Talk:Porn Wikileaks

Pornography Low‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability Established

It's a well sourced article which meets WP:PORN. It merley needs expansion. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see major WP:BLP issues here, as this article, in effect, publicizes a website that exists only to violate thousands of people's privacy in a way that could endanger current employment or lead dangerous obsessed "fans" to their doorsteps. Cullen328 (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP does not apply externally to the content of the subject. It applies to the content of the article itself. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP states "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." (emphasis added). In my opinion, this article has the potential to aid and abet possible harm to living subjects. Cullen328 (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So does the regular wikileaks site in general on a much larger scale potential of harm, yet we don't censor its existence. This article is not a biography nor does its information about living people (Kane's quotation) poorly sourced or contentious. Again, I say BLP does not apply to outside content by the subject if the subject is notable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This site is a nasty piece of work. It does indeed doxx people's parents and taunt them in obnoxious and juvenile ways. It does not read like a reliable source, and more importantly, it has no editorial process, so it is not a valid Wikipedia source for anything. It is probably far more "dangerous" than Wikileaks, a site whose effects are probably exaggerated by censors and spies. BUT -- all these things make it philosophically interesting and important to have an article about, and for further study. Can a society make a go of free speech, can they counter bullying without deploying a Great Firewall of China, or do they all just pretend until they run across something they don't like? Is democracy and liberty real, was it ever real, and if so, what do those people do when they run across something desperately inhospitable? That's what Wikipedia readers deserve to be able to find out -- even if the answer is not known for decades, or was already published and deleted long before I heard of this. Wnt (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Algorified, 11 August 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On or about July 25th, 2011, a group of hackers shut down the site shortly before the FBI started a takedown, according to The Informer at LA Weekly. http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/07/porn_wikileaks_fbi_aim.php Nothing further has been heard from the site's founder as of mid-August 2011, leading to speculation that he was intimidated into silence, beaten into silence, or arrested. The silence is perplexing due to the aggressive taunting and efforts to distribute the site's contents before the takedown. Because of the aggressive efforts to mirror the site and the AIM database, it is certain that the performers' information remains "at large" on the Internet and it's just a matter of time before it re-surfaces. Algorified (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: unfortunately, a blog does not count as a reliable source for information. We have had several attempts to add controversial and poorly sourced information to this article, so we need to proceed carefully.--Kubigula (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No blogs are okay if they are from journalists from reliable sources. See WP:NEWSBLOG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Not certain if this blog would qualify though. However, even if it did, it does contain the information that User:Algorified is stating above. So, multiple reasons to deny the edit request here.--Kubigula (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to combine with Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation

Oppose - Please don't do this. The two pages are quite different. deisenbe (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I see the connection, but these are 2 distinctly different subjects. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - They are obviously connected but very much SHOULD be different topics. More might be done to establish the difference in pages, but they legitimately should be two different pages on two different subjects. Spawn777 (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The two are absolutely tied together and each alone is barely notable. Of the nine sources given, eight are from the same 9-day period (March 30-April 7, 2011). The last source added, yesterday, is to the site itself... and when I try to go there, McAfee SiteAdvisor says: "Warning: Dangerous Site. Whoa! Are you sure you want to go there? When we visited this site, we found it exhibited one or more risky behaviors." We shouldn't be sending our readers to sources like that. Lightbreather (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Personally, I'd rather see this article nominated for deletion and any of its usable content (including the safe sources) moved over to the AIM article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links noticeboard

I've started a discussion about external links to Porn Wikileaks on the external links noticeboard. Trivialist (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the website owner?

If the person behind this website is known, why not tell us his name? He publishes all information about porn actors and actresses as well, so it's perfectly fine to publish his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.186.62 (talk) 08:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a commendable sentiment, but Wikipedia suffers from a rather aggressive "WP:BLP" policy. I have seen sources, including some that we have been using in this article such as [1], that publish guesses. The problem is that the policy demands that users should "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true;..." If a news source says that "people think it is X", but not "it is X", then that's not up to Wikipedia standards to say "there's a rumor going around it's X". Wnt (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pornographic Film performer Donny Long (real name Donald Carlos Seoane) admitted in a post of the Website Adultfyi.com, that he was the owner of the Website, which he denied during the entire time of existence of Pornwikileaks and a short time period after that.--88.66.142.41 (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2019

{{edit semi-protected|Porn Wikileaks PornWikiLeaks.co |"please change X to Y".} pornwikileaks.co has viruses all over it so beware when visiting it. Spudcrun (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The site is (was?) at pornwikileaks dot com, not dot co. Trivialist (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Successor Website Manyvidswiki

There is already a Successor Website of Pornwikileaks named Manyvidswiki.--88.66.136.79 (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not obviously a "successor." It's someone using the same tone who has a vendetta against ManyVids. Trivialist (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]