Talk:Bomis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Old comment from February 2002

Have any plans been articulated anywhere regarding keeping the Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia free to users (as in free to use elsewhere and/or as in free beer?

I ask because it may be that some people would prefer to contribute to a project organized to provide some guarantees to the unpaid contributors that the body of knowledge will remain freely available. Otherwise, one might wish to stick with CRC and Encyclopedia Britannica or find a different project will a slightly different vision of "freedom" or "free". Thanks user:mirwin

Doesn't the license cover this? To quote from the Main Page:

The content of Wikipedia is covered by the GNU Free Documentation License, which means that it is free and will remain so forever. See open content and free content for background.

The software (at least the current software) is also open/free, covered under the GPL. You are free to download it and set up your own duplicate server if you really wish to. I don't know if the database dump for the English Wikipedia is up to date for the new version or not though, I haven't tried it lately. Jimbo? -- Brion VIBBER 2002/2/14

Outstanding! Thanks! Is there a draft downoad procedure somewhere? I will check at meta.wikipedia and I have started browing the mailing list archves. I have some concerns about the recording, preservation and propagation of attribution or credits. I guess I should get some handson regarding its feasibility.user:mirwin

Bomis Babe Report

moved from the village pump

While conducting a review of sexism and the Internet, we came across this site: http://babes.bomis.com/

Can anyone here add anything to our understanding of the relationship between the Bomis Babe Report and the founders of Wikipedia?

Almost certainly not. It is extremely unlikely you would ask this question if you didn't already know the answer. See also internet troll. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 05:41, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It would be extremely difficult for me to know in advance what thousands of Wikipedia contributors might be able to add to our understanding. My colleague is exploring the Bomis site, among others, but I suggested a querry on an open Wikipedia question page might develop information on this side of the equation, apparently opening myself to your allegation. I know Bomis is, or was, owned by some of the same people who founded Wikipedia, which is now either owned by, or being transferred to ownership by a foundation. I'm not yet up to speed on perceptions of how Wikipedia reflects the values of Bomis' operators, what happened to Bomis' related more academically oriented product Nupedia, or what place Wikipedia holds in the development process of open encyclopedias, except that it currently holds a major market share. Tre 06:20, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
See Bomis.--Eloquence* 06:08, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
I checked that first. I know a bit about wikis and Wikipedia, and from that I know not to assume articles on wikis are complete or current, which is why I querried here about the relationship. The Babe Report does appear to be primarily a Bomis product, but that premise is based primarily on placement of the Babe Report link on Bomis' main page. The Bomis article in Wikipedia is somewhat ambiguous about what is owned by the foundation, what is the property of Bomis, and who actually controls operation of Bomis' or the foundation's open-source products. Tre 06:20, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't see what significance that has. All Bomis does is provide some bandwidth to Wikipedia. It is not related to the Wikimedia foundation.--Eloquence* 06:32, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
Nor have we yet formulated any conclusions about what significance the relationship might have. If we were to find any significance in the affiliation, it would most likely be in values infused by the founders that might affect operation of the foundation and its products, in the context of meta-data related to value-systems potentially associated with ideas about sexism. Tre 06:52, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, we have a strongly enforced neutral point of view policy which you may want to see. Dysprosia 07:00, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is written and edited by the consensus of its editors. Of these editors, all but a tiny handful have nothing to do with Bomis or any of its products, and many aren't even aware of them. As Wikipedia's benevolent dictator, Jimmy Wales has final say in community policy (although he rarely exercises this,) and is the original source of Wikipedia's editorial policy, the neutral point of view. Jimbo exercises no control over article content. Articles reflect the values and biases of whatever editors have worked on them, not the values and biases of Bomis, whatever these may be. Isomorphic 07:31, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See User_talk:Michael3#WikiExperiment and ask: Are Tre and Michael13 the same person? If, like me, you think they probably are, act accordingly. Andrewa 11:54, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Tre, if you have a real interest in the study of wiki systems, you may want to contribute the results of your research to this Wikibooks project. JWSchmidt 12:48, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, JW, but we rely on a paying readership to support research for articles. If you watch the non-refereed trade journals related to the topic of Internet psychology, you might notice the results of our inquiry a few months from now. But the article is not primarily about wiki culture, it is about perceptions of sexism in electronically networked communication. Wikipedia would likely be a small part of the article, if it makes the cut at all. A wiki enthusiast could probably briefly summarize our work as fair use, if they find it relevant.
These responses have inspired some thoughts about paranoia and expression of suspicions in networked environments, but we would first need to persuade an editor we have a viable premise before investing any research in that topic. I am still interested in any additional information about why Bomis chose to provide bandwidth to Wikipedia instead of to Nupedia, because the two formats are generally indicative of two coping styles we are exploring. Eventually we might call Bomis' owner and ask directly, but this seems a fair way to querry a network of writers. Tre 23:20, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Bomis is a very small company; for most purposes rather than talking of Bomis as some kind of disconnected entity we should simply speak of Jimmy Wales. Bomis is basically Jimmy, a partner or two, and a few employees. He started Nupedia, hiring an editor (Larry Sanger) and donating hosting for it on Bomis's servers. After a while Nupedia spun off a side project, Wikipedia, which was to be a little more free-form and faster paced and was meant originally to provide draft text potentially to be refined by Nupedia. Work on Nupedia (with high barriers to entry) slowly dried up while Wikipedia (with very low barriers to entry) took off to everyone's astonishment. Eventually a server problem knocked Nupedia offline and there've been relatively few requests to try to restore it. I'd recommend you contact Jimmy directly for more information. --Brion 22:24, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of the Bomis Babe Report, is it ever going to be updated again? :P --Golbez 17:51, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Internet company

