Why is Wikipedia still doling out porn?

link

A FoxNews.com investigation into allegations of child pornography on online encyclopedia Wikipedia -- allegations that came from co-founder Larry Sanger himself -- led to a nationwide scandal, massive sitewide pornography purges and pledges to “do better.”

But nearly two years later, Wikimedia Commons -- the image repository for Wikipedia that’s accessed daily by millions of kids for school research -- is still littered with graphic pornography. The Wikimedia site lacks any restrictions or filters, meaning explicit images pop unexpectedly into results when you search for words like “bleach” or “coddle” or phrases like “how it feels.”

Search for the word “underwater” and you’ll see a woman tied up, naked, and submerged face down in a bathtub.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

I don't really know what to say. I personally have not found wikipedia to be full of porn (child or otherwise) and searching for underwater yields pictures of rocks, maybe however, I've missed something. The article also goes on to mention that children are able to search for sexual positions, pictures of adult genitalia and other such lurid images. This seems utterly ridiculous to me. Personally I think Google is a much better source of pornography.

reply to post by dug88
They have search filter options that anyone can set on their personal computer. This is a misleading complaint

reply to post by dug88


Great, this article just told the kids that there is porn content on Wikipedia. Just because some guy in their office or a reporter was searching for porn on Wikipedia and he found it doesn't means that kids do that too. There are many more ways to find that easily like Google Images as said in OP. I never have encountered any such images on Wikipedia yet and you won't too unless you are specifically looking for it.

Never new about this but just searched wiki commons with 'naked' and all kind of porn popped up. The privacy search can be set by user so that doesn't really stop under age kids from looking. Weird, it's like an encyclopedia of creepy naked people.

It's so they can try and justify further levels of control, I thought most people had worked it out, no different to the whistleblowers who suddenly end up prosecuted for having kiddie pron on their pc's etc.

reply to post by dug88


weird...I looked up those words and found the actual description, nothing nefarious or x rated
are they confusing the site with another xrated sited with similar format? or some other wiki site?

ETA..although I looked up the common "words" that all school kids look up in the dictionary an yes, there are graphic pictures.....

eh *shrug*...

Originally posted by PageAlaCearl
Never new about this but just searched wiki commons with 'naked' and all kind of porn popped up. The privacy search can be set by user so that doesn't really stop under age kids from looking. Weird, it's like an encyclopedia of creepy naked people.

Here's a thought; if you don't want to see things like that, try NOT SEARCHING FOR THEM. Christ on a bike, people like you and the authors of the linked article are the reason why we as a society are so stupid and incapable.

If you don't want your children to see things like that, there's this really cool thing called "parenting", all you have to do is watch your kids and tell them off if they search something or do something you don't like, then they won't do it again.

Just because you are happy to live in your silly little bubble of whatever drivel you read in the Bible and sheer ignorance, please stop attempting to make society conform to your stupid ideals.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by dug88

 

weird...I looked up those words and found the actual description, nothing nefarious or x rated

are they confusing the site with another xrated sited with similar format? or some other wiki site?

edit on March 6th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

Knowledge and education are considered nefarious to the scum that watch fox news.

Originally posted by Justwork

Originally posted by PageAlaCearl
Never new about this but just searched wiki commons with 'naked' and all kind of porn popped up. The privacy search can be set by user so that doesn't really stop under age kids from looking. Weird, it's like an encyclopedia of creepy naked people.

Here's a thought; if you don't want to see things like that, try NOT SEARCHING FOR THEM. Christ on a bike, people like you and the authors of the linked article are the reason why we as a society are so stupid and incapable.

If you don't want your children to see things like that, there's this really cool thing called "parenting", all you have to do is watch your kids and tell them off if they search something or do something you don't like, then they won't do it again.

Just because you are happy to live in your silly little bubble of whatever drivel you read in the Bible and sheer ignorance, please stop attempting to make society conform to your stupid ideals.

, I searched because the op brought it up and I wanted to see what results would come up. 'Christ on a bike' - really Nobody mentioned the bible and bro it's called Prozac try it.

By attempting to check out what the op is talking about I'm attempting to make society conform to my stupid ideals?? I didn't even know I had ideals in the last post. Just commenting about the site the op was referring to.

people like you and the authors of the linked article

I didn't link anything in my post I didn't know Americas drug problem was this bad

Originally posted by Justwork

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by dug88

 

weird...I looked up those words and found the actual description, nothing nefarious or x rated

are they confusing the site with another xrated sited with similar format? or some other wiki site?

edit on March 6th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

Knowledge and education are considered nefarious to the scum that watch fox news.

I watch Fox and I am nothing like all the haters describe. So the ignorance of the haters is quite evident

Info for those concerned about children & Wiki

Advice for Parents

Options to not see images

Remember Wiki is NOT responsible for what YOUR child looks at. You the parent (and school administrators) are....

I see no issue with Wiki except it is not a reliable source for sourcing in colleges/universities!



So what is the problem then? There is NONE!

I find it kind of troubling that there are still people out there who think that "kids" can be shielded from things....

"Kids" have been seeking - and finding - pornography (or things which evoke "naughtiness") since the Sears catalog started showing women's underwear on models.

It's not the "kids" who are offended... it's usually the sexually repressed adults who are.

Mind you I disagree with calling sexually explicit photographs of children a form of pornography... I consider it "abuse" and evidence of 'assault.'

But I also know that not all cultures see a picture of some 10-years old's butt and freak out like it's meant to "be" something it isn't.

Of course noble intent is its own protection despite such differences.

It is "wikimedia commons" not the regular wikipedia.

I searched the words from the article and the only one that had anything shocking was "coddle." Which is quite a surprise, I learned a use for the term I never knew before.

Bleach didn't turn up anything, and "underwater" had many, many images and only 1 was shocking or explicit, although there were some others with nudity, but not many.

I think this is a market-driven thing though. If the site is common for school-age children, and if schools start to block access to the site, then they will obviously fix their filters, but until it impacts their business, they aren't going to do anything about it.

Another thing, wikipedia is usually not an allowable research source, so why don't the schools just block it anyway?

It comes down to personal responsibility (I know...crazy!). Parents need to be involved in what their children are doing and monitor their actions if necessary. The only people we have to blame is ourselves.

Ive seen the Wikipedia child porn it was not child porn it was art and it was natural,
If parents have a problem with there children knowing what the opisit sexual organ or things revolving around it, they should keep them away from all educational information including national geographic, the bible, all science involving the human body, art, also keep them from going to school and away from other children.

edit, unless there is real child-porn or porno on there now cuz there wasent before unless reading on stuff bdsm related and kids don't usealy know that combination of letters.