Forum:Spanking art wiki

Why was the Spanking Art Wiki removed? Since when does wikia censor non-pornographic topics? Why wasn't there any warning? What happened to the content? Where are the thousands of hours of work? Anonyq2005 17:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)anonyq2005
 * Don't we even get to know why the Wiki was deleted so that we can respond? Anonyq2005 16:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)anonyq2005
 * I ask about that on IRC yesterday, and I was told that it wasn't deleted, just "hidden" while it's "reviewed". I have no more details on that. And yes, is really odd that nobody on wikia wants to give you an explanation of that. Although it's said in Terms_of_use, I know that it's very annoying for all users of that wikia. Since now, take seriously the possibility of having an updated backup of the wiki. Maybe there's a backup of the wiki at as "old-spankingart.wikia.com". --Ciencia Al Poder (talk) -WikiDex 17:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern. There have been some outside inquiries about the content of the wiki that were very difficult to deal with in a thoughtful way on a Friday afternoon. We chose to remove the wiki from public view while we work with the both the complainants and the community to make sure that the wiki is focused on its mission of documenting adult sexuality. All parties have been polite and responsive and we hope to have the issue resolved soon.

We do reserve the right to remove access to our wikis on the very rare occasion when we decide it is necessary, but the GFDL license means that the content belongs to the community, and we comply with that license by making backups of all wikis available on a daily basis. We will be happy to provide more information as it becomes available. — Catherine (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sannse has informed me today that the closure will not be temporary but permanent. So Wikia has really shut down our wiki for good. For all who read this, I want to emphasize again that there was nothing illegal or immoral in our wiki, neither in the text nor in the images. People may find spanking art distasteful, but it is not pornography, and 100% covered by the freedom of speech and artistic expression in U.S. law. We have always followed any of Wikia's rules and policies, and Wikia did not seem to have any problem at all with our wiki until last week when a group of outside critics from Wikipedia Review started to attack our wiki in a most preposterous way.


 * The topic of our wiki was "spanking in art, movies and literature" and we always kept on topic. The wiki has existed since May 2005, for almost three years. We had an active community, strong policies to keep everything in good encyclopedic NPOV style, and more than 1,600 articles of content.


 * I would like to ask that a Wikia representative give a precise reason why you saw a need to shut down our wiki completely without first seeking dialogue with the admin and the community. After all, this is a wiki and any text content you find inappropriate can be edited and any image you find inappropriate can be deleted - I don't think more than 20% of the images would have been affected even by the most rigorous cleanup of "inappropriate material", by whatever standards. Spankart 21:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to echo the concern and request for further details (though not being part of that wiki community). In particular, I would like to know whether the issue is intrinsically with the subject matter itself ("spanking in art, movies and literature"), or with any particular language/images that were on the wiki when the "review" took place.  The implications can affect a number of other wikis. -Afker 01:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The bottom line is your Wiki had the potential to cause major embarrassment for Wikia, Inc. The only option even considered by Wikia was for it to proceed was to not feature anything to do with children whatsoever.


 * Don't count on getting the "backups" of the Wiki. Considering the "innapropriate" nature of the material, it is in Wikia's best interest to dispose of it completely.  Soon, Google's cache will update with the Spanking Art Wiki's demise.  Internet Archive could respond to a request to delete it from their WayBack Machine.  The two and a half years of hard work by yourself and hundreds of others will no longer exist on the Internet.


 * www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia:Our_stories#Spanking_Art


 * The faith Angela Beesley and Jimmy Wales put into you was apparently wasted. Forget the First Amendment, Gnu Free Documentation License, Neutral Point of View, and the "self-correcting" means of allowing "anybody to edit." This is all a business and you failed to meet expectations. Spanking Art Wiki Contributor


 * I too would like to point out my displeasure, suprise and practical disgust at this poor desicion. Something I see as a practical moral cowardice in the face of a highly negative and dubious complants from the troll lobby group and internet crusade thinktank the Wikipedia review. Amazingly they managed to take the scalp of a three year Wikia in a weekend. I wonder which is next?