Is Internet company an article that should be created, or not? - RoyBoy [∞] 21:54, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

A vandal keeps on taking out this picture:

File:Aimeeb.jpg
A "Bomis Babe" wearing a Bomis T-shirt

Registering a free account 13:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A troll keeps adding it - it does not belong there and is a copyright violation. andy 13:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Sanger & Wikipedia creation

I just wanted to comment here on the idea that Larry Sanger had the idea for Wikipedia. This is not correct. The original idea of using a wiki for the encyclopedia project came to me from Jeremy Rosenfeld, an employee at that time. The encyclopedia project itself was fully conceived by me alone, and I funded it, and I hired Larry to run it -- which he did of course with the Nupedia project.--Jimbo Wales 18:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another complaint

"However, when the Wikipedia community ruled out advertising as a means of paying for these resources - and in order to reflect the spirit of openness and neutrality central to Wikipedia - it was decided that new arrangements were needed."

This is very POV. The Wikipedia community has never "ruled out" advertising, and this article makes it seem like the reason I went the non profit route and no-advertising is in response to resistance from the community. This is not accurate. I have consistently been opposed to advertising on Wikipedia, although in the early days I thought advertising was going to eventually be necessary. Now I think advertising will never be necessary, but I wonder if someday we (the community) might decide that we could do so much good in the world with a small amount of advertising that we might choose to accept it. --Jimbo Wales 19:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A good point; the idea was merely to explain the events that led to the creation of the WMF - i.e. instead of continuing as a for-profit endeavour. My general understanding was that there was discussion over how best to fund the project, and donations were considered a better route than advertising; I didn't mean to imply that the community rejected a suggestion, but I admit to not considering the possibility of the decision being reversed/altered in the future. I've tweaked the wording slightly, but I wasn't "there", so I could still have it wrong; I'm trying to convey that there were financial as well as "ethical" reasons for Wikipedia not remaining under the ownership of Bomis. - IMSoP 11:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another link

This earlier comment from Jimbo might be helpful, because it helps to explain why Sanger's claims seem to contradict the above. --iMb~Mw 00:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Curious

As a matter of curiosity, who's in control of Bomis now? Is it still Wales, or has the company changed hands? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

And why does such an otherwise admirable company appear at first glance to be yet another content-free search portal thing? --Orborde 09:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

CLEANUP

This reads like a short history of Wikipedia. Gerard Foley 21:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


