Slashdot Mirror
What Should We Do About Wikipedia's Porn Problem?
Larry Sanger writes "In 2011, the Wikimedia Board committed to installing a 'controversial content' filter even weaker than Google's SafeSearch, as proposed by the '2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content.' Since then, after growing opposition by some Wikipedians, some board members have made it clear that they do not expect this filter to be finished and installed. Nevertheless, Wikipedia continues to host an enormous amount of extremely gross porn and other material most parents don't want their kids stumbling across. And this content is some of the website's most-accessed. Nevertheless, children remain some of Wikipedia's heaviest users. Jimmy Wales has recently reiterated his support for such a filter, but no work is being done on it, and the Foundation has not yet issued any statement about whether they intend to continue work on it."
(In case it isn't obvious from the headline and summary, these articles discuss subject matter that may not be appropriate for workplace reading.)
n/t
I've never seen porn on Wikipedia, because I've never looked for it. The fact that the porn is more highly accessed than other types of content indicates that we're not talking about accidental encounters. I don't see what the problem is.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Wank to it!
"Wikipedia continues to host an enormous amount of extremely gross porn and other material most parents don't want their kids stumbling across. And this content is some of the website's most-accessed. "
So?
"Nevertheless, children remain some of Wikipedia's heaviest users."
So?
I've never seen any porn on wikipedia. I've seen some nudity before...but porn?
So, do we have any good links?
I've been contributing to the Wikipedia for seven years.
Not once - not ONCE - in that time have I seen porn on the Wikipedia.
Separate the content, problem solved.
I wonder why Larry Sanger could possibly have an interest in making WP look problematic.
Never seen anything resembling porn on Wikipedia, granted I'm not looking for it, but without a link to the alleged porn I'm calling BS.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
It handles things that actually matter. Not trivial bullshit like porn.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I followed a bunch of the links on Sanger's site just to see what he's talking about. Having a dozen or so videos of male ejaculation seems excessive. But a lot of the rest of it is 19th century French engravings, naughty postcards, and the like. Is that stuff appropriate for Wikipedia, even out of historical interest? I don't think that's for an automated filter to decide. Given that most home Internet connections don't have comprehensive content filters installed, I also think "the children" are about four clicks away from far raunchier material than that.
Breakfast served all day!
I never found any porn there. Giuess I never looked.
Doesn't the very concept of pornography go against the core reasons for Wikipedia's existence?
you know the rules
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
everyone is asking for links, and since i know reading the article isn't in the plans....
needless to say NSFW.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Sexual_penetrative_use_of_cucumbers&oldid=66888173
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:GIF_videos_of_male_masturbation&oldid=67780152
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sexual_intercourse_with_vaginal_lubricative_fluid.jpg
etc etc
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
I have also not seen anything in this category. Certainly there are some articles that many parents might not like their children to see, but education and supervision is probably a better solution than any filter Wikipedia could manage to install. Of course, boys of a certain age are going to find it regardless of what the parents do.
I don't think it's more of a problem on Wikipedia than anywhere else on the Internet. First, they should require that people sign in before editing. The problem with a filter is that it would be difficult to prevent kids from opting out. Even on YouTube, all you have to do is click a button agreeing that you're at least 18.
I have neer seen porn on Wikipedia, though truth to be told I have never searched for it. But if someone does it's reasonable to assume that they do want to see porn, isn't it?
If it's porn, how can it be a problem?
If your kids look for porn, they're going to find it. Who cares if it's on Wikipedia especially? If it is, it's likely for informational purposes. I don't think Wikipedia was designed to be a porn site. If your kids want to look at porn, I suggest parental software and supervision. Take some responsibility for your kids. Reminds me of Kyle's mom on South Park going after Terrance and Philip. Anyway, who cares if your kids see sex? They're going to see it anyway. You might as well banalize it now. Try to be a little more French and a little less Tea Bagger; your kids will be the better for it.
Until I read this headline, I didn't even know there was pornographic material on Wikipedia.
Then you must have missed these three stories earlier on Slashdot.
