43 Responses

1. David Airey

   May 9th, 2008 at 2:40 pm

   1

   I’m very surprised the ‘virgin killer’ image hasn’t been removed. Those voting for a ‘keep’ consider it a fair album cover. I’d never seen it before, but think it very inappropriate..

2. Lisa

   May 9th, 2008 at 3:16 pm

   2

   Having done work on there, I knew that there were some definitely questionable stuff on there. However, what kills me is that you have to fight them to get good content up.

3. Wayne Byrne

   May 9th, 2008 at 3:16 pm

   3

   We definitely need to fight hard to keep the internet both safe and open, this is definitely going to be challenging but this same thing has happened with every form of new media.

4. Mihaela Lica

   May 9th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

   4

   I find that surprising too, but compared to other images on Wikipedia that’s almost decent! I do hope Jimmy will scrutinize this closer and change things for the best.

5. James - DigitalKeyToInfo

   May 9th, 2008 at 3:33 pm

   5

   I like David’s use of the word inappropriate. More and more, it seems that supposedly intelligent people cannot make a distinction between what is appropriate and what is not.

   The term “educated beyond their intelligence” also comes to mind.

6. MKraft

   May 9th, 2008 at 3:39 pm

   6

   I applaud the idea of Wikipedia as a crowd-sourced information resource. I have learned many things from Wikipedia–but I take them all with the understanding that what is posted there is less authoritative than, say, the World Book or Encyclopedia Brittanica. I use Wikipedia for a basic, cocktail-party summary of things. But I’m not a 10-year old doing a school report.

   I feel that blocking Wikipedia.org on the child-protection software is over-reacting. I like the suggestion of posting a warning on pages that contain content that is not suitable for children. (Fark.com does a good job of asking their submitters to pixelate NSFW pics, essentially giving the user the choice of whether or not to open that picture) The ultimate policing for this type of content should be the parents, who should, arguably, be monitoring where their kids are going on the web.

   Pornographic images, whether puritan America likes it or not, are out there on the internet. Take the adult responsibility and talk with your kids about it, whether it makes you uncomfortable or not. Eventually they’re going to see this stuff, but parental attitudes towards it makes a huge difference in how they react to and interact with it.

   In the end, Wikipedia is a valuable (though not perfect) resource, and it would be detrimental to have it blocked altogether for a relatively small proportion of questionable content.

7. SoxyLady

   May 9th, 2008 at 3:40 pm

   7

   This is extremely disturbing.
   I don’t think wikipedia.com should be on a list of banned domains for children - but maybe specific articles should have a ban or warning on them.
   While wikipedia can be a great resource, the content is not always 100% accurate or verified for its accuracy.

8. Mihaela Lica

   May 9th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

   8

   I am obviously not pro banning wikipedia.org, but something has do be done to protect the interest of the children. All adults have responsibility towards this issue (pornography) not only parents. Publishers and school educators too should be careful about how they approach this issue.

   It’s my opinion that people who publish pornographic content at Wikipedia are not qualified to give “sexual education” to anyone. I think they are porn webmasters advocating their cause - and I suggest that Wikimedia creates a special domain for such articles, separated from Wikipedia.org.

   Yes, the warnings should be on each page that contains questionable adult content.

9. Reason

   May 9th, 2008 at 4:48 pm

   9

   Personally I don’t give a damn on what is legal in the US. The truth is that some of the images on Wikipedia are illegal all over the world and Wikipedia belongs to the world. Come on, Wikimedia and Mr. Walsh: this is the Internet. Show some respect!

   excuse me be but WHAT!!??? that is the most illogical point I have seen made in an article - even on the internet - for a very long time. firstly ITS LEGAL, it may be against YOUR morality, but it sure as hell ain’t against mine and therefore wikimedia have absolutely not moral reason to remove the content,

   Secondly, there are thousands of laws in many countries that are violated every day because of the international nature of the internet, are you telling me that they should all be followed, we could remove all traces and mention of alcohol, as that it illegal in some parts of the world, or we could severely limit free speech - oh wait thats exactly what you are trying to do. I am not American and therefore do not have the “constitutional” argument but the internet is free and open, and I personally hope that you right wing sensationalist bullshit NEVER creeps onto any corner of the modern day marvel, the wonder of the world that is the internet.

