories I have written

Sat, 02/12/2011 - 05:49

#53

srflour

Inflate123 wrote:

srflour wrote:

Is it possibly that it's not quite so much a matter of that it actually exists as it is verification that the description is deemed to be resonably accurate?

Unfortunately, that was not the case last time. It was a very accurate description of the fetish -- don't know who wrote the original one, but it was clearly someone who was around for a while and knew what they were describing -- but the Wikipedia editors are not asking for "is this real" but "is this verifiable." As they explicitly state here: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

So it's unfortunately not a matter of "hey, you have that description wrong" or "I don't think that's really what it is" -- it's entirely "I can prove this exists through these verified sources." There are not supposed to be any editorial opinions on the site, which is why a verifiable source trumps everything.

Mood Boobs might also be a verifiable source, though I suspect they will say "that's not body inflation, that's BE." Still, I'm sure there's a format for citing movies, but I don't know what it is.

I can see how they'd want to be as credible as possible. I guess they've had a fair bit of criticism over the years, so maybe lagging a bit or even letting a few obscure things through the cracks is the price.

Still, with indicators like "citation needed" and the like, you'd think that there'd be entries marked as being verified to their satisfaction, and then something like this as being "Provisional", in that nobody has disputed the current description. Or something.

I suppose you can't criticise too greatly for them having a due process, even if it is now a bit archaic in the face of the ubiquitittyness of the WWW for a while now and given it's an Internet site itself.

Either way, I won't lose sleep over it. If it gets too mainstream it'll spoil part of the appeal for me anyway. I sure don't need any validation of my own interests of this sort.

"Continue the research..."

Thu, 02/17/2011 - 08:22

#54

Inflate123

doubleintegral wrote:

nineteenthly wrote:

There are places, for instance Netcipia.net , which will let you set up a wiki for free.

I prefer Wikia since it is based on Wikipedia's software and is more familiar to just about anyone.

Consequently...

http://bodyinflation.wikia.com/

Who wants to take a turn?

That is cool but I still have the same problem -- I am not going to be able to do any more than basic text editing in there. Is there a handy guide to learning Wiki markup? That's why I couldn't add the source to Wikipedia -- I just don't speak the Wikilanguage. :)

Twitter | DeviantArt

Fri, 02/18/2011 - 01:58

#55

doubleintegral

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wiki_markup

This is for Wikipedia. I assume Wikia is generally the same.

Stories I have written

Fri, 02/18/2011 - 08:33

#56

Inflate123

Armed with that and able to navigate a few other pages (and crib from the style of some existing ones) I did it -- I was able to update with a little extra information and links to the Forum story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_inflation

The info I added was everything they want -- neutral (to the point of being boring!), verifiable (with a link to the source file, which is legally available for free, per their preference in citation), and formatted to their citation templates. As far as I can tell, I did everything right. I suppose there are other details in that article that could be added but this felt the safest.

There's one editor who seems hell-bent on removing anything from this entry in particular that does not follow the rules, so I wanted to make it airtight, if you'll pardon the pun.

Thank you for setting up our own Wiki, double, where I think we can go into as much detail as we like.

By the way, for the people concerned about the fetish going "mainstream" because of a Wiki entry...I really don't think that's likely and it's not my goal, anyway. This was not about promotion so much as helping establish acceptance. It pissed me off that they said we didn't exist, yet there are several other fetishes clearly catalogued. So if we can say "No, we're really here, and we can prove it by your own criteria," I think we should. We don't have to take it any further than that.

Twitter | DeviantArt

Fri, 02/18/2011 - 10:34

#57

nineteenthly

I basically have no faith left in Wikipedia nowadays. However, it is useful as a way of learning the markup, because you can click on "Edit" and see how it's done.

http://www.youtube.com/user/nineteenthly

Fri, 02/18/2011 - 19:07

#58

Anonymous

I feel that some people here take this fetish way too seriously. I mean, I don't let this weird kink of mine control or dictate anything I do in my life.

...just saying.

Sat, 02/19/2011 - 08:28

#59

Inflate123

Not sure who you're referring to, but...in case it's me, neither do I. No dictations, no control issues. Since it was there and removed, this has just been on a mental to-do list, and I am happy to have ticked it off because...it ticked me off. :)

Twitter | DeviantArt

Wikipedia has removed our article.

Navigation

User login