I take exception on behalf of Jimmy Wales at the notion that anyone would concern themselves with a "problem" on his website.
When someone reports your allegedly illegal porn to the FBI, of course you take action to keep the FBI from taking down all WMF sites and arresting people.
I've been contributing for less than that and seen porn a few times. Anecdotes are meaningless.
From the summary:
And this content is some of the website's most-accessed.
Because I have never run across porn there, I didn't even realize Wikipedia had a porn problem. That said, if pornographic content is really the most accessed content on Wikipedia, why not get a few paid/unpaid interns to review the top N accessed images on Wikipedia. I am sure there are people who would like to be paid to look at porn.
Why not a "WikiPorn" site, where everyone can upload whatever porn they have.
I admit though, that I don't quite understand the business model.
Making even half-decent porn can't be cheap; why give it away on Wikipedia?
Yes because boobs will destroy them, yes they will, you just watch us get destroyed... oh, wait.
Porn is the last thing you go to Wikipedia for. It's the last thing you expect to find there. If some "trusted" entity made a survey about it, they would probably find out that there's a higher % of atheists in Texas than their's people on earth that nows about this Wikipedia porn. Maybe a guide to how to make/ host/ find porn but not actual porn.
Wouldn't it be nice if they just let the kids be, think how quiet it would get.
"Wikipedia continues to host an enormous amount of extremely gross porn"
That statement by the original article poster is an outright lie. Show me a single example of extremely gross porn on Wikipedia. I've never seen it, and I seriously doubt that it exists. I see several extremely tame and inoffensive uses of vegetables and other things cited above, along with videos of people doing what people tend to do, but that's it. My statement stands.
I never seen it [on wikipedia]
I just tried and the three first intents got me to legit and informative content about what porn is, but not porn graphic content.
What should we do about Wikipedia's porn problem? Recognize that there is no "problem"---that this is no more a "problem" than any other content on Wikipedia that some people don't like---and move on to something that's actually important?
Liberty in your lifetime
extremely gross porn
I remember voting against a filter some time ago. One of the reasons was that "extremely gross porn" is not something consensual. A picture of a naked women having a baby, is it "gross porn"? Many would actively deem it so. Which is why this whole thing sounds to much like a first step towards self-censorship in the name of cultural relativism. Who will define what is porn and what is relevant?
Mind you, this different approach is valid between Europeans and North-Americans, let alone when talking about... others. Why not also consider additional content as "extremely gross"? Once it is done for "porn", whatever that means, the door is opened for everything else.
My position is not that porn should be in wikipedia. But images that are relevant to an article should be maintained if there is an agreement that they add value to it. Porn is but a red herring used to get the foot in the door.
And so on.
We've been down this road before with the debates over the Anarchist's Cookbook and hacking manuals. Banning, or labelling, or whatever serves no purpose except to enable government censors to make up excuses to block other information. And look - you gave them a nice little filtering system to help them do exactly that!
Of course Wikipedia needs to tread softly - they are the repository of the world's knowledge and anything that reduces access to knowledge is against its charter. Make the descriptions of various porn acts more clinical and less explicit, perhaps. But that won't stop the "think of the children!" crowd.
For years I've noticed that any article even remotely associated with anything sexual gets loaded up with photographs. Search topics in many other area for which you'd expect photos and illustrations and you're luck to get anything. I don't have any inherent problem with an explicit photo if it's relevant and constructive. The problem is that a lot of the stuff on there is pointless and gratuitous. It's people thinking they're taking a stand for free speech or some asshole getting some kicks.
And it isn't just that... It's the absurd granularity of these articles. There will be legitimate articles flagged for review as irrelevant or redundant but then you've got article after article on every little sexual quirk, stuff that could be lumped under a single parent article.
I mean, at the end of the day, it's not all that surprising people expend so much energy on this stuff. And the fact is that I've never stumbled onto it without specifically seeking it out. At that point only a fool wouldn't just go to a proper porn site. So at the end of the day it's a bit of a tempest in a tea cup.
prudes
Really?
What would constitute really gross as compared to mostly gross or just plain "damn, doesn't that hurt?"