10. Mihaela Lica

    May 9th, 2008 at 4:57 pm

    10

    Reason, pornographic and and hardcore images displayed without proper warning as “adult material” are not legal. In any country. As for morality, this is a subjective matter and I will not debate your preferences.

11. The Destruction of Knowledge - Porn On Wikipedia

    May 9th, 2008 at 6:31 pm

    11

    [...] partner Mihaela Lica was doing some research earlier today when she ran across a disturbing article about Wikipedia and of all things [...]

12. S Bronn

    May 9th, 2008 at 6:51 pm

    12

    I believe that ignorance is bliss. Best we know less about ourselves and our environment. Better to be apart in solitude rather than in social atmospheres. Best that we insist on all practitioners of Naturism be imprisoned immediately. It is best we proclaim that ALL women discontinue wearing anything which allows the viewing of flesh from above the ankle including the wearing of gloves. Also, i feel it is necessary to allow law enforcement the right to incarcerate any child at or below age 16 who is wearing make-up as well as their parent(s).
    Concerning the internet; No one person below the age of 18 should be allowed access to the internet. Ban All Computers from schools now. Any attempt to search for human anatomy on the internet without a MD practitioner license should also be banned and a crime. All public activities which encourage the removal of clothing should be immediately closed (i.e. swimming pools, spas, gyms, etc).
    Those who feel the same as I, please kindly remove yourself from the Planet! Thank you very much.
    Um…just in case; Yes, sarcasm and an attempt to be facetious should (hopefully, cuz I know American sheeple read this) enter into thought as you were reading.
    also, just as an observation, isn’t there a certain community of people currently attempting to remove or destroy Wiki* at this time? Something to do with anti-semitic posts or writings or something along those lines?? Is this page an attempt to direct people to join in the move to eliminate Wiki*? Just a thought.

13. Mihaela Lica

    May 9th, 2008 at 7:11 pm

    13

    S Bronn, your thoughts, sarcastic as they are, are highly appreciated. If you are one of those who feel that pornography should be freely distributed to any one of any age on the Internet…. I am personally worried for you.

    No, this page doesn’t want to eliminate Wikipedia, just to eliminate illegal pornography from it. Could I be any clearer than that?

14. buzzdiggity

    May 9th, 2008 at 9:00 pm

    14

    It’s a free market - people can say what they want, and if it’s something malinformed, there will be consequences. Alll will work out in the end.

15. Andrew Flusche, Virginia Lawyer

    May 9th, 2008 at 9:02 pm

    15

    I’m glad you aren’t throwing the baby out with the bath water. So many people see something they don’t like and bury their heads in the sand. If we don’t attempt to clean up valuable things like Wikipedia, we’ll let everything be tainted by porn or other undesirable things. Then what we will have left?

16. S Bronn

    May 9th, 2008 at 10:18 pm

    16

    Nakedness is not evil. You make it evil. So, what are you defining as pornography? Sex is not evil. What’s your opinion of sex? You see, I believe that certain humans are raised to hold values which encourage non-contact. If you touch another’s body, you are exercising evil behavior. It is a proven scientific fact that those who are raised without intimate human affection, (ie: hugs) do not develop mentally and emotionally complete. Here, in your response your trying to equate pornography with human contact. This is what is dangerous. so in turn, I worry about you.
    I define pornography in one way as ‘admiration of nakedness’ and am not ashamed of my body nor other human bodies. We come in all different shapes and sizes and colors and we are all beautiful. Much more beautiful in our nakedness than in any Gucci or overpriced wear. remember, pornography, sex, nakedness, pedophilia, intimate affection, these all have some commonality in description, but, not at all similar in definition. When you begin to insist they are the same, you begin to enter into a social destructive frame of mind. Without human contact, we do not develop social empathy but rather the opposite, which is apathy. A hate for the human body. a feeling of disgust for flesh and that is disturbing. IMO of course. No, I have no doctorate in the field of psychology either. I just believe this is the case based upon my own experience and research. Also, I’m aware of the extreme acts of perversion like the Rabbi on MSNBC’s “To catch a predator”, the Pedo-Priests of a certain dioceses, the Pastors who’s perversions were publicly revealed in the media and denied, to later admit as true. No need for you to grant me examples of extreme perversion. I do not condone their behavior.

