Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

What Should We Do About Wikipedia's Porn Problem?

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the make-a-wiki-about-it dept.

Wikipedia 544

Larry Sanger writes "In 2011, the Wikimedia Board committed to installing a 'controversial content' filter even weaker than Google's SafeSearch, as proposed by the '2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content.' Since then, after growing opposition by some Wikipedians, some board members have made it clear that they do not expect this filter to be finished and installed. Nevertheless, Wikipedia continues to host an enormous amount of extremely gross porn and other material most parents don't want their kids stumbling across. And this content is some of the website's most-accessed. Nevertheless, children remain some of Wikipedia's heaviest users. Jimmy Wales has recently reiterated his support for such a filter, but no work is being done on it, and the Foundation has not yet issued any statement about whether they intend to continue work on it." (In case it isn't obvious from the headline and summary, these articles discuss subject matter that may not be appropriate for workplace reading.)

cancel ×

544 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

links? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186375)

n/t

Re:links? (3, Funny)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186431)

Main link is the last one in the summary: http://larrysanger.org/2012/05/what-should-we-do-about-wikipedias-porn-problem/ [larrysanger.org]

Re:links? (5, Funny)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186457)

no no no -- links to the porn, obviously...

Re:links? (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186723)

No, no, no – just use a text browser, obviously...

Re:links? (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40187081)

No, no, no -- just use a text browser, obviously...

Well, you're no fun. :-(

What kind of nutbar goes to Wikipedia for porn? Then again, maybe that'll teach a lesson to all those corporate nazis who're filtering their employees' web access. "Ha haaaa!"

Besides, porn? Why's anyone going nuts about porn? Discovery channel shows animals going at it all the time. Wait'll you see the one with the amorous elephant chasing after his intended. "Look at the size of that thing!"

Not a problem (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186401)

I've never seen porn on Wikipedia, because I've never looked for it. The fact that the porn is more highly accessed than other types of content indicates that we're not talking about accidental encounters. I don't see what the problem is.

Re:Not a problem (4, Informative)

Soilworker (795251) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186455)

Wow didnt know that Jesus loved anal sex with women...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anal_Intercourse_Artwork.jpg [wikipedia.org]

Re:Not a problem (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186517)

So you're saying if I go to wikipedia and search for anal intercourse artwork i might find some? what a disgrace!

Re:Not a problem (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186581)

The craziest thing about that is how long they had to hold the pose for the painter.

Re:Not a problem (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186625)

Fair enough, but why should this be different from any other Wiki data issue -- just let page/picture page editors flip a bit and leave it up to the review process?

Re:Not a problem (2)

chicago_scott (458445) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186477)

I've been using Wikipedia for years and I've never seen any porn. Can somebody help a brother out?

Re:Not a problem (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186579)

How many mass graves, lynchings, executions, etc., have you seen on Wikipedia? Porn has never hurt a single person, while the violent images on Wikipedia could actually cause psychological damage (and make you realize that humanity really fucking sucks).

But we have to filter the pr0n! Think of the children!

Re:Not a problem (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186707)

Lol come on, stupid americans will ban dildo before they ban guns, you're arguing with brainless morons.

Re:Not a problem (5, Funny)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186743)

Porn turns children into rapists. Much like video games turn them into murderers.

Re:Not a problem (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186989)

Maybe it was just my area as a kid, but porn was the holy grail from 1st grade to 6th. Almost nobody knew what sex was, those that did primarily used euphemisms and the number of people who had sloppy parents/uncles/siblings leaving porn around were few and far between.

Plus porn totally saved me from hooking up with some girl and making a mistake or two, so I'd say overall it's been a net plus for society! :D

Seriously the shit people get bent out of shape over is slowly making me think we should reinvigorate american industry the old fashioned way: Pharmaceuticals for mental health problems.

Not that anybody could afford them at current prices :D

Eww, captcha was 'monogamy'.

Re:Not a problem (-1, Troll)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186759)

Um, what? A lot of porn involves violence, in case you didn't know.

Re:Not a problem (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186833)

The trick being that it's supposed to be consensual.

If you tell me to punch you in the face, would you put it on the same level as my punching a random passer-by in the face?

Re:Not a problem (0)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186853)

Um, what? A lot of porn involves violence, in case you didn't know.

How do you know it's not the other way around?

Re:Not a problem (5, Insightful)

doston (2372830) | more than 2 years ago | (#40187065)

Um, what? A lot of porn involves violence, in case you didn't know.

"A lot". Got statistics on that? What part is violent? The multiple interracial gang bangs, or hard nipple tweaking? Is that violence? Is a huge cock stuffed into a small Asian woman too violent? Should legislate a ban on double anal? After all, it looks terribly uncomfortable...violent even. I guess we'd also have to define what "violent" in porn actually is. Is it all just violent because it's not on the wedding night and missionary position? Maybe we should ban sex outside marriage. This should definitely be legislated and there should be a massive witch hunt on Wiki, too.

Re:Not a problem (2)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186805)

Good or bad. If people are spamming the site with it, it is still a nuisance.

Re:Not a problem (4, Interesting)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186483)

The higher rate implies the extra views are not due to accidents, but it says absolutely nothing about the actual number of accidental views. I'm sure kids stumble across stuff there. (And it's not like purposeful access is particularly good for kids either.) Part of the problem is that it is actually illegal in some areas for schools to allow access to Wikipedia. It's a useful educational resource and it would be sad to see it banned just because some Wikipedians don't understand the difference between censorship and a filtering setting that can be changed.