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I've seen a link with pr0n on it coming from wikipedia.
Ok.
Which still leaves me to ask - who is this "we"?
Were it up to me, it'd be "oui".
Parental involvement... the ultimate filter of internet content. Because if little Billy or Sally were using Wikipedia for their reports on Dinosaurs and the Great Depression, one highly doubts porn would be in there.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
What porn? I have over 10,000 edits on Wikipedia and don't recall seeing any porn. Wikipedia has bios of porn stars and links to their work, but they rarely host actual porn content. It has to be both notable and freely licensed to get into Wikipedia. Commercial porn doesn't qualify.
Is the problem here some religious group with a modesty fetish, or what?
If you want porn, search videos with Google or Bing and you'll find whatever you're looking for.
Nothing
If it bothers you that much, install local filters.
Granted, if your search leads you to porn, I'm pretty certain it's because it's what you meant to find.s
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
I've not seen it on Wikipedia. I have seen somewhat descriptive text on certain sexual topics. But none of it could be considered prurient or titillating. It could more accurately be described as clinical. It is possible to find some actual porn by following links (clearly labeled) to external sites. But so what? If you don't like those external sites, filter them.
If you expect the entire world to police themselves to standards you want for your kiddies, perhaps you need better parenting skills.
Have gnu, will travel.
Its just what it is..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Your offspring != my problem.
Don't want your kids accessing porn on teh internetz? Set up the parental controls that your ISP, router, and probably operating system have built in, and STFU.
Don't know how to set that stuff up? Find someone who does, and STFU.
Unless, of course, the only people you know who can set those filters up are your kids... in that case you probably don't have too much to worry about, as they're obviously smarter than you.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
There is an easy reliable technological solution to this that has been around for 10 years, but no one uses it. There is a W3C standard for labeling pages as containing porn, violence, etc. Internet Explorer had support for blocking pages based on this as far back as IE5. But no one put the meta tags in and so the filters never worked. All Wikipedia should do is have contributors properly label the media, and allow the browsers to handle it based on the user's preferences.
Got kids?
Got Internet?
Do what you should do to protect your kids online.
Don't blame Wikipedia, Google or whoever if you fail as a parent.
Or informational? Some of the amount of videos and pictures probably are excessive, but all in all it is informational and explains what these things are. It is not hundreds of pages/pictures of busty white girls topless on beaches.
I'd suggest trimming back (just because its excessive) but the fact that it is merely informative about something you feel uncomfortable with does not make it 'porn'.
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
The other day I was looking up gross porn on Wikipedia, and I saw a picture of 145. Talk about a gross gross! Gross!
I can report that I very rarely come across porn of any description.
Sensible move- that generally causes the pages to stick together.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Viagra.
...I just came for the free beer.
I have no issues with any of the pictures people have posted in the article.
ejaculation, penetration, penis' and vagina's, masturbation (manual or cucumber),
most of the pictures are actually quite restrained, not over the top hard core, and 50% of the population has a penis, the other has a vagina. They know what at least half of the pictures are.
It's probably gives a pretty straight forward answer to what the kid wants to know. Am I normal? what does that look like?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_bang
i'm pretty sure this ^ isn't what they're trying to get rid of but, sheesh, i wouldn't want my kids going there...
Why do anti-porn crusaders spend so much time searching for porn, only to be offended when they find that which they seek. I don't run into random porn very often. I don't see what the issue is.
What should we do about Slashdot's Larry Sanger problem?
In 2012, someone submitted an article to Slashdot whining of an imagined problem on the website Wikipedia. Citing the 'controversial content', he whined about the lack of a filter even weaker than Google's SafeSearch.
Since then, after growing calls to "show us the porn" by some Slashdot users, some users have made it clear that they do not expect this to be able to filter Larry Sanger. Nevertheless, Slashdot continues to host an enormous amount of extremely gross whining and other complaining that most users don't want clogging up the front page. And this content is some of the website's most-accessed. Nevertheless, Sanger remain one of Slashdot's most self-righteous users. Slashdot founder CmdrTaco (blessings and peace be upon him) has recently reiterated his support for a Larry Sanger filter, but no work is being done on it, and the editors have not yet issued any statement about whether they intend to work on it.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
I'm all for filtering. It brings one great advantage of computers to bear on problems like this. However, when your choice of filter affects my vision I have to say you're doing it wrong.
