Why this Site?

  • Our Mission:
  • We exist to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and its related projects; to examine the corruption there, along with its structural flaws; and to inoculate the unsuspecting public against the torrent of misinformation, defamation, and general nonsense that issues forth from one of the world’s most frequently visited websites, the “encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”
  • How you can participate:
  •  Visit the Wikipediocracy Forum, a candid exchange of views between Wikipedia editors, administrators, critics, proponents, and the general public.
  • 'Like' our Wikipediocracy page on Facebook.
  •  Follow Wikipediocracy on Twitter!

Press Releases

  • Please click here for recent Wikipediocracy press releases.

“HARD CORE sex action raw nude Wikipedia”

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 of a naked 8 year-old girl in Wikipedia’s entry on Lewis Carroll to support the fact that the author took such pictures, the answer is, of course, that Wikipedia is not censored.

If Wikipedia is a comprehensive encyclopedia, it will naturally cover topics related to sex and sexuality. Is it appropriate to have images illustrating an article about human genitalia? I think it is. Should those images be drawings or photographs? In this context, I think it is useful to have high-quality photographs, but others may disagree. Still, some people may not wish to see such images, or may not wish for their children to see such images. The Wikimedia Foundation, which owns and operates Wikipedia and related projects, recently reversed their decision to add a filter which would allow users to block images which they would find objectionable. Why did they do this?

…continue reading “HARD CORE sex action raw nude Wikipedia”

Wikimedia Commons pornography concerns – just right-wing prudery?

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, and you will find a few examples in that list. The Wikimedia Foundation is a tax-exempt educational charity, and it clearly does need educational media on sex as much as any other aspect of life. But to get a feeling for the Wikimedia culture, and discuss it knowledgeably, there is no substitute for looking at a few of these discussions, and the media they were about.

To make it easy for you, here are links to the first twenty media files and the related deletion discussions listed on that internal Wikimedia page. These will give you a good overview. Look at the media, look at the discussion, and make up your own mind.

Be advised that some of these media files are very much NSFW, and that you may find some of them neither educational nor palatable.

warning !

…continue reading Wikimedia Commons pornography concerns – just right-wing prudery?

Wiki-Paranoia

By E. A. Barbour

PART I:

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 posts like this one, from Lee Crocker, posted March 14:

“I understand your position, Larry, and I agree that you need the warning. But “DO NOT COPY COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL” would work just as well, and would not be personally offensive to me and other dedicated, moral, hard-working, law-abiding, intelligent people working to abolish copyright law as it is today.

“Imagine it like this: bigamy is illegal in every state. It is frowned upon by most religions and most people. But there are some people who are quite decent, loving, moral people working to change the laws and attitudes to make it legal. For them (and especially those not actively practicing) to see themselves called “perverts” or “criminals” in public is offensive, and doing so is most definitely a biased expression of political opinion, even though it happens to be the opinion of the vast majority.”

…continue reading Wiki-Paranoia