 * Certainly the information contained on the Furpedia will probably be following soon, if adult content is indeeded their current red flag. Considering the thousands of hours of work (Including many dozens myself to create NPOV articles on a variery of issues, providing direction on-topic information BETTER than that of the wikipedia itself and to edit other articles lifted from Wikipedia to suit the accuracy required on the SP-Art wikia (Not unlike the offending article that has seen our Wikia disappear in a puff of smoke). Many articles unique to our Wikia regarding artists and authors, both current and of previous years, free art sites explained and linked to fullly legal artwork now removed without a hint of warning and tarred with the same brush - marked with the same ludicrous and insupportable claims of the Wiki-review.


 * I'm so delighted to hear that all communication on the isssue was 'Polite and responsive' (The original quote is now removed). It would be tragic to think that the Wikipedia review had reverted to type as a vitriol crusading force of haters who - As Encyclopedia Dramatica would say probably only do it for the Lulz and feelings of self importance - still managed to get the Wikia shut down! I percieve that this weekend of decision making was rather more about the act and the motions rather than the balencing of issues. It seems it was over the instant a certain inbox pinged with 'You've got Mail'. It was rather hard for the defence to concieve of arguments in the face of tiny dribbles of information coming through, as opposed to the potention combined spammage that the Wiki-review and all their members had managed to pool together to create - especially seeing as our legal and until then fully rule-following Wikia had led a blameless life. I point to the high usuage and activity, the large size and scope of articles covering all areas of factual and even fiction, characters and storylines of Art series, artists and lifestyles and all in a fully informative style. I point to the low rate of vandalism compared to Wikipedia and other Wikia's - something odd for such an allegedly controversial Wikia, hmm?


 * I wonder which will be the next Wikia to be closed, seeing as the scalp has been taken? No doubt in my mind the Wikia admins here are begining the slow retreat from Stalingrad here with the dogs nipping at their heels - they may even wait a few weeks first to celebrate their gob-smackingly easy victory over common sense. I think it's fair to say I feel like a trussed-up Turkey now or a british farm animal. Fully Heathy, but culled. Sacrrificed for no better reason than to restore consumer confidence. I don't think it's unfair foreshadowing to say that the knives of the Wiki-review are now being sharpened for the next one in the name of malice and troublemaking. I do wonder which will be the next to go on this slow and morally cowardly retreat from opposition that you are powerless over, as opposed to those who rely on your services whom it seems you can arbitrarily cull at any moment. I cannot believe the suddenness and frankly ludicrious nature of the argument that closed the Spanking-Art Wikia and I can scarecly credit the wrongness of this decision. I think speaking as someone who created articles on something called the Spanking-Art Wikia gives me authority to say terminating such a large and hard-worked on Wikia in a weekend to the Wikia-review truely is Masochism on the part of the admins, true Masochism. Sacrificed to restore consumer confidence. RobM 02:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This just goes to prove that Wikipedia was an idiot's dream to begin with: sure, we can have all the Freedom and Democracy we want until somebody gets offended! I thoroughly enjoyed the SpankingArt Wikia, but, as with all things inherently "democratic" (barring all classical use of the term), the Powers That Be ignore Majority Rule in favour of Minority Rule, those small groups who wanna bitch about some hypermoralistic semantics and just so happen to have the entire system by the shorthairs. Ignore guaranteed rights, ignore observation of the law, and ignore popular opinion: after all, this is Wikipedia, the People's Encyclopedia, right?
 * Uh, no it isn't. Wikia is not Wikipedia, besides the base software and the founders and some of the users, they have nothing alike. --Skizzerz talk 04:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The apparent lack of professionalism exhibited by Wikia, Inc. in the SpankArt Wiki "review" process is astounding. It's been four days since the wiki in dispute has been taken offline, and yet the company has still failed to issue a single clear comment to the community elucidating the fate of the content or the progress or conclusions of its administrative review. There has been no transparency, no timeline, indeed no overt indication whatsoever of any formal protocol being followed. All we know is that some complaint about the wiki's content was too much for this multi-million-dollar hosting company to handle decisively "on a Friday afternoon" (or, evidently, the successive three afternoons). From the mute, lethargic proceedings here, one can infer that this simple wiki poses a de novo test for Wikia that has been incomprehensibly "difficult to deal with" by employees who are supposedly paid for their understanding of copyright law and their own company's objective policies. Ridiculous! -Chip Wilson Qpwoeiritu 04:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's gone permanently I'll never have anything to do with wikia ever again or anyone who maintains material here. EVERYONE is offended by something and we all have the choice as to what we view. Get over it.