If it's too sunny for you, buy and wear some shades! Don't try to block out the sun Monty Burns style, especially not with the tax payer's money!
There are several things I'm a little worried about in terms of internet freedom but this is not one of them. Internet filters will be a complete joke to most of the population in a few decades, not just to the techies.
Protect kids from religious propaganda!
Only adults who pass a mental fitness test and have no family history of mental illness should be allowed to view religious propaganda.
On the other hand, everybody has a body and information should be available in a safe and non-physical envrionment so that kids can be educated and protected from STDs, priests and other predators.
Look, this is only a problem in the eyes of the beholder.
If children want to see porn on the web, all they need to do is
defeat the "safe search" option on Google and they will see porn.
Porn is just a bunch of pixels. If you don't want to see it close that web page. End of problem.
The tiny little minds of those who worry about things like this
are the real problem. All your children have either a penis or a vagina, and
sooner or later they are going to put that equipment to use JUST LIKE YOU DID.
This is part of human anatomy and there is no inherent evil about it.
Quit being an idiot and worry about something that matters. Like a Mormon possibly
becoming president of the US. If you want something to worry about THIS is worthy
of worry.
See article on Wikipediocracy.com:
http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/04/27/hard-core-sex-action-raw-nude-wikipedia/
See articles by Jack Stuef on BuzzFeed:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jackstuef/its-almost-impossible-to-get-kiddie-porn-off-wiki
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jackstuef/inside-the-seedy-world-of-wikipedia-exhibitionism
Check for yourself the number of teenage pregnancies in Holland vs the US. And then consider this, Holland's score would be even better if it wasn't for immigrants from cultures just as repressed as America's heartland.
Oh and look up rape figures too. Gosh... AGAIN! The more liberal a society is on sex, the less harmful side effects sex has on its population. How odd!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
"http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sexual_intercourse_with_vaginal_lubricative_fluid.jpg"
is the best laptop lcd brightness calibration image I've ever seen. It's a pig working on a bunch of things and wondering "are these gonna be too bright for the mac guys or too dark for the PC guys" and most images you can't tell if they're a bit off or not if the screen is tilted wrong and god help you.
But if you can see this properly then you can adjust the brightness pretty accurately. Thanks!
Need Mercedes parts ?
I think all the "porn" they are complaining about is really just historically relevant artwork and medical images which most certainly belong in an encyclopedia.
Do these people bitch constantly about National Geographic, too?
.: Semper Absurda
File searches on Wikipedia:
Toothbrush: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=toothbrush&fulltext=Search
Human female: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=250&offset=100&redirs=0&profile=images&search=human+female
Human male: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=human+male&fulltext=Search
Jumping ball: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=jumping+ball&fulltext=Search
Wikipedia articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Free_Ride
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-throating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_torture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_and_ball_torture_(sexual_practice)
Let me just open my very carefully hidden notepad file (it's in a .jpg of a giant ice "dong") and add Wikipedia to my already long list of free porn sites. /dot, I have some good ole fapping to do.
Toodle-oo
I am greatly relieved to discover I'm not alone and that such a colossal organization suffers the same problem. Hmm.., I wonder if wikipedia likes the German stuff too...
Quit being puerile and notice that Wiki is the only major site not to have a filter. If u host explicit sexual material, having a filter is normal!!!
Since the DNT: 1 shit is so fuckin' popular, why the hell don't we just send a bitchin' new HTTP Response header to indicate to these sons of bitches when the gods damned content may contain pussies, dicks, assholes, and other material you wouldn't want to be caught wanking over at work?
Last week at my local library, some kids were checking Kama Sutra books. When I was a kid, we would play with the TV fine tuning just to get a glimpse of adult encrypted channels.