Links to archived Bomis inactive

Cut from article:

because the way back machine won't retrieve them anymore - robot.txt exclusion. Janet13 03:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess Jimmy didn't want that particular part of history available.--Eloquence* 05:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
How is robot.txt possible?? If it used to be there then it wouldn't have been kept in the first place, and can't be added now because the site doesn't event exist!! Something more sinsister?? lol Mathmo 19:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Those subdomains still exist, and they contain robots.txt files. The indexer came back to update them, read the robots.txt files, and wiped/disabled the archive. -- Mithent 02:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The Babe Engine

Bomis appears to be affiliated with The Babe Engine, which is linked from every porn-related webring on Bomis.com. The domain name is also currently run using the nameservers gunther.bomis.com and zwinger.wikipedia.org. Perhaps Jimmy or Tim could clarify what the relationship between Bomis and the Babe Engine website is.--Eloquence* 23:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you had some kind of personal argument with User:Jimbo Wales or something, why are you suddenly so determined to label him as a "porn producer"? You of all people, a Wikimedia developer...
Ok, in reply to this revert, as you requested in edit history.
The fact is, that some of the webrings link to pornographic sites is completely irrelevant.
ANY web directory covers as much stuff as possible: The Open Directory Project (DMoz), Yahoo! Directory, Google Directory all do the same in their "adult" sections, and it's not singled out in their articles, and indeed there is no reason why it should be - it's just another of the many categories.
In these two, categories, keywords and links are all added by staff/contributers - the same as any web directory.
you made a comment on my talk page, and I replied (no reply as yet):
"You consider this "glamour"? There were also a couple of bondage shots and "threesomes.--Eloquence* 23:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)"
The fact is (as I already said in reply on my talk page and yours): If it's not sex, it comes under glamour photography as per the definition in the article. Nudity without any sex acts actually happening.
You say "threesomes", but from what I've researched about Bomis it was never more than just normal, natural human nudity. I bet in those "threesomes" there was no sex happening. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

First, as I've said to you, this is about documenting the history of Bomis truthfully, follwing the NPOV and not using euphemisms. Due to Wikipedia's affiliation with Bomis, Wikipedians' loyalty to Jimmy Wales, and the press interest in this history, it is easy to violate our most sacred policies when dealing with this topic. I must encourage all contributors to edit these articles with our policies in mind. There are no special exceptions to NPOV.

Bomis makes its money by creating web rings around popular search terms. To label it a web directory is misleading, since a web directory tries to be all-encompassing. Bomis rings, on the other hand, cover categories which people are likely to search for. [1]. What other directory considers "Babes" and "Adult" 2 out of 6 core categories, with the others being "Entertainment", "Sports", "Science fiction" and "Other"? It is quite simple. There's no money in creating a science/education webring, because these terms are not frequently searched for. Google for pages on Bomis.com and the first ones you will find are porn-related. Again, maintaining NPOV and being truthful requires us to be truthful about what Bomis' business models is and how it operates.

