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? Because there was an outcry from Wikipedia editors based on the principle that Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is so “not censored”, that its editors do not want other people to have the option of blocking offensive images.

Just how uncensored is Wikipedia? So uncensored that it contains hardcore sex films. Not just articles on hardcore sex films, but the film itself, right there on Wikipedia for any reader to watch.

 

See, for example, the Wikipedia article A Free Ride . Although the film is in black and white and the quality not great, this is unedited, uncensored, hardcore sex. Wikipedia describes the film’s events:

The film shows two women walking together alongside a road near their home. A wealthy male motorist in a Ford Model T arrives and offers them a lift. After some hesitation, the women accept his offer and sit beside the driver’s seat. The man then kisses and fondles them. Later, as he urinates behind a tree, the women voyeuristically watch him. When he is about to finish, the women quickly return to the car. After his return, the women urinate behind the tree while the man secretly watches them and becomes sexually aroused. The women return to the car and the man offers them a drink.

Afterwards, the man and one woman walk into the woods together and masturbate each other while standing. The other woman, left at the car, becomes curious and follows them into the woods. Upon seeing them, she becomes
sexually aroused and stimulates herself. Meanwhile, the man and the previous woman have sex in the missionary
position
. Soon after, the other woman joins them and the man has sex with her doggy style. Later, they have a threesome, and one of the women subsequently gives the man a blowjob. After finishing the sexual acts, they return to the car.

How could someone slip a hardcore sex film into an online encyclopedia that is widely used by schoolchildren without anyone noticing? They didn’t. Lots of Wikipedia editors saw this article. It was reviewed by user Crisco 1492 and declared to be a “good article”. It was nominated to be a “featured article”. It appeared on the front page of Wikipedia as a “Did you know?” item and received over 17,500 views that day.

The article was created by user SupernovaExplosion. According to the links on their user page, SupernovaExplosion is Sarbajit Pal, a man living in Kolkata, India. He appears to be a libertarian and objectivist, which is not uncommon on Wikipedia. Pal has also created Wikipedia articles on such important topics as Prostitution among animals, Paintings by Adolf Hitler, National Masturbation Day, World Naked Gardening Day, and Bathroom sex. Pal is currently working with his wiki-friends Mark Arsten and Crisco 1492 (the
Free Ride article reviewer) to introduce explicit images of intersexed people into articles. Is Pal simply trolling people by creating these articles? On Wikipedia, it is sometimes hard to tell the trolls from the valued contributors, but if he is just trolling, he isn’t doing it alone. Why didn’t any of the Wikipedia editors who read, edited, or reviewed the article object to the inclusion of a hardcore sex film in an “encyclopedia” article?

 

Of course, Wikipedia doesn’t just have one article with a hardcore sex film. There is also Convent pornography, which features a film called “Mr. Abbot Bitt at the convent” showing nuns and priests performing various sex acts. The Good Old Naughty Days features a film called “La fessée à l’école” which shows a teacher spanking and licking her two female students (until they are joined by the school inspector, of course). Wikimedia Commons, which is where the files are hosted, has 13 films taken from the same source. They feature explicit depictions of all kinds of sexual activity – men with women, women with women, men with men, and even one which includes a woman having sex with a dog. All of the films were uploaded to Commons by a user who calls themselves Handcuffed. This user uploads large amounts of porn to Commons, much of it related to bondage. Where they can, they add those images to Wikipedia articles. This user is very reminiscent of another Commons user, now “retired”, who called themselves Max Rebo Band. Many of that user’s uploads were deleted as copyright violations, but much of it remains. Wikimedia Commons is even more “not censored” than Wikipedia.

Every day, thousands of people browse through Wikipedia thinking that it is an online encyclopedia. Many of those people will be children doing their homework or just looking for information. It is one thing to say that Wikipedia may offend some people by not censoring educational materials, but it is another to feature articles with hardcore sex films on the site’s main page. School administrators may not want to block access to Wikipedia because of a few pictures of genitals or topless women, but are they willing to allow the students in their schools to be exposed to hardcore sex and bestiality films? I hope that they are, because Wikipedia is not censored.

 

Image credits:  Wikimedia, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Generic license.

6 comments to “HARD CORE sex action raw nude Wikipedia”

  • Crisco 1492

    Just a note: SE did not introduce the images of the intersex individual, I did.

  • Delicious carbuncle

    @Crisco 1492 Yes, I said Sarbajit Pal AKA SupernovaExplosion was working with you and Mark Arsten. Pal added the image to “Nadar (photographer)”.

  • Crisco 1492

    @DC: In one article. You make it sound as if he had a larger role in it, when I added the article to two others and created an article on the series. As for the video, he didn’t upload it; you leave a false impression with your misrepresentation of the facts.

  • Crisco 1492

    *the image

  • Delicious carbuncle

    @Crisco 1492: I certainly wasn’t my intention to misrepresent anything and I don’t believe I did. I’m sorry if you feel that I didn’t give you proper credit for your efforts.

  • Hey, Crisco… why don’t you provide your full name, and I’ll do my best to credit you for your work on Wikipedia?