17. Mihaela Lica

    May 9th, 2008 at 10:32 pm

    17

    S Bronn, did you follow the link to the images I mentioned in the article? Those are not just “naked people” - they are people engaged in clear sexual activities: for example gays performing sexual acts in certain positions that can be classified as anything but decent (and no, I am not anti-gay). So the images fall under the category of those you say you do not condone.

    You are missing out the point or you think I am confusing pornography with erotica, which is not the case, trust me. Please check out the links and then tell me.

18. Phil Butler

    May 9th, 2008 at 10:49 pm

    18

    Well, the wonder of “The world is Gray” mentality never ceases to amaze me Mig. Some things are just black and white in the end, but people want to take pot shots at anything that might tread on their “not so tender” sensibilities. Point in case, “Does anyone ever read an article, digest it and then formulate before leaving crappy comments?”

    Differences of opinion are one thing, but a departure from reality is quite another. Sure the reality is that porn is all over the place, but does this mean we want it everywhere? This is tantamount to saying we want the world to be just as shitty as we can make it! No one wants (let alone you I know) anyone to lose their valued favorite things, but what does it say about us if we fight like cats and dogs to keep something that should be left in the back room with the blacklights?

    Children are our most precious, and sadly most vulnerable prizes. Exposing any kind of innocence to dark and murky reality is not something my heart yearns for. There is so little that we can protect these days. The rainforests are disappearing, water is polluted, animals are extinct…it would seem we could save at least children from things that may cause pain or even psychological trauma.

    There is plenty of time to get messed up after we reach adulthood…so let’s make childhood a sort of sacred place for our loved ones..hell everyone’s loved children.

    Always - Phil

19. S Bronn

    May 9th, 2008 at 11:03 pm

    19

    I have chosen not to view the links, just for the purpose of judgmental discernment. I may, one day, if still possible, for educational research purposes in that particular subject. Also, homosexual behavior is not condoned by me because I see it as unnecessary for societies progression naturally. Same sex cannot produce. Is it evil? Not at all. Yet, in my condemnation of pedophilia activities, it is entirely different. That, is evil. Evil must be condemned. It is performed against the will of another’s spirit. An individuals essence. The removal of free will.
    as an example, Dr. Paul amongst other law makers see no reason for social punishment against marijuana users, medically or otherwise. Does that mean Dr. Paul and company are users? No. They merely believe there must not be punishment against them that do what you don’t or affects them as an individual and not another individual.
    All I’m attempting to say is remain careful on how much you choose to blur the line.

20. David

    May 9th, 2008 at 11:18 pm

    20

    I have always been a fan of keeping things free and open, but maybe some sort of wall (”enter your birthday here” script”) should be added as a stopgap on pages marked 18+. That should help keep those not REALLY interested from viewing it.

    And for those that will respond saying that teenagers will just put a birthday older than they are…well it is up to parents and schools to watch over young people and how they use the net.

21. Mihaela Lica

    May 9th, 2008 at 11:22 pm

    21

    I am really glad you’ve chosen not to see the links, Bronn, although they kindda prove my point. I don’t scare easily, you know… I know porn when I see it and I know pedophilia when I see it too. Same sex interactions are not evil in my opinion either. So we agree here. But images depicting clear intercourse between gay or straight people are hardcore and should be kept behind closed doors. They should not appear on a site which is accessed by millions of children every month.

    So basically we agree that we have to draw a line and protect the real values at Wikipedia.

22. Mihaela Lica

    May 9th, 2008 at 11:31 pm

    22

    Great idea, David! Anything that slows down the process of kids accidentally stumbling upon questionable content is welcome. You are right about parents needing to monitor what their children do. Still, as a publisher myself, I believe that publishers too have a responsibility for what they make public.