A term like glamour photography is primarily used in the industry that produces the photos and not by the consumers. Using it in this article to refer to Bomis Premium content can be considered a euphemism, particularly when the photos on Bomis Premium (naked models with shaved pubic hair and spread legs, sometimes posing with sex toys) fall on the extreme end of that spectrum. Again, it seems likely that the term is used here only to obscure the facts, and hence in violation of NPOV. More precise language, such as "softporn", seems to be more accurate and neutral.--Eloquence* 23:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty - The burden of proof is on you, as the one adding this material to the article... "I'm inclined to only state what we know for sure from the facts and images which are public" (quote you): But the fact is you don't know that they ever did more than that, and from the evidence it seems unlikely that anything more was shown as you described:- suggestive poses without sex acts
You say "sucking" - did you see a video? Were you subscribed to the premium members section? I doubt it. I bet you're referring to a dildo (which is, after all, just a stick of plastic) placed in the mouth for a pose, or as you said, placed between the breasts ("rubbing" suggests action, you cannot tell this from a photo) - each photo is carefully staged, it's just for show.
This is nothing to do with "loyalty" - I am interested in keeping NPOV here, which you don't seem to have: or at least more than slightly biased against Jimbo for some interest or another.
Posing IS NOT sex. Photography of humans nude in their natural state, sometimes in suggestive poses (Glamour photography) IS NOT sex. Pornography is sex.
One of your main arguments is that the keywords (not sites, which are added automatically depending on the keywords) are added manually: So what? A large part of the internet is pornography (I'm sure we've all heard various jokes about the internet being "made for porn"), and they are doing no more than automatically maintaining links to other websites that contain keywords that people often search for (mostly men - but a large chunk of active internet users are men). If they did not include "porn" in this list they would be lying.
It's hardly the same as if they made the sites themselves. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I do not see it as a matter of "guilt" or "innocence", and I see nothing wrong with what Bomis did and does in any case. The point is, we are not stating that the models were using sex toys, we are stating that they posed with them. You explicitly stated that they never were using the toys. We don't have any hard source for that, since you haven't reviewed all the content on Bomis Premium. Hence, this should not be explicitly stated without a source. As for "it's all just for show", that distinction is irrelevant, unless you want to say "never used them for pleasure", which is probably true for most sex toy porn. ;-) --Eloquence* 00:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
You seem to be turning this into some kind of moral argument. As I said, I have no moral objections to Bomis (other than that I consider much of what they create to be effectively search engine spam). We are, however, trying to neutrally and factually document the company, and it is a fact that Bomis focuses on collecting URLs related to popular search terms, and that in doing so, focuses primarily on pornography and celebrities. These facts should be stated in the article.--Eloquence* 00:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Does it really "focus primarily" on porn though? It seems that it offers no more coverage to porn than it does any other section... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
If you check the "What's New" pages, you will see that no other categories are updated as frequently as the adult and babes categories. This is what the article currently states.--Eloquence* 00:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

SO? The keywords for the automatic-search and adding are added in by staff, you say - but as it says there, webrings are submitted by outside people - This is not the staff focusing on porn, but what advertisers on the internet tend to focus on (I mean, apart from penis enlargement for insecure men and "magic pills" made out of compressed talcum powder) anyway.. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No, the webrings are created and maintained by the staff. It's a bit non-obvious, but if you click the "E-mail ringmaster" links, you will see that most of them point to "House" (I think they used to point to "Tim", i.e. Tim Shell).--Eloquence* 00:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
"We update these pages everyday as new sites are accepted into our index."
Are you sure the process has not been changed? For them to be "accepted into the index", someone else has to be requesting that they be added... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
It's impossible to tell from the outside how many URLs are selected by Bomis, and how many come from outside submissions; you could ask User:Tim Shell to comment more on their current practices.--Eloquence* 00:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, the fact is that the Babe Report did review non-glamour photography web sites. It had a review of Linda Tran's web site ([2]), and if you look at Linda Tran's site, you'll note that she sells Penthouse DVDs (College Cuties), and Penthouse is inarguably pornography. Calwatch 00:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
No no, you're offtopic there: What we're actually referring to is the CURRENT listings of webrings on the site at bomis.com.
That the site USED TO review porn sites is already known (--Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)) - my argument about porn earlier was the claim that Bomis itself produced "porn" - From evidence so far, there was never anything more than natural human nudity and suggestive posing. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