Besides, if it wasn't for sex, the human race would have become extinct aeons ago...
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
Ya, right. Just like looking at a National Geographic, only more boring.
Maybe the owner of Wikipedia has discovered business model that will generate funds. He can call it, "Wikipron?" It sounds like a fetish itself.
http://xkcd.com/631/
I put together a porn website out of material on Wikipedia. Sort of. I did stick everything I could find on one page with thumnails. NSFW, duh.
I think you'd be hard pressed to call most of this "porn". There does seem to be more male dangly bits than anything else, by far, and I suspect this is is the source of republican *cough*closeted*cough* objection in the first place.
http://rs79.vrx.net/interests/computers/net/wikiporn/
(post additions here if you feel like it, I'll check)
Need Mercedes parts ?
Second, is it even pornography? In the sense of designed to secually arouse. Just because you are aroused by a urology textbook or National Geographic pictures of African pygmies or the Sears catalogue children's clothing section doesn't make those things pornographic. Most people would consider them informative.
And all of the images I've seen people link to as examples seem quite tame given the subject matter they're illustrating. Given that an article on the subject exists, they're quite appropriate.
I'm expect if someone was willing to go to the trouble of creating an animated "cartoon" form of the masturbation technique GIFs, editors would replace them, because line drawings are often clearer. But as long as nobody has stepped up, they're using the best illustrations they have.
And yes, I'm sure that the images are viewed rather a lot, just like the NatGeo articles on topless pygmies. So what?
two girl 1 cup, goatsee.
;). Censorship is bad, but we recognize in most country that children & teenager should not have access to porn, so you can't go with an age lower than 18 and buy "big tits-spanking magazine" or whatever. Naturally that means, *cough*wedidstealitfromourfamilyadultsin2ndor3rdgrade*cough*.
I really really really wish they could have censored that shortly before me seeing it. Actually I wish I could actively censor the rest of memory of that from my brain.
Just kidding
The things is why not use the solution of porn site ? If one stmble onto a page with porn , put an itnermediate java/html page with a warning message and OK/Cancel. Cancel just make you go to wiki homepage and OK forward you to the correct page. No need of censorship.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
And do you really want them looking at second rate porn, whether homo, hetero, bi or tranny? Kids need an education and do you really want to be the one to teach them? I learned how to beat off from porn, thank God. I certainly wouldn't want a lesson from a family member or dear friend. What if your kid is actually a huge tranny and needs to learn how to cross dress? Wouldn't you rather Wikipedia show him how to was his bikini line? Think of Wikipedia as that parent you were too repressed to be. Let Wikipedia or Youtube teach your daughter to lick the alphabet on her girlfriend's birthday. She's going to do it in college anyway.
Seems like a fun new tool for trolling and lulz though. Most people know about certain shock sites and can avoid them, likewise shortened URLs are often questionable, but who would think that certain links to Wikipedia content aren't safe?
The problem is not the people that want to find the stuff, but the people that follow seemingly innocuous links that don't want to find that stuff - and that's where the problem is.
Frankly, am I the only to wonder why discussing of porn on wikipedia ( who is said to be detrimental to children, at least in the article ) would be NSFW ?
If there is one place in the world where children are not expected, this is at work ( except if work is taking care of them ). Given there is only adults involved, that quite insulting to be treated as childs...
Don't let religious people have a say here
Let Academic reasons be the golden standard in porn. Otherwise someone will say Shiva has a bigger dick than Yahve and that that is an issue or that Thor's pubic hair is not black like Jesus' is racist.
Keep out the priesthood per se when discussing porn. Let them contemplate elsewhere and discuss the matter porn using academic terms.
I remember looking up "Reproduction" in my school library's Encyclopedia back in fourth grade, and seeing fairly graphic pictures and content. "Sex" was another good one. Eventually, we looked up "Vulva" and "Breasts". 'Twas a good time had by all the kids hovering over the World Book.
I bet you Larry Sanger had a similar experience when he was younger.