23. Lillie Ammann

    May 10th, 2008 at 8:19 am

    23

    Mig, I was appalled when I read the original article on WND but did not look at any of the images at that time. When I read your post, I clicked on a couple of links to see if it was really as bad as you and WND say … and was even more more appalled. This pornography is not educational; you are probably right that the authors are pornographers trying to promote the industry. I agree with you that children should not be exposed to these images as they search for information. Of course, children are curious and parents must supervise their online activities to keep them from searching out these kinds of images and articles. However, a separate domain seems to be the best solution if Wikipedia insists on publishing this type of content. At least parents would know what site they should see that their children avoid. As it stands now, Wikipedia is a trusted source of information for students (though it is often incomplete and inaccurate it is usually a good starting point), and children can come upon these images unintentionally.

24. Laura Spencer

    May 10th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

    24

    Hmmm… I didn’t click on any of your links, so I’ll take your word for what’s out there.

    I’m a moderate user of Wikipedia (yes, I know it’s not always accurate) and can’t remember accidentally finding anything objectionable.

    On the other hand, I’d really hate for any kid doing research for a school assignment to run across this kind of page.

    Also, I don’t see any real informational value to providing such images.

    Is it possible for the Wikipedia authors to go through some kind of vetting process so that pornographers can’t contribute.

    Alternatively, as Lillie says, maybe there can be a separate site for this kind of stuff (that could be blocked on School and home computers). A wikipedia X site…

25. Mihaela Lica

    May 10th, 2008 at 7:55 pm

    25

    Thank you Lillie and Laura. I also think that a separate domain, or subdomain would be best. Pornography and education are two separate things.

    Good for you that you didn’t follow the links Laura. I think you’ll block wikipedia in your children safety software if you do. Actually, till this problem is solved, I strongly recommend it.

26. pearl

    May 11th, 2008 at 2:56 am

    26

    This is utterly disturbing and I am glad most of us agree on the main point of the article that it’s our children that need protection from such indecency regardless of what the adults of the world consider moral or not.

    I hope Jimmy responds to this issue soon but more disturbing is your update at the end! Now that’s the issue I struggle with - why are attorneys allowed to represent pedophiles?

27. S Bronn

    May 11th, 2008 at 11:52 am

    27

    Here you go. Glad i didn’t click on the links. As well as advocate this call for restrictions and extended definition of pornography. Law enforcement does not need any more extremes on this matter. Please, i beg you to consider what you are advocating.
    HARTFORD, Conn. — A man alleges that police entered his home illegally and ripped a catheter from his body during a child pornography investigation that led to the arrest of two neighbors.
    HARTFORD, Conn. — A man alleges that police entered his home illegally and ripped a catheter from his body during a child pornography investigation that led to the arrest of two neighbors.
    Andrew Glover, 60, of New Britain filed a notice with the city Thursday that he intends to pursue a federal civil rights lawsuit. He accused the officers of inflicting severe injuries as he was recovering from intestinal surgery in February.
    Glover’s lawyer, Paul Spinella, said police entered Glover’s apartment Jan. 30 and Feb. 28. Glover wasn’t involved in child pornography, has not been charged and has no criminal record, Spinella said.
    The poor guy, Spinella said. They ripped the catheter off his person. They assaulted the guy. He’s got major problems as a result of this. He’s a mess now.
    Lt. James Wardwell, a police spokesman, said Friday that the department had not received the intent-to-sue notice and would not comment. A message was left for the city’s corporation counsel.
    Glover has two years to file a lawsuit in U.S. District Court.
    Spinella said officers tossed Glover’s apartment during a search Jan. 30. In February, he said, Glover returned home from the hospital after his surgery to find officers searching his apartment again. That’s when they assaulted Glover and left him alone in the apartment without calling for medical help, Spinella said.
    The police didn’t have search warrants, Spinella said.
    Full story here
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354837,00.html

28. Phil Butler

    May 11th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    28

    I cannot actually believe what Bronn iterated there. One suspect guy is the victim of overzealous police (I guess) and thousands of children should be exposed to ghastly images to? Did you even read Mihaela’s article at all - or did you not understand it?