I am actually changing the subject here, this is in response to your edit earlierdeleting the text "softcore" in my sentence on The Babe Report. The site obviously reviewed softcore and so that change was unwarranted. I'm glad we can agree on that. Calwatch 00:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I didn't mean that - I mean it didn't review pornography, whoops. "Softcore" is just another term for glamour photography, which we already knew it reviewed. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I still think glamour photography is too much of a euphemism to be neutral. Pornography, if you read the article, is not defined as being strictly inclusive of sexual acts such as penetration, and common terms like "softporn" and "hardcore pornography" exist to distinguish different categories of erotic content. As I said, pics like these [3] [4] [5], in my opinion, as well as the dildo galleries, should be defined as softporn.--Eloquence* 00:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Pornography should only include actual sex: Posing nude with someone while not actually doing anything sexual (other than could be suggested by being nude) isn't sex - (and as I already said, it seems the "dildo galleries" are nothing more than suggestive poses, no use (i.e. sex) (with what are, after all, just sticks of plastic when not actually being used for any other purpose) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Your addition, Calwatch, is blatantly false - "In addition, there were also videos of the models performing various acts on themselves and with other female models." - There is NO evidence whatsoever that models photographed by Bomis performed "acts" on themselves or with other models - Posing is not a sex act, which is what you are implying was photographed. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't, the fact is that common definitions are not based on whether it includes sexual acts or not, but based on whether it is intended to be sexually arousing; qualifiers such as "fetish", "softcore", "hardcore" and "bondage" are added to describe different types of pornography. For example, would you consider a photograph of a naked model in a hogtie and a ball gag to be pornography? All common definitions would consider it bondage pornography.
Please do not revert the article based on your understanding or beliefs what the term pornography should or should not encompass. If necessary, we can hold a straw poll on this discussion page.--Eloquence* 00:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, though, regardless of your definition of pornorgraphy, it's still a blatant lie to say that "models performed acts on themselves and with other female models" - there were no "acts". By some, nude modelling/glamour photography could be classified wrongly as "pornography", but there were certainly no sex acts.
I'm going to sleep, hopefully someone at least will realise that that is true.. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 01:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
In your opinion, is there such a thing as "softporn"? If so, what is it? I'm not sure what videos there were on Bomis since they are no longer available, but I agree that the additions by Calwatch are not supported by the evidence.--Eloquence* 01:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


Not necessarily. See, for instance, "Bee Tran eats banana topless". ([6]) I specifically didn't say anything about exactly what those acts were. But some people might be titillated by banana eating, and there certainly is a reason, stated, or unstated, why it was a banana and not some other fruit like an orange. But they aren't merely posing, or stripping, they are doing "things". How would you like to phrase this then? Calwatch 01:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps something about "posing provocatively".--Eloquence* 01:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
My definition of "posing" kind of implies not moving (i.e., to place (as a model) in a studied attitude). I would use the word "behaving" there. Calwatch 01:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Eloquence, you say you "see nothing wrong" with what Bomis did, but your edit implies otherwise. The webrings include singers, etc., "but also" webrings related to pornography. To my mind, the "but" suggests a POV of "Bomis has some legitimate and worthwhile content, but also some despicable filth." Judging from the foregoing conversation on this page, it seems like it should be possible to formulate a more neutral description using material from both versions of the passage. Bomis is similar to dmoz, etc., but it isn't comprehensive; it's a commercial service so it emphasizes the most popular search terms; these include various celebrities, sports, and sexually oriented content; etc. JamesMLane 07:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The "but" was not meant to imply any moral judgment, feel free to try to find a more neutral wording. Bomis is not similar to DMOZ, it uses DMOZ content for its directory component directly (like Wikipedia mirrors use Wikipedia content, putting ads on them). Its search ring component is original to Bomis, and focuses on popular terms, with the most frequently updated categories being "Adult", "Babes" and "Entertainment". This is certainly different from typical comercial search engines; Bomis appears to be primarily targeting people coming _from_ search engines, using popular keywords, ending up on a Bomis webring and directory page, and seeing the ads. However, that is a hypothesis; the fact is that it builds rings around popular terms.--Eloquence* 07:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the "glamour photography" article is part of Wiki's Pornography Portal, and WikiProject Pornography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.180.224 (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Softporn/glamour

