Geek Editor (with two exciting updates)

For the last several months, I've been editing the technology newswire at Suicide Girls. It's been a lot of fun to interact with the community over there, and I've had a really good time digging up hawesome, amusing, and informative tech stories for them.

In the last month or so, the overlords are making some changes to the site, including the newswire, to make more than just a pin-up site. To that end, they've recently added a ton of new writers and editors, and changed our sections around quie a bit.

Last night, my section was changed from technology to geek, and I went from being the technology editor to being the geek editor, complete with shiny new title. I just about shot a d10 out my nose when I saw the change! Bow before me, for I am geek! Snort. Snort. 3d8 + 4

According to the announcement, "Geek is about video games, comics, role playing games, computer hacking, Linux, OS X, mocking Windows Vista, etc," so I'm pretty psyched to add comics and games to the list of news I can write and edit, now. I'm especially happy that any ambiguity about the deductibility of certain research materials has been effectively removed, as well.

I think it's time for a trip to the Last Grenadier, then to the comic shop. For, uh, research. Yeah.

Snort. Snort.

42.

Update: In comments, Elayne says, "I don't get it. Why are you writing for a pinup site in the first place? I think it's pretty unwelcoming for female readers to begin with."

It's a valid question, and one which I imagine crossed more than a few minds. I know lots of you (about 16000 at last count) read this via RSS and may miss comments, so here's my response:

I don't have any problems with writing for SG, because I don't find their content offensive in any way. I really like the people I work with, I like drawing a small paycheck to write and edit, and the little chunk of community I've interacted with there (mostly geeks like me) have made me feel very welcome.

I completely respect that not everyone thinks SG is okay, though, and if you're personally offended that I write for or am associated with the site, I completely understand and support your decision to not read my stories there, or even stop reading my blog entirely, if you feel that strongly about it.

Personally, I feel like it's a Venn diagram of Playboy, Vanity Fair, Cosmo, and a flurry of tattoo and goth culture magazines, and I don't find the content exploitive or pornographic in any way. But your milage may vary, and whatever that milage may be, I respect it.

Oh, and at my suggestion, the newswire has been made entirely safe for work, so you can read the news (like my story today about Facebook turning down 750 million while reportedly holding out for two BILLION dollars, which features a bonus Back to the Future reference, and some musings on how stupid online advertisers are) and interviews without encountering teh boobies. You're welcome (I think.)

 

One more, after a few more comments:

There is an entire page at Suicide Girls dedicated to addressing all the various rumors and allegations: http://suicidegirls.com/trash/

There are also numerous testimonials from several of the models, who all seem pretty happy with the site: http://suicidegirls.com/trash/testimonials/

I've noticed that most people tend to project their personal biases and and preconceptions into the site: if a person is opposed to nude modeling (for whatever reason) they tend to think the site is exploiting women, and are prone to uncritically believing the various charges made against the site and its owners. If people are cool with the nude modeling (male or female), they tend to discard the rumors, and if they have an opinion at all on the "exploitation" issue, tend to conclude that it's more empowering than, say, modeling for Suze Randall.

As I said before, since I am an editor on the newswire, those issues don't affect or concern me. The models I know all seem very happy with their work and enjoy being part of the site; the people I have worked with on staff have been fantastic, honorable, and respectable people (unlike the people I worked for at G4, for example.)

And I made with a whole bunch of the funny (to me at least) in this story about finding out where your Xbox was born.

No thank you, I! Thank! You!

Comments

[CGG]

What I dislike about SG is how they pretend to be empowering women. Please. If you want to run a pin up site do it, but don't try to spin your site into post-feminist bs.

[Erbo]

Personally, though I probably won't be a regular reader of the main SG site, I have no objection to it; I've known a number of ladies who were Goth, or tattooed, or both. And anyway, you can look at it this way: if God hated female flesh, why'd He make so damned much of it?

That's a good posting on there, too, and an excellent metaphor. I have NO idea what makes these Facebook f**kblintzes think their little Web site is worth even $750 mil, let alone TWO GIGABUCKS. Hell, EMinds never pulled in enough money to justify that kind of valuation, even back in the '96-2000 heyday...and I see even less of a business model in Facebook than EMinds ever had. Page views? Page views mean precisely squat. "It don't mean nothin' till the check clears the bank," as my former boss Andre used to say.

Your friend Jason has a good point, too; JWZ has pointed out that the ultimate purpose of all social software (and these days, that means almost ALL software) is to get its users laid. That sure doesn't jibe real well with a site like Facebook and the whole "make money" paradigm...if they do get that kind of huge price for the site, that turkey'll be headed for the F---edCompany.com Hall of Fame like Homer Simpson headed for a Krispy Kreme.

But if the bubble is coming back, let me know, so I can cash in this time like I forgot to do in the last one.

[Ryan Waddell]

Hey Wil, if you have ANY input (and it seems as though you do, with the removal of teh boobies), could you maybe see if they could add specific feeds for individual sections? Because I'd love to subscribe to the geek feed, but I don't particularly care about the celeb gossip or politics or culture parts of the current newsfeed. Also, the fact that only members can leave comments, well, that sucks.

[Wrathchild]

Alas, I work at a gummint installation and the whole site is blocked for me.

[BillHaverchuck]

Wil,

You do an excellent job editing at SG, it's awesome that they kept you on during the recent overhaul.
Though I'm a little peeved that some excellent editors who I consider close acquaintances were given the boot, at least they had the good sense to retain you and Shalome.
I'm looking forward to seeing comic news appear on the newswire.
Keep up the great work

Haverchuck

[deltabob]

The feed may have been declared safe for work - but I still can't read it at work because our 'decency' filter catches it. Darn.

