[quote]What should we do about Wikipedia’s porn problem?
I want to start a conversation.
I. Problem? What problem?
So, you didn’t know that Wikipedia has a porn problem?
Let me say what I do not mean by “Wikipedia’s porn problem.” I do not mean simply that Wikipedia has a lot of porn. That’s part of the problem, but it’s not even the main problem. I’m 100% OK with porn sites. I defend the right of people to host and view porn online. I don’t even especially mind that Wikipedia has porn. There could be legitimate reasons why an encyclopedia might want to have some “adult content.”
No, the real problem begins when Wikipedia features some of the most disgusting sorts of porn you can imagine, while being heavily used by children. But it’s even more complicated than that, as I’ll explain.
(Note, the following was co-written by me and several other people. I particularly needed their help finding the links.)
Here is the short version:
Wikipedia and other websites of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) host a great deal of pornographic content, as well as other content not appropriate for children. Yet, the Wikimedia Foundation encourages children to use these resources. Google, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, and many other high-profile sites have installed optional filters to block adult content from view. I believe the WMF sites should at a minimum install an optional, opt-in filter, as the WMF Board agreed to do [*] in 2011. I understand that the WMF has recently stopped work on the filter and, after a period of community reaction, some Board members have made it clear that they do not expect this filter to be finished and installed. Wikipedians, both managers and rank-and-file, apparently do not have enough internal motivation to do the responsible thing for their broad readership.
But even that is too brief. If you really want to appreciate Wikipedia’s porn problem, I’m afraid you’re going to have to read the following.
[/quote]
Original article: [url]http://larrysanger.org/2012/05/what-should-we-do-about-wikipedias-porn-problem/[/url]
Mirror: [url]https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://larrysanger.org/2012/05/what-should-we-do-about-wikipedias-porn-problem/&hl=en&prmd=imvns&strip=1[/url]
NSFW warning: it has links to sexually explicit content on wikipedia.
edit:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/i2B6E.gif[/IMG]
They're all articles about porn. What's the big deal if they have illustrations related to porn? What are they going to do? Replace images of vaginas with oyster clams?
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Wiki-facial.png/220px-Wiki-facial.png[/img]
10/10 would fap again
Dude my mini encyclopedia from the fourth grade had tits in it
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Wiki-mam-intcs.png/220px-Wiki-mam-intcs.png[/img]
So tit fucking is a step up
[quote]
No, the real problem begins when Wikipedia features some of the [B]most disgusting sorts of porn[/B] you can imagine, [B]while being heavily used by children[/B]. But it’s even more complicated than that, as I’ll explain.[/quote]
Wikipedia has furry porn?
Dictionary contains word "Ass"
Ban Dictionaries from Children
[QUOTE=HazeFyer23;36136192]Wikipedia has furry porn?[/QUOTE]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry#Sexual_aspects[/url]
yes
edit: well, sort of
i wonder where the cited sources lead to
Wikipedia's porn problem: not enough porn.
that spanking video on wikipedia is a real laugh
It's honestly probably better if a young teen/child searches Wikipedia in hopes of finding sexually suggestive content rather than the rest of the internet. It at least gives them some basic point of reference and they're more likely to at least ease into it instead of being confronted with tons of dodgy virus filled porn sites.
Unless the parent(s) have some specific block in place on the rest of the internet it's pretty unlikely they can keep their kid from being exposed to sexual content, one way or another.
“sexual penetrative use of cucumbers”
Suspicious quotation marks.
Wow, that crazy. I knew that Wikipedia had pictures of genitals and stuff but I didnt realise it actually hosted pornographic stuff, I mean they even have 10 or so minutes of the ye olde porn movies that can be watched.
[QUOTE=Cushie;36136411]Wow, that crazy. I knew that Wikipedia had pictures of genitals and stuff but I didnt realise it actually hosted pornographic stuff, I mean they even have 10 or so minutes of the ye olde porn movies that can be watched.[/QUOTE]
1920s scat pornography.
Wikipedia just taught me that the internet has nothing to do with inspiring fetishes.
[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;36136170]Dude my mini encyclopedia from the fourth grade had tits in it
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Wiki-mam-intcs.png/220px-Wiki-mam-intcs.png[/img]
So tit fucking is a step up[/QUOTE]
I had to show that page to a friend of mine when she didn't knew what tit fucking was. (we have a different term for it, involving spanish)
Not to mention I would hardly call what the Wikipedia has "porn."
They're colored illustrations, more than anything. Some of the worst-drawn and unappealing porn I've ever seen. It doesn't even try to be sexually stimulating. They're literally the bare minimum you would need in an illustration describing sexual activities.
And, while there are soccer moms who would be shocked at this revelation, sexual activities involve sex. Ergo, illustrations demonstrating sexual activities involve illustrations of sex. Shocking, I know.
I think parents should be more concerned about why Little Timmy is typing "tittyfucking" into Wikipedia, than why Wikipedia has an illustrated and educational article on it.
Wikipedia, Jesus would be ashamed of you. I'm grounding you from your computer for a month for this. Maybe when you get it back, you'll learn not to look at these things.
[QUOTE=Mlisen14;36136393]“sexual penetrative use of cucumbers”
Suspicious quotation marks.[/QUOTE]
i like how there's a picture of it too
just in case you couldn't figure it out.
It's not really Wikipedia's fault if kids find it, because obviously the kids are looking for it if they find some of the more disturbing stuff.
It's hard to stumble upon anything really "mind damaging" if you're using Wikipedia for research.
[QUOTE=The Chef;36136208]Dictionary contains word "Ass"
Ban Dictionaries from Children[/QUOTE]
You know, a kid has been suspended because he said "I'm sexy and I know it", so that wouldn't suprise me :v:
In the future... 40 year old virgins everywhere, who think sex is the devil's work, and since they wont have money for a wedding, they can't have sex because they aren't married!
I mean really what harmless thing would you look up that would lead to [quote]"pornographic films depicting oral sex, anal and vaginal intercourse and sex between humans and a dog [*].[/quote]
[QUOTE=dass;36136442]I had to show that page to a friend of mine when she didn't knew what tit fucking was. (we have a different term for it, involving spanish)[/QUOTE]
You could've just showed how to do it.
[editline]31st May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Niklas;36136506]Wikipedia... (Very NSFW)
[url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Perianalabszess_01.jpg[/url][/QUOTE]
DUDE.
The only time I've seen Wikipedia's horrible porn drawings is clicking on sexually related articles, I don't think there is any problem as long as you know what you're doing when you click upon sexually related things.
Maybe a NSFW warning before entering then they let you go if you know the risk.
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;36136448]Not to mention I would hardly call what the Wikipedia has "porn."
They're colored illustrations, more than anything. Some of the worst-drawn and unappealing porn I've ever seen. It doesn't even try to be sexually stimulating. They're literally the bare minimum you would need in an illustration describing sexual activities.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anal_Fisting.jpg[/url]
yyyeeeaaahhh
what did i learn today?
dont click any of the links in this thread
[QUOTE=Sgt. Khorn;36136575][IMG]http://i48.tinypic.com/14ky1hu.png[/IMG]
Picture's description.[/QUOTE]
creamy vagina sounds like a yeast infection.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
