File:Wrong.png: Difference between revisions

Notes: It has come to our attention this file is used by another resource (map-wiki.com/index.php/Newgon) to make unsupported claims about our editorial:

• A false claim or imputation inherent to the article as a whole, is that reproducing memes and graphics observed in online spaces equates to the production or endorsement of material - confusing it with our editorial. In some instances, graphics have been created by members of a chatserver (Yesmap) part-financed by Newgon - but this only applies in a handful of cases.
• MAP Wiki and its funding entity (pedofur) are connected to members of the NNIA paraphile Fediverse instance - a social community of MAPs and others who were banned from the Tumblr networking site in the late 10s. Staff at NNIA follow strongly anti-contact norms, and are just like our members, not representative of the MAP community as a whole. NNIA and MAP Wiki staff have been connected with a number of questionable actions and statements regarding MAP History and Organizations:

• Stating that prior to the modern MAP Movement, spaces were "mostly hebe and ephebo oriented [...] and we don't need it back".
• Toleration of hostile anti-MAPs on their platform, and favoritism towards particular antis. Scolding other MAPs for critiquing/meming antis, reinterpreting this as undue criticism of so-called "anti-contact people".
• Posting fake comments in an attempt to discredit their opponents - for example, using another MAP's Fediverse server, maliciously claiming to be an "anonymous" ex-member of Yesmap who has witnessed social norms favoring sex with infants (something that basic, public-level searches of the server completely disprove).
• Falsely stating that Newgon had no online presence in the years 2014-21 - supposedly in order to claim ignorance towards historical manifestations of MAP Flag development they find inconvenient within their own limited historical narrative. Historical archive exist.
• Falsely stating that information resources at Newgon argued for re-integration into the LGBT community (now erased).
• Failing to include crucial information concerning the 2009 gradient-flag rationale (map-wiki.com/index.php/MAP_flag) to minimize the possibility of it being related to the later design. Making a further false claim that our treatment "[admitted] independent origins of the [2018] map flag" following their supposed corrections. We simply removed the assertion that the graphics were likely related from the article's editorial voice and continued to acknowledge the varying designs proportionately.
• Uncredited use of our own research on MAP language development, yet complete ignorance of the ANU Blog's role in their own article (map-wiki.com/index.php/Minor_attraction) despite their having been informed about it. The presence of secondary archives is apparently not good enough here, anything related to Newgon must be hushed-up to "own the pro-c's".
• Calamitously doctoring a completely accurate statement made by us on a Twitter bio (that we were in a way the initiators of the MAP paradigm), only to accidentally source it with a screencap proving they doctored it in their article.
• Stating on MAP Wiki that Newgon also claimed to be "anti-offending", which possibly means anti-forceful contact, however, "anti-offending" is typically used in contact discourse synonymously with "anti contact", thus betraying a general inability to distinguish anti-offending from anti-contact. This is unusual, as other parts of MAP Wiki acknowledge that distinction, but it apparently can not be entertained with respect to Newgon.
• A series of bizarre false claims about philosophies underpinning Newgon as a project. These tend to show a general ignorance towards the purpose, scope and editorial voice of encyclopedic resources, and confuse perspectives gleaned from projects we fund with official or predominant positions. Tolerance of intellectual diversity is thus misrepresented, as the NNIA server famously does not even permit debate over the merits of pro-c.
• Finally, the insane nit-picking over the term "pro-choice", whose use the anti-c NNIA site admin finds offensive due to its broader political significance. This started with the historically illiterate false claim that a page we created included a novel attempt to use the language "pro-choice" in place of "pro-contact". This is easily revealed as untrue. A highly-circulated 2021 book published by Allyn Walker (prior to the de-archiving of our site) mentioned "pro-choice" as a theoretical construct at the very least. This claim has now been erased and corrected, but ironically reorients its accusatory tone - in that it now implies that after having pointed to the use of "pro choice" in the aforementioned book, we minimize its use by those community members MAP Wiki previously believed were uninvolved with the initiative. Language development is a nuanced process, and notoriously hard to trace - if MAP Wiki were to reorient their focus away from petty accusations towards opponents, and towards historical research, they would have seen that "pro choice" was used by one person in essays as early as the late 10s. This is not to say its use was widespread; language development is a complex process, and can rarely be reduced to the inanity of single novel coinages - something NNIA users obsess over daily as if it were a life-and-death matter.