Mr. Shiny

An explanation
Let me start with an apology. This has been a difficult decision for us at Wikia. We support communities, but in order to do so, we also need to respect the advertisers who pay our bills and the viewers who visit our sites. We believe there is a place for the community, but unfortunately not on Wikia. This was not a hasty decision, although recent complaints have pushed it forward faster than I would have liked.  The first thing to say, is that the content is safe. We have a full copy of the database and will make it available at any time for the community. We will help transfer this information to a new host and are willing to provide free technical support if needed to get the wiki restarted. We are very aware of the spirit of the GFDL and the open source movement and support it. This is YOUR content, and we will ensure it is safe and available for you. That is our first priority as a steward of your work.  Wikia is supported by advertising and our advertisers told us early on that they would have issues with being on this site. As a result, we have hosted the site without commercial advertising for some time, which meant no revenue and ever increasing costs and we were prepared to continue doing so. Recently, we started getting complaints about the content from users and visitors and unfortunately other Wikia wiki volunteers. The wiki's topic, while innocent in its founder's intent, was easy for a new visitor to mis-interpret and get upset about.  Spankart was very agreeable to working on these content problems and at no time do we believe the community violated any laws. However it became clear to us that it wouldn't be possible to clear all the content that was causing disquiet, while still keeping to the topic and goals of the wiki. There would always be the potential for controversial content, especially on a topic where eroticism and childhood experience are so inextricably tied. Given that we were already losing money supporting the project, we reached a tipping point.  What we hope to do now is support Spankart in finding a new host and assist in transferring the content. We support your right to free speech and wish you well. We hope you can similarly understand that there were real business reasons why we had to make this choice and that you can find room in your hearts to forgive us.  color="Blue">Gil (color="Blue" size="1">talk) 05:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The final database dump is now available.
 * http://wikistats.wikia.com/dbdumps/spankingart/pages_current.xml (latest revision)
 * http://wikistats.wikia.com/dbdumps/spankingart/pages_full.xml (all revisions)
 * Angela (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For the other wikis that have either implicit or explicit eroticism/sexuality themes on Wikia, is any one else also getting near the tipping point? Are there ones that Wikia is aware of might become an issue in the future (but isn't right now because the wiki itself is keeping a relatively low profile)?  If any other communities will have to end up being moved, an advanced warning can help making the transfer process smoother and minimize the downtime of the content. -Afker 06:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Gil, thank you for your communication tonight, and for an arrant demonstration of how easy it is to sell out on principles when one is foraging like a brontosaur for the lushest cash. You have splendidly clarified the issue at hand by going on record, stating outright that it is Wikia's de facto policy to extirpate unpopular ideas and those not endorsed by the mighty advertising dollar from your service.  And I just love that smarmy, saccharine note of faux emotion you finish on, Gil -- you delete these guys' wiki after holding it hostage for four days, then implore them for "room in [their] hearts to forgive you" as you trot off looking for easier moolah. Chip Qpwoeiritu 06:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, in case there is any confusion, "Wikipedia Review" seems to be formed by a bunch of people who criticize and review Wikipedia, instead of being a sub-group of Wikipedia as the name might lead some to infer. -Afker 06:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you might have set a rather dangerous prededent for yourself, Gil. Are you certain you want to have Wikia policy dictated by your advertisers? You said that there would always be the potential for controversial content; surely this is true for practically any Wikia hosting politically or socially unpopular content. If your advertisers required (for instance) the removal of a site dealing with gay marriage or lesbian motherhood, would you be prepared to comply with their demands? Deleting the Spanking Art Wiki might have seemed like the only possible solution to the problems you were facing, but the decision will eventually return to haunt you. Ciao, Blackshade9 07:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC).