Now that I'm a parent, who am I to deny my children the same pleasure of discovery? It seems like this is the one area where everyone is afraid that being informed will somehow make all these children shoot up a school or something. They aren't going to just magically stumble upon "Dutch Pancake (sex act)" or whatever; they're going to be directly searching for the term after one of their friends tells them about it. More than likely, it'll make having "the talk" a lot easier later on if they're already educated; you'll be largely discussing responsibility, rather than technical questions.
Reading through the discussions, I'd say that's just a problem of post-Victorian Western culture, in it's aberrant, USA-centric variant.
Would you like to have Wikipedia censored according to say, Iranian standards? Or North-Korean? Or radically Orthodox Jewish?
Thought so.
What kind of post is that? That's neither news nor interesting. It only shows a campaign. Once again.
Wikipedia does not host porn, only some nude pictures. no normal person would have any problem with them, if it wasn't for some prude society.
I'm sorry if that gets your prudish panties all twisted in a knot. Wait, no, it's the other thing. I'm not sorry.
If you want to do it yourself, that's your business, but keep it off Wikipedia.
If this were ever implemented you know very well that all sorts of entities would use it to block access to Wiki articles to consenting adults.
Do the obvious: beat them at their own game! A superior vision, with an educated, thoughtful and gentle guiding hand, will surely win out.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Really, were you never a teenager? It has never before in history been easier to get porn. They're going to see it, whether you like it or not.
You have a point, up to a point. Some German municipal swimming pools have times for nude bathing, offer unisex group changing rooms, mixed saunas etc., which is unlikely to happen in the US. On the other hand, Wikimedia have an old porn film depicting bestiality openly accessible. Here is what German law says:
Media with pornographic content are regularly considered to be obviously and severely harmful to minors. Pornography itself is defined by the German High Court as a presentation of sexuality that is not connected to any kind of psychologically motivated human relationship and which glorifies sexual satisfaction as the only reason for human existence, often accompanied by grossly depicted genitals.
Distributing those objects to minors is illegal ( 15 I and III-VI JuSchG) and will be punished by law ( 27 JuSchG). In addition, the German penal code (Strafgesetzbuch - StGB) penalizes the dissemination of pornographic content ( 184 StGB).
Completely prohibited - even among people of legal age - are the depictions of sexual acts involving children, animals or violence. Similar regulations prohibit media with explicitly violent content.
The spreading of pornographic content and other harmful media via the internet is a criminal offence under German jurisdiction. A pornographic content on the internet is legal only if technical measures prohibit minors from getting access to the object (AVS = Age Verification System or Adult-Check-System).
http://www.bundespruefstelle.de/bpjm/information-in-english,did=33902.html
It is only because of US free speech laws that Wikimedia is able to host this. If they were in Germany, they couldn't. That video has been viewed over 100,000 times since it was first uploaded in mid-January of this year: http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/201201/File:Devoirs_de_vacances.ogv
Now, according to the text above, that video may be illegal in Germany for adults to view, let alone minors. In the UK, a film that included this specific passage got a R18 rating, which means it is restricted to private sex clubs. Yet on Wikimedia, a 6-year-old typing in "holidays" or "homework" in French in Wikipedia's multimedia search gets it as their top result and can view it. And thousands among these 100,000+ viewers to date will have been minors. That is not the type of children's education the Wikimedia Foundation gets donations for.
As a counterpoint can porn kids into rapists? The link below could argue yes but it depends on how young one is and what kind of porn. The problem is that porn is so easy to access even young kids are looking at it. Tied to that porn is not like it was previously when is was a magazine on a top shelf difficult to get. Now it's a race to the bottom with more extreme porn acts. This is not to mention odd (to me) fetishes and stuff that is just wrong/illegal. On top of that I think some people are reported to be getting porn addiction in which to get their highs they have to be constantly stimulated by more extreme acts. The recent news link below seems to point to a child who raped a girl after watching porn. Now you could argue that some 'porn' may be ok for kids but it has to be in context. When you constantly watch people getting violated I suspect your whole attitude against women and other people in society can be warped and your inter personal relationships will not be normal. Having your statement above makes a complex issue too simple. I do not think that video games makes murderers but it can influence people especially with who have 'issues' (e.g. Reclusive / personality disorders / whole lives sitting n front of computers) into doing bad things when they cannot separate reality from fantasy. That same point of reality vs fantasy is also a good way to think of why young people should not be exposed to pornography until their minds or social skills can handle it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9303373/12-year-old-raped-schoolgirl-after-watching-hardcore-pornography-on-web.html
Check the images on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BADIMAGES
That does include images of mutilation and dismemberment, and these files come up in random searches.