[Cassie]

I'd like to add another voice for the ability to nab an RSS feed of just the geek news you edit. I will make cute eyes at whoever needs making cute eyes at.

Love your blog. :)

[Jim Cowling]

Gotta disagree, Wil; Elayne's question isn't a valid one. It holda a number of unfair and frankly wrong-headed assumptions, not the least of which is that women are not a significant market demographic for SG.

It's not unwelcoming to female readers; it's unwelcoming to Elayne, and to closed-minded, prudish, controlling people who think like Elayne.

That Elayne's had this particular pile of sand in her crack for years makes her comment that much more disturbing.

[Plainsong]

And of course a user with the name of Jim knows all about what would be unwelcoming to females. Are you a female? Do you know anything of what you're talking about? Nope, didn't think so.

I'll echo some other comments here, it may be a cool site, and no doubt it's done its share of exploiting, but let's not pretend that it's empowering women. It's just the same ole objectification you see in any ole pr0n site.

Probably a point that doesn't get through to the kind of men who see women only as objects. We're people too. ;)

If there's a significant demographic of women who go there because they aren't the brightest candles, then they're the ones that need to sit and think a moment. SG just takes advantage of that demographic that doesn't like thinking.

This really doesn't have much to do with Wil's job as geek editor (except for the warning to watch his back)..

[Wil]

Actually, there is an entire page at Suicide Girls dedicated to addressing all the various rumors and allegations: http://suicidegirls.com/trash/

There are also numerous testimonials from several of the models, who all seem pretty happy with the site: http://suicidegirls.com/trash/testimonials/

I've noticed that most people tend to project their personal biases and and preconceptions into the site: if a person is opposed to nude modeling (for whatever reason) they tend to think the site is exploiting women, and are prone to uncritically believing the various charges made against the site and its owners. If people are cool with the nude modeling (male or female), they tend to discard the rumors, and if they have an opinion at all on the "exploitation" issue, tend to conclude that it's more empowering than, say, modeling for Suze Randall.

As I said before, since I am an editor on the newswire, those issues don't affect or concern me. The models I know all seem very happy with their work and enjoy being part of the site; the people I have worked with on staff have been fantastic, honorable, and respectable people (unlike the people I worked for at G4, for example.)

And finally, if you're going to discuss this, it's likely that you have strong opinions and it may get heated. Let's not degenerate into personal attacks and name-calling, okay?

[Jim Cowling]

Plainsong, you are making a generalization, and a faulty one at that. I don't have to be a woman to draw such a conclusion. That assertion is, in a word, ridiculous, and taints whatever else you had to say, or would in the future. About anything.

Thanks for playing. Feel free to take your holier-than-thou brand of idiocy and shove it straight up your puritan ass.

[Jim Cowling]

Sorry, Wil. Read your post after his. Feel free to delete mine.

[Ryan Waddell]

One of my friends is dating a SuicideGirl, and she frankly loves the work she does with the site. And I would say that the site is MUCH more accessible to women than, say, the BangBus would be (the first one that came to mind). Many of the people who correspond with my buddy's girlfriend are women.

[MistyB78]

Let me Just say this-- I being a woman.. have done my own research on SG. I find that it is a very informative and interesting site. I do not believe the stupid rumors about the site or its owners.. I like it, and that is my choice.. other's dont have to like it. So Basically.. live and let live.. visit the site or don't..that is your choice, shut up about it..
It's all about choices people. Move on people, nothing more to see. Rock On WIL, You are doing a HELLUVA JOB.

[Plainsong]

"As I said before, since I am an editor on the newswire, those issues don't affect or concern me. The models I know all seem very happy with their work and enjoy being part of the site; the people I have worked with on staff have been fantastic, honorable, and respectable people (unlike the people I worked for at G4, for example.)

And finally, if you're going to discuss this, it's likely that you have strong opinions and it may get heated. Let's not degenerate into personal attacks and name-calling, okay?"

Hi Wil, you're right about it not having a lot to do with your job there... other than, well..as always.. watch yer back.

I felt like Bill started something with the whole "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a prude!" thing, and I think _that's_ over-generalizing. You can be concerned about exploitation without having problems with the naked body.

There's two sides to every story, I recognize that of course, but I have to be skeptical about such a site run by a man. The law of averages says that where there's smoke, there's fire.

But hey, look at it this way... you're a poker player, and Geek editor at an obviously controversal site.

Don't look now, but I think you might be....edgy. ;)

[Plainsong]

Sorry, it was Jim, not Bill. ;) I suppose it'll be more fodder for his aggro.

[wolfger]

Since you're covering comics now, I'd like to share one with you that I just discovered (and read the entire archives of) last night. It's teh funny.
Courting Disaster

[Candidia]

Perhaps I'm a little late to contribute, but I'd like to add my two cents. I respect SG, and especially the girls who appear on SG. I know quite a few girls who have wanted to be a suicide girl, and have participated in amateur photo shoots because they want to learn to be comfortable with themselves.

Many girls do feel like it empowers them. That may not be the case for all of those who end up on SG, but it doesn't merit a generalization. As for myself, I don't think it's particularly empowering (nor is it the opposite).. but I do think that it's a much higher class of pornography, and not at all offensive.

No, Wil's association isn't unwelcoming to female readers. I am a female reader (and a geek), and I think it's great. We're all entitled to our own opinion, and so yes.. some will be offended. It's pretty hard to do anything worthwhile without offending somone, though.