Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: Do we care about Wikipedia?

  1. #1

    Default Do we care about Wikipedia?

    I trust that most of us know Wikipedia isn't that reliable: Not even Wikipedia considers Wikipedia a reliable source. However, a lot of people don't realize this, and it is near the top of any search term.

    The problems are most severe for articles with few maintaining them. Recently I've gotten a lot of grief at the paraphilic infantilism article, with only three editors active. Two are seeking to promote a fringe theory that infantilism is a type of pedophilia. In academia, this theory is only being forwarded by one facility, CAMH. On Wikipedia, at least one CAMH employee is active, and others may be active. (Most Wiki editors use nicknames, much like here.) CAMH's interests do seem well-connected.

    Wikipedia has policies to prevent it from being used to promote fringe theories. However, these too don't work well in articles with few maintaining them. Since I'm outnumbered two to one, there is little that I can do.

    Anyway, that is why I am asking. Doing everything I can has taken up a great deal of time. If we don't care what Wikipedia says, especially about us, then it isn't worth the trouble. However, if we do care, then we should get involved.

  2. #2


    Wikipedia is great as a research tool. But not as a source.

    The best part of the wikipedia article is the list of sources at the bottom. If you find a fact in the wikipedia article itself, click the little number next to it, then go to that source and use it as your actual source, if it is a valid one.

    I use Wikipedia to lead me to soucres, but not as the source itself.

  3. #3


    I do the same thing as ABalex, But the page could turn into a wall of slanderous lies, feeding a smear campaign against the community. Then again, it may not.

    If it is used for those purposes, if there is something that can be done, and it does start getting popularity over truthful facts, than that action should be considered, imo.

  4. #4


    If infantilism is seen as a form of pedophilia even a low to non-impact form in Medical journals and Psychological institutions then who are we to interfere.

    If the world renowned psychologists and medical professors find evidence it is in some fringe minute way then I’m sorry but the kettle is calling the pot black.

  5. #5

  6. #6


    In response to the topic, yes, absolutely. That thing was a gem and a main reason why High School was so easy for me.

    But, in respect to this fringed/untrue label you feel is hurting us - I've been called alot worse.

    It's a theory. I don't think that a lot of people are lining up to learn about infantilism just for the fun of it. And more importantly, it's one person's theory. There are many others. That's why, if someone were to do some research on infantilism, an average person will now consult more than one source. So while it may be the top of the search list, the opinion of that article may dilute when mixed and compared to other articles/sites.

  7. #7


    Yes, I think wikipedia is a great source for information, that thousands of people view everyday, and many people believe what wikipedia says, so if some people give us a bad name by writing crap on there and a bunch of people read it and believe it, then that makes us look bad even though it is not true for everyone involved in this fetish.

    - Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

  8. #8


    I think its reliable enough but I think for the reason that if someone who didn't know much about having infantilism was to go read the edited artical and to see that it may have links to pedophilia that will give the wrong impresson not just of one person but the whole community of *b/dl and what if a kid who doesn't understand thinks he's going to turn into a pedophile because the artical said it may have links. We wouldn't want people to get the wrong idea like that and i think it shouldn't be published to wiki

  9. #9


    I think Wikipedia is a good site and I use it all the time for information, I don't believe it to be unreliable

  10. #10


    I just went to the article now and don't see anything wrong whatsoever with the pedophilia section. It specifically distances people from the idea that this paraphillic infantilism is in any way related to pedophilia.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 17-Jul-2011, 00:38
  2. Wikipedia and Referencing
    By Mingus in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 18-Nov-2009, 16:49
  3. How much did you care?
    By TheFoxxehAssassin in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 26-Feb-2009, 18:35

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  • - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community. is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.