    Are you afraid of the police molesting you or someone you know because Wikipedia raises its standards or protects the innocent? Madre De Dios! This article is not about establishing hit squads for pornography producers (hmm, but maybe it should be). Here is an excerpt from one of ten thousand articles I found on part of this issue. See which one stabs at your conscience more sharply - some guy having a little injustice dealt or -

    “Unlike some people in adult pornography, children are not willing or paid participants. The majority of images and videos depict the violent and brutal sexual assault of children, most of them younger than 12 years old. We are talking about child rape.”

    or -

    The report draws together, for the first time, a broad range of current intelligence and theory concerning the distribution of child pornography on the internet and its links to child abuse. While accepting that there is a lack of benchmark data allowing a completely reliable comparison between pre and post internet days, the report argues that the accumulating evidence points convincingly to a number of stark conclusions:

    * The Internet has facilitated a huge increase in the volume of child abuse images that are being viewed and collected;
    * Child abuse images have acted as a crucial trigger for some men to sexually abuse children. Therefore the increase in the distribution of child pornography through the Internet is likely to be behind an increase in the sexual abuse of children;
    * On top of that, online child pornography is now big business and the involvement of organised crime in producing and distributing child pornography through the Internet means that yet more children will be abused to create new images for them to sell. http://www.nch.org.uk/information/index.php?i=77&r=223

    The list of abuses goes on and on….my point here is that using an isolated case of police abuse to justify not taking precautions on wikipedia is like banning stop signs because someone hit one by accident. Mihaela is not talking about hunting down anyone and beating them (though some people really need it), she is taking the purdent and logical route to helping protect our most precious children. Read the article..it is not very ambiguous. If it seems that was, you should probably seek another literary level and read Walmart sales papers.

    Always,
    Phil

29. Jessica

    May 13th, 2008 at 4:27 am

    29

    True. I agree on the fact that pornography and education are two different things. If wikipedia claims to be educational, then the need to “educate” our children with pornography might just sound necessary. However, the images posted and the words used should be filtered for general consumption. If they put the definition of pornography there and certain examples of pornographic materials, like titles of movies or shows, or probably put information on where and how pornography started then fine, I can accept that.

    But that picture with the two men, is just gross and downright wrong. There is definitely a need to define what is wrong and what is right but to divulge and expose the wrong unnecessarily to our children who take everything like a sponge, the effects of that could be harmful.

    Wikipedia better shape up. Sooner or later people will take notice of this and it might be strong enough to bring them down if they don’t act on this soon.

30. Mihaela Lica

    May 13th, 2008 at 11:06 am

    30

    So you followed the link, Jessica. I am sorry you had to see that. Believe me, it’s one of the “decent” pictures. It seems to me like all pornographic pictures at Wikipedia come from the same source, depict similar gay-scenes and target the same audience. I think the contributor gives not only such pictures to the Wikipedia editors, but money as well. Or else, what other logical reason can we see for those pictures to still be there?

31. Patricia

    May 13th, 2008 at 11:38 am

    31

    Here we go again. The great and wonderful USofA wanting to dictate what the world can and can’t see.

    If you are worried about your children seeing what you define as pornographic content, then monitor what they look at. How many iof you have installed a computer in your childrens room? What are they surfing for whan alone? If you have why are you suprised that they ‘inadvertently’ come acros pornography?

    It is very easy to moderate where your children go on the internet, have a think about it. Or do you need me to spell it out for you?

    It is your responsibility as a parent. It is not the responsibility of content filtering software, website owners or any other third party.

    Get a grip and get a life.

32. Mihaela Lica

    May 13th, 2008 at 12:53 pm

    32

    Patricia, slow down one! Wikipedia is not Xrated content and the discussion here is not about being a parent and being responsible for what our children are doing, although you are right, we all should monitor that. The discussion is about a publisher’s responsibility for the public, and Wikipedia kind of lost it. Wikipedia should not be a banned domain, it is detrimental for knowledge as a whole and it is unfair for the work of the editors who contributed with high quality content during the years. People like you should have their own domains where to display their sexual preferences.

33. S Bronn

    May 14th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    33

    Phil Butler says…
    “Madre De Dios! This article is not about establishing hit squads for pornography producers (hmm, but maybe it should be).”
    “some guy having [b]a little injustice dealt…[b]”
    “Mihaela is not talking about hunting down anyone and beating them (though some people really need it)”
    Madre De Dios INDEED! Are you serious?!
    You, Sir, scare me. These types of comments are the reason credence is given for xenophobia.