 * I see that some response has been elicted. I don't find the appology in any way false or the plea to be insincere, I do believe you on that and slightly feel sorry for those admins who sacrificed an hour or five this weekend trying to get themselves comfortable with the nigh-forgone decision to delete our Wikia.


 * I don't think this was an easy choice... but it is the EASIEST choice, isn't it? Wash your hands of it and tip the balence in favour of the removal of a score of other Wikia's in the coming future.


 * The only part that tic's me in any way was your promise of support for our free speach. Support that stops short it seems of defence to the end. Even as a European (And therefore either a commie or peasant toiling under a king or something) I understand the most important tenant of Free Speach is to defend it, not say it isn't your job to do it - understandable on a small webhost, but not on a supposed fact-based host.


 * Even on the internet it seems that "The only thing we have to Fear, is Fear itself." has totally been swallowed by "We need to be afraid of the unknown and slgihtly different from ourselves at all times, especially if some people get the wrong end of the stick and complain." RobM 09:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As much as I've, at times, had problems with some of the child related content on this wiki, I've always supported it because I think its continued existence is a pretty clear cut free speech issue. If wiki editors were offended by content then they should have edited it rather than lobby to have it removed. If I were such an editor I would feel a deep sense of shame at my own hypocrisy. The correct answer to objectionable speech is, as always, more speech. Removing this wiki is a cowardly act no matter how you dress it up and doing so is clearly against Wikia's mission statement. I think the world should know that in this corner of the supposedly free internet a whole group of people's ability to express themselves is being forcibly taken away.

Could someone forward this story to the New York Times and other appropriate news agencies please. Anonyq2005 14:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)anonyq2005

Same old story
Unfortunately it seems the brave new world of Wicki is in fact just another slave of corporate advertising….Please let us not offend any cooperation as “They” always represent the public interest, and free speech….NOT! A “business decision” is surely not the most pressing concern for an organization that is supposed to be about free speech? And yet it is. Gil states “ We support your right to free speech” I say no..no…you don’t, and you have lost any claim to doing so. Disappointed, Ralph

Give Gil Another Day To Fix This Wiki
I think Gil Penchina and Wikia still have a limited opportunity to support "free speech," although credibility is eroding fast with every hour that the wiki under discussion remains unavailable.

To make a good-faith effort at reconciling his business practice of culling non-violatory content with an ethical position defending free speech, duty would fall upon Gil himself to locate an alternate no-cost host for the SpankingArt Wiki--and ideally, he would have left SpankingArt online at Wikia until the move were complete. Now, I'm not sure there is logical room for an honest free speech platform at a business that puts content on trial before advertisers and ideological censors, but with this wiki down for the better part of a week in the absence of objective cause, it is clear that Gil hasn't been making any such good-faith effort toward accommodation. He's been all about the lip-service, though. Consider the hypothetical, but increasingly plausible, case that Wikia, Inc. defaults on the ideals of the "free culture" movement of which it purports to be part: specifically, consider that Wikia is "lock[ing] down culture and control[ling] creativity" by putting content on trial before advertisers and ideological censors. What does this mean for the competitive future of the company? I'll admit to concern-trolling here, because I personally don't care if Wikia turns profit or not. But it seems that without their ideals, Wikia has no purpose, no edge. Their wiki software is open-source stuff that any shlub can install on his server; their advertising-based business model is conventional, perhaps even retrograde. Is it possible that competitors will snatch up a cast-off "free culture" mantle and beat Wikia over the head with it, cultivating the more controversial, creative, and intellectual communities and reaping the rich advertising revenue that can be associated with this demographic when a smart and respectful entrepreneur engages it??

Wikia is a relatively new company, and Gil maybe deserves an extended opportunity to put his money where his mouth is in terms of this free speech thing. So in response to Anonyq's call for a referral the the NYT (actually, I'd recommend Slashdot, Wired, or DailyKos), I think Gil and crew should be given another day to try harder--to "find room in his heart," if you will--to accommodate the "SpankingArt" community. -Chip Wilson Qpwoeiritu 20:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)