Editor’s note: this article is not for the faint at heart. Expect some discussion of sexual themes. We are, after all, talking about Wikipedia here.
By Delicious Carbuncle
Wikipedia is not censored. If you look at a Wikipedia article about a sexual topic, expect to see an explicit image. In fact, expect to see more than one. If you question why there need to be 16 images to illustrate the concept of nudity, you will be told that Wikipedia is not censored. While one might agree that the principle of “not censored” protects Wikipedia from the cultural biases of any particular group, it is most often used as an excuse for the unnecessary inclusion of sexual material in articles. If you wonder why it was necessary to actually include a photo
…continue reading “HARD CORE sex action raw nude Wikipedia”
By Andreas Kolbe
Wikimedia Commons contains a large number of what are called adult media. In discussions online, suspicions are often voiced that objections to this material are simply motivated by prudery. People say that such objections are part of a right-wing agenda pursued by the likes of Fox News. Such suspicions are not easily countered, unless people are prepared to look at the material in question, how it was discussed at Wikimedia, and on what basis it was decided to keep it.
So, here is an internal list – used for tracking purposes by Wikimedia contributors – of Wikimedia Commons “Nudity and sexuality-related deletion requests”. These are all deletion discussions that were closed in favor of keeping the media that had been proposed for deletion:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Categ … uests/kept
Now, no one is saying that every one of these deletion discussions came to the wrong conclusion. Some deletion nominations really are just down to prudery,
…continue reading Wikimedia Commons pornography concerns – just right-wing prudery?
By E. A. Barbour
One of the first things apparent to a visitor to Wikipedia, who tries to examine and understand its perverse internal “culture”, is the obsession with secrecy and obscurity. In fact, it is routine to see discussion on noticeboards, between people using goofy pseudonyms, about “privacy”. Typically, these may be parsed as “Who are you?”, often answered by cries of “incivility”, because some has dared to ask someone’s real name. Somehow, Wikipedia has taken up the obsession with secrecy and personal anonymity that were constant features of the “hacker underground”. It was understandable that a “black hat” hacker would not want his real identity known, as he was often involved in illegal activities. What possible advantage would anonymity offer to someone helping to write an online “open” encyclopedia?
The libertine culture of Wikipedia started very early in its history. In the first year of the Wikipedia-l mailing list, you find
…continue reading Wiki-Paranoia