34. Mihaela Lica

    May 14th, 2008 at 3:10 pm

    34

    Bronn, you start to bore me. If you don’t have anything valuable to say, please refrain from making comments. So far you managed to point out anything but whether pornography has a right place at Wikipedia or not.

35. David Airey

    May 14th, 2008 at 3:36 pm

    35

    You’ve been very understanding in your responses, Mig. Don’t worry about any negative comments. I’m certainly on your side.

36. Mihaela Lica

    May 14th, 2008 at 3:38 pm

    36

    I know you are, David, and I sincerely appreciate your position. Negative comments don’t worry me. I am worried about people starting to “fight” against each other when the discussion should be constructive.

37. S Bronn

    May 14th, 2008 at 3:47 pm

    37

    Fair enough. My apologies for being a bore to your one-sided groups forum. My intent in no way was to be a ‘troll’ but, oh well, one less advocate for the other side of the issue, the better. I did what i could (boring as it was) to speak against the damage caused through unnecessary censorship.
    Please remove my account. I’d wish you luck, but of course i do not support more censorship laws. No need to consider posting my comment as well. If you consider it at all.

38. Mihaela Lica

    May 14th, 2008 at 3:54 pm

    38

    This is not one-sided, Bronn, I just don’t like the tone this discussion started to have. It makes me sad to see intelligent people fighting - even verbally - against each other, when constructive would be to analyze the topic “in depth” and not based on some isolated cases as you pointed out in one of your comments.

    Personally I do not consider censure removing pornographic content from an general audience rated site. You should also think that if the FBI is investigating the issue, things are probably more serious than we grasp. The images I linked at are not “what I consider pornography” - they are what even the Wikipedia editors who published them there consider pornography. They are described as pornographic content, Bronn. Links from innocent topics like Valentine’s Day lead there. We stumble upon those images whether we like it or not. You see, I have nothing against pornography, but let it be where appropriate and not on websites open to the general public. You will not see such content in the New York Times for example. Please use some logic and please, please try to use a moderate tone.

    This goes for everyone who replies to other commentator’s ideas from now on. I will not tolerate verbal violence - this is a private blog after all. Thank you for understanding.

39. S Bronn

    May 14th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

    39

    If by my highlighting of Mr. Butler’s comments was personally insulting, my apologies, that was not my intent. I was merely trying to show the example of the unconscious opinion of those who will take advantage of regulating internet censorship to government. It’s a Pandora’s Box your messing with.
    Even though i was offended by Mr. Butler’s personal attack on me with his “Walmart sales” comment, I refrained from steeping to that level. Yet you yourself chose to call me boring (another biased insult) and reprimand me. IMO, I believe you may have read Patricia’s “get a grip and get a life” comment and contributed that to me.
    If you are looking to control attacks personally, i suggest you do it immediately after it occurs and not wait until someone you have bias against comments.
    I sincerely was hoping that this forum would be unique in its debate, but again, as with others, it has fallen victim to propagandizing a point of view. Shame.
    I debated on leaving this additional comment but here i am still with hope. I do appreciate my level of intelligence, not so much on the issue of pornography, but more on the ramification of government censorship and believe it or not, others do appreciate my posts on other blogs/forums. Maybe your objective is only to capture a specific audience, those equal to your own educated level or those with a doctorate obtained education on the subject. Pardon me.

40. Mihaela Lica

    May 14th, 2008 at 5:00 pm

    40

    You are right, Bronn, I really attributed Patricia’s comment to you. Sorry about that, I sincerely apologize.

    About government censorship, my article has nothing to do with that, Bronn. The discussion is focused on general public opinion whether Wikipedia is the right place for adult hardcore, particularly for gay porn. It was also a heads up to parents who are not aware of the fact that Wikipedia hosts such content.

    You see, we go on and on debating an issue that has nothing to do with the topic of the article.

41. Erica

    May 15th, 2008 at 1:51 am

    41

    Perhaps creating another domain or maybe subdomain will be much better.

42. Mihaela Lica

    May 15th, 2008 at 2:49 pm

    42

    This sounds very reasonable to me, Erica.

43. seo

    May 18th, 2008 at 8:15 am

    43

    I love Wikipedia and I really hope to be able to contribute to it..