What do people feel about copying the much larger Wikipedia BDSM article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDSM and using that as a starting point for the BDSM entry? It's much more comprehensive and looks pretty accurate to me.
Tanos says@: "Ok, no objections. So I've copied the Wikipedia BDSM article across. It still needs making more relevant to the UK scene, but I think it's a very good starting point, that a total newcomer could read through to get an overview, without having to follow lots of cross-references to piece everything together."
Yes, it is a good start but is too much and some sub-sections could end up being in contention with the specific subject page. I think from now on, we should be trying to trim down the text that is there (making sure the content is in the section page) to make this much more a of quick-read overview, while possibly adding in any missing sub-sections. I can't think how to trim down the History sub-section: I think it should be pulled out as a new section entirely. Depending on who gets involved, History could become a big area and might even need a Category. --Interesdom 12:47, 2 Apr 2005 (BST)
New extended version on Wikipedia
Maybe it helps. ;-) Nemissimo 10:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Added intro sentence to history section to clarify things. Before the 1980s, the devotees of any one particular form of alternative sexuality often considered the devotees of other forms of alternative sexuality to be deviant twisted sicko perverts, and didn't perceive much similarity to their own practices, nor any real mutual commonality of interests. There were some farsighted people in the 1970's who were attempting to break down such barriers, but their efforts didn't really have significant impact until the 1980s. So the first broadly based or general interest (i.e. not exclusively gay-leather) BDSM magazine or journal (the "Sandmutopia Guardian and Dungeon Journal") started publication in 1988, etc... AnonMoos 13:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)