I have for now avoided the controversy by using neither term; this should probably not stay this way. I'd be open for a compromise involving both terms, e.g. "The material could be described as glamour photography or softcore pornography without simulated sexual acts." To recap: We are talking about nude models, posing suggestively, sometimes with sex toys (from the pictures I have seen, only in the mouth and between the breasts), generally with highly exposed genital area and shaved pubic hair. In my opinion, this can fall under both definitions, and I tend to believe that "soft porn" is more commonly and internationally understood. However, glamour also is a fairly widely used term, so I'd be happy to use both.--Eloquence* 08:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I was just submitting my own suggested compromise and got an edit conflict. The normal approach to disputes of this kind ("normal" meaning the cases that don't involve Wikipedia's founder) is that we don't try to decide which view is correct. Opinions on contentious issues are reported, attributed to named sources, with citations. I suggest that we follow that model and avoid trying to adjudicate the merits. How about this language for the article:
The rings are currently (as of 2005) categorized broadly as "Babes", "Entertainment", "Sports", "Adult", "Other" and "Science fiction".[7] The "Adult" and "Babes" categories are the most frequently updated and the most popular. They include include links to sexually oriented material [8] [9] that some writers have described as "softcore pornography", although Wales has disputed that characterization ([10]). Bomis also hosts a copy of the DMOZ search directory. Revenue on the search-related pages is generated from advertising and affiliate marketing.
(If this wording is accepted we should clean up the mix of reference styles.) XBiz, which I've cited as a source for the "pornography" description, seems from its website to be a substantial operation that qualifies as a prominent spokesperson. If Jimbo or another prominent spokesperson has somewhere endorsed the "glamour photography" description, we could cite that, but as I'm unaware of such a reference, I've simply noted that he disagrees about calling it porn. JamesMLane 08:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
You're a bit confused; nobody has ever disputed that the Bomis webrings compile links to hardcore pornography, among other things. It's the classification of the photographs on Bomis Premium which is in dispute.--Eloquence* 10:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The XBiz article is a source for saying that Jimbo disputed the characterization of some part of the Bomis site as "pornography". Would it be reasonable to interpret his statement as applying to or at least including Bomis Premium? I'd just like to get away from wording like your suggested "The material could be described as ...." If it has been so described, let's cite a source. If it hasn't been, we generally wouldn't mention the mere possibility. JamesMLane 11:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo is very strongly opposed to any use of the term "pornography" in connection with Bomis Premium, whether it is described as "softporn" or not; he feels pornography is a generally pejorative term. I do believe he is biased, but he seems to be OK with "erotic photography", so that sounds like a reasonable compromise to me, to avoid going into much more detail on this particular topic than necessary.--Eloquence* 12:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
My inclination is to say that Jimbo shouldn't get any special privileges. On the other hand, we have to guard against the temptation to be unduly harsh toward him, just to show how independent we are ("look at how virtuous I am, I'm not afraid to defy even the Benevolent Dictator in my noble pursuit of Truth"). Trying to steer between those two errors, I look at this situation and say that, as a general rule, if the article subject (or someone closely connected with the subject) is very strongly opposed to any use of a particular term, yet the term is used widely enough to be notable, then our normal approach would be to report the use by others, report the subject's strong opposition, and give any appropriate elaboration of each side's position. (For example, we could mention something like Jimbo's analogy to R-rated movies.)
If Jimbo wants to pull rank and say that this is his project and the p-word can't appear in the Bomis article, even as an attributed opinion, then so be it. I certainly wouldn't quit Wikipedia as a result. Generally, though, he hasn't pulled rank in situations of that sort. One way to put it is: Does the opposition to the use of the term "pornography" come from one of the principals of Bomis or from the Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation? JamesMLane 03:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that Jimbo shouldn't have any special privileges over this article, and I would protest loudly if he tried to exercise them. However, the use of "softporn" has been disputed by at least one other user, and since "erotica" is more inclusive and not disputed, I feel it represents a fair compromise.--Eloquence* 04:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to let people know, this link has a negative-slanted feature on Bomis that was greenlighted on Fark.com. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


I agree, Jimbo, doesn;t have that kind of right on this page. I think we should eliminate all the overly sexually-explicit material on this page, as I have done so. People don't need to know if the models posed suggestively with bananas or if they have sex toys all over their breasts.