An image of a naked woman having her throat cut in a bathtub (Fake sacrifice.jpg) was deleted only the other day, after it had been on Commons for years (the image was a simulation, not a real murder). http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lesbic_use_of_nipple_clamps_and_strap-on_dildo.jpg
Larry, if you don't want "p0rn" on your own wiki, you can remove it. Please don't mess with wikipedia too. They have different policies, to do with neutrality etc. You may have heard of them!
You see what happens, Larry?
Neutrality means reflecting real-world views in accurate proportions, rather than adopting a fringe position. Wikipedia is the only mainstream site that does not have an adult filter. It pinches thousands of private sexual images from Flickr, where they are behind an age-18 wall, and puts them in public view on Wikimedia sites, without even asking Flickr account holders for their consent: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3ATasting_a_condom.jpg&diff=67108318&oldid=66957446
Wikimedia provides unfiltered access to a bestiality video in response to a harmless search term like "devoirs" (homework) or "vacances" (holidays).
The first search result when entering toothbrush as a search term shows a woman masturbating with one: http://tch995319.tch.www.quora.com/Why-is-the-second-image-returned-on-Wikimedia-Commons-when-one-searches-for-electric-toothbrush-an-image-of-a-female-masturbating
Wikimedia hosts sexually explicit material without any of the contributors adding and managing this material on Wikimedia sites having the legally required records for 18 USC 2257 compliance. Hundreds of uploads are just pure exhibitionism of Wikimedia contributors taking videos and photos of their dicks, or of themselves masturbating in their bathrooms.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Masturbation.gif
How is that jerky (pun intended) video realistically useful for an educational purpose?
See the images listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BADIMAGES
See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems for random image searches on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons bringing up adult material
See http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/04/11/wikimedia-commons-pornography-concerns-just-right-wing-prudery/
I never had a theory of why right-wing / conservative nutjobs always get so angry when anyone suggests that there's nothing wrong with human sexuality until I came across this article on Wikipedia.
So, where's the evidence that porn is so bad for kids that's even remotely worthwhile to "censor ALL the things!!!1" in order to keep kids from seeing it?
Wikipedia does not "host an enormous amount of extremely gross porn". Sanger is a liar and a tool for censorship and comservative hysteria.
You said:
That comment shocked me, to be honest. But can you please inform us in which areas of which country this happened? Was it a girls school in Afghanistan?
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Wikipedia already has the correct policies in place. Where the "porn" gets through into inappropriate places is due to lax enforcement against exhibitionists.
Ideally, all media content should be vetted for quality and relevance to the article. But just as a particularly cute image of a puppy might make it into a scientific article on a species of canis, failing to represent an objective view of a specimen, so too do human-anatomy images often fail to illustrate the subject and are instead exhibitionistic self-made videos of a guy jacking off. These kinds of videos lack professionalism and quite often any scientific value. A proper video should be made in laboratory-like conditions and this would do much to alleviate the charges of "porn" (though I'd argue that porn is a misnomer, as most of these cause disgust rather than titillation -- "obscenity" would be better suited to describing a 300-lb woman's hairy wet vagina).
However, because Wikipedia is volunteer effort and few people have the resources or inclination to produce a scientific and professionally-made handjob video, the community is essentially forced to choose between the exhibitionists who volunteer this stuff, or not having any illustrative examples at all. I agree that the situation is not ideal, and that some of the imagery is made as a form of self-indulgence, but I disagree that there is a "porn problem" on Wikipedia.
