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

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