Jimmy Wales Plans Deletion of Wikipedia Porn
Wikimedia administrators have been hotly debating the hosting of pornographic content on Wikimedia Commons for some time. Until now Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has remained silent on the matter, but in a new post on his user talk page he makes his position clear. "Wikimedia Commons admins who wish to remove from the project all images that are of little or no educational value but which appeal solely to prurient interests have my full support," Wales wrote.
There has been no official word from the Wikimedia Foundation, which has control over the Wikipedia project, but now that Wales has made his position known the outcome seems assured. Wales also restarted the Commons: Sexual Content page, which tracks inappropriate content on the site.
Wales did attempt to assuage fears of a wholesale removal of legitimate content later in his post saying, "We should keep educational images about sexuality - mere nudity is not pornography - but as with all our projects, editorial quality judgements must be made and will be made - appropriately and in good taste." So should the Wikimedia Foundation be removing legal pornographic content from the site?

Comments
Comments are closed on this article
![]()
dj-anon
May 08, 2010 at 10:15pm
ZOMG, you can see the human body in articles about the human body, I'm so offended, delete it plox.
![]()
Rocketpop
May 08, 2010 at 5:25am
You must enjoy looking at photos of ejaculations when you're studying the topic. If they do decide to be mentally sound and remove the images, you could try playing a porn video in the background the next time you're working. It'll have a similar effect that could help you concentrate, since you're into that kind of thing.
![]()
Rocketpop
May 07, 2010 at 3:15pm
Hopefully they're referring to the "Ejaculation" page. I got in a heated argument with someone there about whether or not the images (there used to be an animation of the process, not sure if it's still there) should be on the page, which make the whole article really fucking uncomfortable to read. I was told to shut up and to keep my opinions to myself, because the images weren't going anywhere, that they served an educational purpose.
![]()
aviaggio
May 07, 2010 at 10:34pm
Ohhh, I understand now. They are talking about Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. Here is a link to the ejaculation page there, and as you can see there is a lot more than "educational" images there
BTW, NSFW!!!
![]()
aviaggio
May 07, 2010 at 2:26pm
OK, maybe I'm just naive, but who exactly goes to Wikipedia looking for porn???
![]()
Ryan Whitwam
May 07, 2010 at 3:01pm
By "legal" I was referring to both non-copyrighted content (though there could be a fair use argument), and in the "all participants are 18+" sense.
![]()
Biceps
May 07, 2010 at 2:47pm
Assuming by 'legal' they mean porn that isn't copywrited? The first question stands... who goes to wikipedia looking for porn?
Another question: does this mean that the bios of various... *ahem* 'adult' stars are going to be removed from the 'pedia, or just actual pornography. I would hate to see later generations deprived of a full understanding of Holly Hooter's real name and her motivations for getting into the adult film industry.
/sarcasm
![]()
Rocketpop
May 07, 2010 at 3:23pm
You're totally missing the point. Let me provide an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulva
If you look real close in the corner, you'll notice an image of a vulva. He's talking about images like that. The biographies of porn stars aren't going to be affected.
![]()
Rocketpop
May 08, 2010 at 5:43am
You're right, big pictures of vaginas aren't pornography at all as long as they're on a Wikipedia page. Then it's "biology." Vaginas are only pornography if they're on a site specifically dedicated to jacking off.
Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook
Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.
