Suffice to say that anyone with a web browser has free access to much better porn and Sanger needs to stop this pathetic attempt at mudslinging.
Did you go Christmas shopping in Amsterdam? :-)
The following sketch was from a 1980s Dutch humor show, aimed at a general audience, nothing shocking, so let's label it "NSFW" nowadays:
(NSFW, Dutch, notveryfunny) sketch from André van Duin & Corrie van Gorp Christmas Show: "that's why they haven't got wicks!"
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
if the want to avoid some uncomfortable content to some people/cultures maybe they'd start by removing Tiananmen Square protests, Holocaust or Vietnam War articles. Heading to an Obscurantism era era?
Never underestimate the destructive and creative power of stupidity
There's porn on Wikipedia???
If I had kids, there would be a lot of stuff I'd be more worried about than porn. There is violence and other graphic images on the Internet that I find a lot more disgusting than all but the most extreme porn. And that will almost certainly have a much worse effect on children than watching someone naked doing strange stuff they don't understand.
But then again, that's America for you, a culture where half the population believes in creationism and shooting someone's brains out on afternoon TV is fine while a quarter-second glance at half of a breast nipple is a national scandal.
There's worse than porn on the Internet, and if you want to play the "for the chiiiiildren" card, then I'd like to see some evidence that porn actual does any damage to children first. You assumptions and gut feelings, see creationism, are not reliable and not evidence.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I have never come across porn on Wikimedia. Yes, you can look up porn stars with urls and see positions, but that is porn? German porn???
...Larry Sanger is still trolling the wiki
What Should We Do About Wikipedia's Porn Problem?
I didn't realize Wikipedia had a porn problem, but if the demand really is that high I guess I could volunteer to help add more.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Porn On Wikipedia? [Citation Needed!]
Where is this scandalous Wikipedia porn that you speak of? Even searching Wikipedia with the keyword "porn" produces less than titillating results.
Just curious... why doesn't wikipedia create a new hostname (e.g., "safe.wikipedia.org"), and then create a process (it's good at that, right?) for promoting content into it?
Then, schools / parents / etc. could blacklist the "main" site as much as they like, and whitelist the "safe" one, WITHOUT altering the main site at all?
The focus on porn is ridiculous, as there is far more shocking content on Wikipedia: articles on serial killers, wars, etc. Some articles can be really, really hard on you.
Of course we know porn censorship isn't really to protect the children.
"immigrants from cultures just as repressed as America's heartland" == Non-white-skinned people using the Word Allah where others use the Word God to describe the exact same thing ... since the 'white-skinned' version do not seem to cause the same problem, is it a Melanin-generated problem, or a racism problem (causing economical problems, and fuelling repressed anger) ?
In the US, you have 4 problems : racism Vs. hispanics & blacks, vast number of uneducated rednecks, sex-is-wrong influential protestant churches, along with media-fuelled paranoia ... so, the melanin :-) issue is multiplied by 3
is 144 porns
OK...... Never seen porn on Wikipedia....... PLEASE tell me where :-) About the kids getting messed up from the smut. How about worrying more about bullying, or kids being molseted by their teachers.
hmmm, what to do what to do about da joo
People know damn well that porn isn't going to hurt their kids. If computer keyboards had sharp edges, no one would let their children use the computer unsupervised, because they would want to protect them from an actual danger. However, everyone knows about the presence of porn on the internet, yet they still allow their kids to use the computer unsupervised. The simple reason for this is that they know, though they don't want to admit it, that porn isn't going to hurt their kids. It's a fucking arrangement of color on the screen. It can't hurt anyone.
This has nothing to do with porn being dangerous for kids and everything to do with some adults just not liking porn and wanting it removed from the internet. It's the "think of the children" excuse combined with the "parental rights" excuse. They're quite effective together, but still complete bullshit.
There is no porn problem if we stop being frigid and treat our children as the smart and intelligent beings as they are.
people running around but yet it's more acceptable to see someone shoot and blow someone up apart? I don't support having the really weird p0rn stuff on there but just the regular stuff shouldn't be filtered.
Then get the kids to remove the erotic images.