Wikipedia, sub verbo: "ASFR"

wjbaines · Post by **wjbaines** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:39 pm

A big theme of many of the posts are here is:

"CROM, if ONLY we could get this shiznit mainstream!"

Well:
Anyone know who wrote the Wikipedia def of ASFR?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_fetishism ; NOT "Anti-Static and Flame Retardant film...sheesh]

It's a (as in, one (1)) paragraph that mentions Data and Bjork. That's it. Anybody in a position to flesh that def out? (<touches nose> er...NOT IT!)

A combined effort by contributors here could really burn it into the "reality" of "culture."

What Kishin said:

"They didn't even ask us about it.
And WE are the definitive authority on fembots.
We are in a better position to appreciate and evaluate the good and evils a fembot represents as well as the beauty of the idea they represent."

wjbaines · Post by **wjbaines** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:46 pm

I might add that fembotcentral.com did not make the list of links for additional info at the bottom of the page. A webpage from 1996 did tho.

Just FYI.

Shouldn't we ought to get all townhallmeeting up in their grill? Somebody here has to set the record straight, upi know, between Us and the World.

Guarantee if we did, this site's hits would increase measureably.

wjbaines · Post by **wjbaines** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:49 pm

Then try looking up "fembot" on wiki.

We need to be there.

I'm sure some individual members have made contributions to Wiki, especially the people who run this site and are so tech-savvy or maybe those who even founded this community.

But what's posted on the most free, populist, and democratic source of info that exists in the world...

DAMN

We are not represented.

wjbaines · Post by **wjbaines** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:57 pm

I know: people will cry foul for me "replying" three times to my own post, but I'm consumed by this at the moment and keep finding new things to say (that few will care about anyway, so gimme a break), but:

1.) Let me just defuse the "why don't you write it if you're so upset or feel offended?" I'll say that I would but am legitimately busy as I'm earning my Ph.D. Also, I don't know what kind of qualifications one needs or what one needs to go through to be able to post on Wiki. My time is no more valuable than anyone else's, but I have NONE. What I post on this site, as it is, well, that's me free time. Believe me, I wish it weren't so!!! So let's have constructive posts instead of naggy, pointless ones.

And

2.) the "fembot" def in wiki refers to "penectomy"; yes, take a guess what that means.

Somebody has to do something about this. It's an outrage!

wjbaines · Post by **wjbaines** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:35 pm

Hey! Good friend from many previous posts...(you seem to be responding to a lot of my shit and are generally active on this board! GO YOU!)...you're not saying I should do it? If I (or any other single person) did it, surely 'dissidents' would come out of the woodwork here and basically flame said brave soul, no?

It's good info, tho. Word to the wise.

Some community effort...it's the only way to do such a big thing without totally alienating big chucks of people here...but logistics...I dunno...

With robotman's info, maybe we all just add to it piecemeal, rather than go through multiple drafts vetted though the message board? How do other fringe fetishes handle it? I'd look now, but Russian language exam at 9 AM tomorrow.

Sorry everybody.

Oh shit its already 10:34!!!!!!!!!!

xerxes3141S · Post by **xerxes3141S** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 6:38 pm

Well, the main way wiki works is that people have certain guidelines on how to write articles. Many of them are setup to prevent flaming.

The primary things I can think of off the top of my head are the NPOV (Neutral Point of View) and citing sources. I realize that I am simplifying the many pages dedicated to exactly what should and shouldn't be included.

For example, if I were to write "Republicans are stupid." It would get changed back almost immediately because the next person would see that this is not from a neutral point of view, and therefore that person would delete the post or revert the change. However, writing something like "President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq" is perfectly ok because it is stating something factual and there are no words to add connotation.

Wiki thrives on people being bold enough to change things they feel need to be changed. So go ahead and add (or change) things on the article.

Also, does anyone know where the pic from the asfr article on wiki came from? And are there any more? (sorry, I meant the one with the caption "Girl dressed as Hajime Sorayama's Sexy Robot.")

wjbaines · Post by **wjbaines** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:58 pm

Looks like somebody actually did it. I'll be damned. Go, "somebody" - it's your birthday! It wasn't me. Anybody want to take some credit? Or not, if you're the strong, silent type. You have my gratitude.

xerxes31415 · Post by **xerxes31415** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:27 am

Robotman, thanks a ton for taking care of the Wiki article. I'll try to contribute to it when I can, and I also encourage anyone else who thinks there's a way to improve the article to contribute as well.

Rotwang · Post by **Rotwang** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:42 am

About the pic.

It was a suit done for a costume contest at a con. The lady in question is not interested in ASFR at all and I have serious doubts her picture was used with her consent.

Doctor Robo · Post by **Doctor Robo** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:00 pm

Robotman wrote:Click on the 'history' tab of the article if you want to see details of who made what edits.

It looks like you've been doing the lion's share of the work and with fine results, right down to the bibliography. Great job!

xerxes31415 · Post by **xerxes31415** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 8:09 pm

xerxes31415 wrote:Well, the main way wiki works is that people have certain guidelines on how to write articles. Many of them are setup to prevent flaming.

The primary things I can think of off the top of my head are the NPOV (Neutral Point of View) and citing sources. I realize that I am simplifying the many pages dedicated to exactly what should and shouldn't be included.

For example, if I were to write "Republicans are stupid." It would get changed back almost immediately because the next person would see that this is not from a neutral point of view, and therefore that person would delete the post or revert the change. However, writing something like "President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq" is perfectly ok because it is stating something factual and there are no words to add connotation.

Wiki thrives on people being bold enough to change things they feel need to be changed. So go ahead and add (or change) things on the article.

Also, does anyone know where the pic from the asfr article on wiki came from? And are there any more? (sorry, I meant the one with the caption "Girl dressed as Hajime Sorayama's Sexy Robot.")