Except that a key component of the site was videos as well. I have restored that as well. Calwatch 03:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Now that "bomis.com" is a defunct site, its ex-post-facto "robots.txt" file is gone, and the Internet Archive allows access to its archived copies again. You can now take the tour of "Bomis Premium" as of 2005[11], which says "Bomis has hundreds of models and over 25,000 different images. We are adding new galleries every day. A great value for your money. There will be plenty of sexy, hot, naked women for you every day!" Bomis Premium hints at more than it delivers. Most of the pictures are PG-13 glamour shots in bikinis and lingerie, with occasional bare breasts. It's kind of cute in a retro way. Hardcore porn, it's not. John Nagle (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The Original Wikipedia?

  • Check this out [12]--God of War 07:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think Wikipedia was ever hosted on Bomis, that's just a joke. Also your screenshot is very hard to read. Ashibaka tock 05:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I got a strange message the other day when wikipedia was down, rather than your typical "Wikipedia is experiencing technical problems" I found myself on a bomis error page with something about redirect/forwarding to wikipedia. It seemed that bomis were forwarding/serving wikipedia content. Sorry its a bit vague, but anyone know what this was about. --Salix alba (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Bomis name meaning

What does the name bomis mean? After research, I think the article should reflect this.--Wikiwriter706 21:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[13] I'll ask Jimmy to finally spill the beans here. -- Zanimum 20:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

BOMIS - a Polish company

Sometime in early '50s a State-owned company in Poland was established for the purpose of faciliating exchange of machinery, vehicles, spares, tooling, test equipment, raw materials, components, sub-assemblies and basically everything from microelectronics to heavy building and mining machinery between State-owned companies. Its name was Biuro Obrotu Maszynami i Surowcami which may be best translated as Machinery and Raw Materials Exchange. It became known under the acronym BOMIS. In the late '70s it opened a chain of retail stores, also known under the BOMIS brand, that was selling certain items to general public. It was wound up in the early '90s after the Polish economy started switching to open market. At present there are a few companies using BOMIS in their name, all of them private, some are suppliers of new and second-hand machinery, one of them offers training services. For a period of time there was an annual used machinery trade fair in Poznań under the BOMIS name. 11:23 13 Nov 2006 (UTC)

LOL

LOL JIMBO WALES USED TO RUN A PORN SITE LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.74.132 (talk • contribs)

is old news, no need to go typing in all caps about it. plus as a side note, jimbo has often claimed it wasn't prono but rather "glamour photography".... or something like that. Mathmo Talk 13:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It is often said that pornography drives technological innovation, as it did with videos and DVDs, so I do not find it surprising at all. Porno led to Wikipedia, that does not make it a shameful thing, that is like saying VHS tapes are a shameful technology! Who is jimbo? oh i see nowJörg Vogt 23:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

References

A few of the footnote links don't really lead anywhere.--Shtove 12:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Which ones specifically are you refering to and I will take a look at them, see if anything needs to be fixed. Mathmo Talk 12:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect external link

The external link "Jimmy Wales on the Wikipedia-L mailing list about Bomis" doesn't seem to be what it claims. ssepp(talk) 17:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This should help: Simon Kissane wrote: > (On a side note, how > many people working on Wikipedia actually are employed > by Bomis? There's Larry, Jimbo, and who else?).

I am the majority owner of Bomis. Tim Shell is my partner, and we have another partner who is (merely) an investor, not an active participant in the company.

Larry works solely on Nupedia and Wikipedia.

You may also have had contact with Jason, Ted, and Toan, which, if you include me as well, is our programming staff.

We currently have 10 employees. In addition to me, Tim, Larry, Jason, Ted and Toan, there is Terry (advertising sales), Christine (business manager and my wife) in the business areas, and Rob and Jeremy in the Bomis content management department. The 10th employee is my brother Johnny -- he only works part-time, doing programming tasks.

We have never had venture capital. We didn't make millions in the dot-com boom, but we didn't lose millions, either. We never even

  • saw* millions.  :-) We're making a decent living, and we're growing

the company in the old fashioned way, i.e. trying to turn a proft from month to month, paying the bills, serving the customers.

