Talk:Amateur sex video stirs controversy on Internet

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The video[edit]

I've seen the video, and I don't think it warranted all the noise. I suppose people heard the uproar and had to see for themselves. Since it involves a 17-year-old, it is illegal in the U.S. to post a screenshot, even one that involves no nudity and contains no identifying characteristics. Both the girl and her lover are of consenting age in Singapore, however. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 04:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is interesting is, for all the fuss, it's extremely difficult to find. I spent some hours trying to find a free copy to download (as part of my research for this article, of course ;-), and was unsuccessfull. So there are tens of thousands of people searching for something that they probably won't find, which causes more people to start searching. - Borofkin 05:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really? I was able to find it within 20 minutes. And later I stumbled across some easier paths to it. One guy embedded a link to it within his herbal supplement something-or-other site, Link is in the first paragraph. It is a RAR file containing 4 3GP files. Another location is here, a direct link using the Coral Distribution Network (so it won't leech bandwidth). Remember, may be classified as child porn in the US. But, yeah, there's a lot of spam sites now that are clouding the searches. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 12:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments in the article[edit]

I deleted two short paragraphs from the article, they were about some blogger pointing out obvious ethical aspects of the video, and expressing anger at ...ah someone. Bill3 17:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "non notable". Her point of view is shared by many thousands of people, and its inclusion makes the article more balanced. I agree that the ethical aspects are "obvious", however it is a valid point of view and should be in the article. It isn't for Wikinews to be pointing out these things, we need only report on what others are doing. Also, the person she is expressing anger at is the person who posted the video to the Internet. - Borofkin 22:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roxen has her blog for publishing her rants. Wikinews has a definition for What is news. Roxen's rants fail all points of that definition and sharply reduce the quality of Wikinews. Bill3 05:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "What is news" section applies to the entire article, not individual statements within the article. The only part that is relevant to Roxen's comments is this: "Opinions should be sourced from qualified sources, and the fact that those people express those opinions becomes the fact that is reported. A qualified source is an organisation or someone who is taken seriously by the general public when commenting on a particular area of expertise.". The point-of-view that I am trying to include in the article is the general disgust felt by many people at the distribution of the video. Roxen is an expert on this, because she is one of the people who is experiencing this disgust, and that is the fact that we are reporting. I encourage you to consider re-inserting Roxen's quotes. - Borofkin 05:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you able to suggest another way that we can represent the "controversy"? It certainly exists, there has been a great deal of discussion in the blogshere about this issue. It may not seem newsworthy, but think of the blogsphere as a small town - the people who live in the town consider local issues to be newsworthy. - Borofkin 05:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are these two bloggers being cited? Do they have some special connection with the situation? If so, shouldn't that be noted in the article? If not, then why not just take 40 bloggers blogging about this, and say: "Here, here's what a bunch of bloggers think about this." ..? LionKimbro 12:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those two bloggers are (or at least were) sources for the information in the article. You are right that any one of thousands of blogs could have been used as the source for this article, and there is no particular reason to use these two. This is true with most articles on Wikinews - there are many sources, we choose a couple and write an article. Now that the "Pink Lady" source has been removed, statements in the article such as "Various blogs are reporting that tens of thousands of Internet users are searching for the video, creating what bloggers call a "blogstorm" are unsourced. - Borofkin 00:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't see what the problem is with sourcing blogs. It's no different to doing "man in the street" interviews, or quoting people who are participating in protest marches, etc. As long as it is clear where the quote came from, we can source anything we like. - Borofkin 00:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last paragraph[edit]

The last paragraph looks POV now, but it also looks like a quote, and it is informative. Is it a quote? Who said it?