As a side note, it is sort of funny to me when I read people discussing "Bomis" in the abstract. Ultimately, that just means me, since I'm the final decisionmaking authority. Bomis is not a big abstract company, it's just the people that you know. A down home mom and pop dot-com.  :-) [14] Mathmo Talk 02:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sylvia Saint Fotograph

So, why is she, like, crying on that picture?

How is this notable?

While I understand many people want this article to exist because of its relevance to Jimbo Wales and the history of Wikipedia, I think it fails Wikipedia's own guidelines on notability (specifically, WP:WEB). Bomis.com has not been 'the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself', as shown by the lack of references. (They are: Bomis itself; the Wikimedia mailing list; and something called Freedom's Nest, which is of dubious value as a reliable source.) Essentially, this is a non-notable website, which only has a page because of its association with Jimbo Wales; if he had never worked there, this article wouldn't exist. Unless someone can provide reliable external sources to prove that this site is notable, I will go on to nominate the article for deletion. Terraxos 00:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You do realise april is gone and past already? And next year's april is not for a while yet... Anyway, another link. Mathmo Talk 02:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
And here is another reference, from The Times about Bomis, Jimbo, and wikipedia: The Times And there are many more similar ones, such as this one from Wired: wired.com Yet another link, Reason Magazine Mathmo Talk 02:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It was an honest question, not a joke; I was just trying to enforce Wikipedia's policy of reliable sources when it comes to web content. But fair enough, you've convinced me that Bomis is sufficiently notable to have an article. Thanks for the references - I'll add some of them to the article immediately. Terraxos 00:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact is that Bomis served as the "incubator" of Wikipedia, providing office space, servers, and salaries. Considering the importance of Wikipedia today, that would make it notable in the sense that anyone interested in the history of Wikipedia would be curious about Bomis. Thanks to Mathmo for dead-tree references, but no one should be surprised they exist. — Solo Owl (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Silvia Saint

So can we please establish a connection between Silvia Saint and Bomis other than the fact she is wearing a T-shirt from them. After all if I werre to put onm a Bob Marley T-Shirt it wouldn't get my pic ontop the article and her being famous enough to have an article does not establish notability of itself. Looking forward to your replies. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has established said connection so I have removed the pic. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The connection is obvious enough, said pics of girls were part of their promotion. She was a "bomis girl". Sorry, but Bob Marley never used you to promote himself. ;) Mathmo Talk 22:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
True. Well, if you can source this then please return the pic, ie that Silvia posed for Bomis, if oyu can't source it then please don't. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a Bomis promotional photo: Bomis owns the copyright to the photo, and Jimbo released it under GFDL. Check the image page for details. - Ehheh (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
yeah, what s/he said. Besides, as I said it is pretty obvious it is a promotional shot just from looking at it, you don't get photos posed and looking like that on a mere lark. No, instead it is part of the promotion directly for the company. Mathmo Talk 01:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Cites for Tim Shell

I've found these four cites, which may be useful: The Origins of Wikipedia, by Larry Sanger, Participation Marketing web site, The Net Now web site, and Heise Online report (in German). Bearian (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Recursive link

Does anyone know why there is a link to Tim Shell in the first paragraph, but the target redirects to Bomis again? Is it safe to remove it or is this kept for a reason? Thanks. PseudoOne (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's because Tim Shell used to be a separate article, but was deleted and merged into this one in March. Probably best to remove the links, it's not helpful to have an article that links to itself. Terraxos (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

'Popular with Male users'?

Instead of using some euphemism, why doesn't the article say straight out that Bomis is pornographic? Or at least 'adult'.theBOBbobato (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

live?

As of May 8, 2010, the site does not seem to be alive. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

defunct – If you check the Wayback Machine, there is nothing after 2006. The lead paragraphs should be converted to past tense. — Solo Owl (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


A Dormant or Discontinued URL

  • why in the template of the article does it still say 'site down, no IP address'. It's been that way for several years. Bomis is over with. Defunct should be the status in the template. Saying the site is down gives the impression that it's only temporary. Nothing is in limbo that way for six years. A great site for it's time though. Koplimek (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bomis/Archive_1&oldid=595626524"