Re:Not a problem (4, Informative)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186597)

Sorry, that should be illegal to allow access to sites that don't filter porn, which currently includes Wikipedia.

Re:Not a problem (1)

anared (2599669) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186671)

Still, if there was a filter like this to be deployed, it most definitely should be OFF by default. None of this nonsense like with Google image search having to take the filter off every single time searching for something.

Re:Not a problem (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186885)

Agreed. Shame something couldn't be worked out in a way that views coming from a school or other organization requesting it be prevented from reading 'flagged' media. This way the rest of us can continue with it as-is, and the schools get to filter out the objectionable content.

Re:Not a problem (0)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#40187051)

Yea, cause setting that cookie so it remembers your prefs is hard work.

Stop using such a shitty browser or being so fucking paranoid about cookies and the WWW will be much more enjoyable too you.

Re:Not a problem (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186699)

And it's not like purposeful access is particularly good for kids either.

What evidence is there that porn is bad for children?

Part of the problem is that it is actually illegal in some areas for schools to allow access to Wikipedia.

That's not Wikipedia's fault. Let the ignorant savages remain ignorant savages if that's what they want.

some Wikipedians don't understand the difference between censorship and a filtering setting that can be changed.

I don't understand the difference either. The mere existence of a filter has a chilling effect on certain kinds of content. That's censorship.

Re:Not a problem (1)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186827)

That's not Wikipedia's fault. Let the ignorant savages remain ignorant savages if that's what they want. And what about the people subject to laws they disagree with? You might say "f*ck 'em", I would not. The mere existence of a filter has a chilling effect on certain kinds of content. Let's use your line: What evidence is there for that? It's a proposed opt-in filter, mind you. I don't see how it's different from any other categorization. Categorization is useful across the board, IMO.

Re:Not a problem (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40187007)

The mere existence of a filter has a chilling effect on certain kinds of content. Let's use your line: What evidence is there for that?

Observe the MPAA ratings system. Voluntary ratings system, nothing is censored, only categorized. Still, this affects the kind of content we see, and movies regularly self-censor to get a lower rating.

Re:Not a problem (-1, Troll)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186863)

Listen to you, same old "durr, porn's not bad for kids!" nonsense. Please have kids and show them porn all the time. I'm sure they'll turn out _great_, though you being in prison might actually help them in the long term.

Common sense: look into it some time.

Re:Not a problem (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40187035)

So what you are saying is, you have no evidence?

Re:Not a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40187053)

where is the statistical link the watching porn makes you a bad person? or the fact that being in prison would help your children out in the long run? i want sources damnit!

Re:Not a problem (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#40187095)

That's censorship.

So?

If you think censorship is evil in all forms, well then go fuck yourself cause that makes you just as much a ignorant fuck as the people pushing filters on everyone. You're an idiot if you can't understand why censorship exists and what benefits (not just the costs) it brings.

Re:Not a problem (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186769)

just because some Wikipedians don't understand the difference between censorship and a filtering setting that can be changed.

No, if it was banned, it would be because of idiotic laws and policies, not Wikipedians.

Re:Not a problem (3, Insightful)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186823)

Part of the problem is that it is actually illegal in some areas for schools to allow access to Wikipedia.

That is indeed a problem. A problem we need to fix with our puritanical society.

I'm sure kids stumble across stuff there.

From what I've been able to tell, it's not exactly about "stumbling" as it is, "this is relevant to the topic of the page." If you're searching for topics on anatomy, for example, pictures are appropriate. The fact that a picture of say, an eye, is appropriate and pictures of genitals are not is a problem with our culture, not wikipedia. It's all just normal human anatomy.

Same goes for other topics that are not considered appropriate. If you're old enough to know to search for it, you're old enough to find out about it. If your parents didn't prepare you for it by the time that you're curious about it, they've fucked up. Talk to your kids early and often, or they're going to find the information before you've had a chance to give them your moral views on the topic at hand.

Re:Not a problem (1)

epw (247228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186509)

I agree. I've never seen any porn on Wikipedia, but if I went looking for it I would expect there to at least be a sample or two. If you don't like seeing something, don't go looking for it.

Re:Not a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186955)

"I agree. I've never seen any porn on Wikipedia,..."

IMO they meant a photograph of the Venus of Milo.
Being from Europe, where we go go naked into the sauna, yes, with children and we also see titties at the swimming pool and stark naked people tanning in public parks, naked people on TV in the afternoon and porn shops with products in windows, bordellos with whores in windows and so on, we just don't get it.

Re:Not a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186521)

This is my take as well. I use Wikipedia often, and have never encountered porn there.
I'm going to need some links to support this claim of a porn problem, or I'm going to assume that this is just another case of "what about the children" handwringing from the usual nitwits.

Re:Not a problem (2)

neoshroom (324937) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186859)

Don't blame me. You asked for it!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dede_Cucumber_0433.jpg [wikimedia.org]

It's less on Wikipedia itself and more in the images that people upload to Wikipedia that can be accessed through certain searches. The problem is some of the searches, like "cucumber" in this case, are innocuous at face value.

Re:Not a problem (1)

thesameguy (1047504) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186529)

Indeed. Until I read this headline, I didn't even know there was pornographic material on Wikipedia. I guess I assumed it must be there somewhere, but it's certainly not an in-your-face problem. I take exception on behalf of Jimmy Wales at the notion that anyone would concern themselves with a "problem" on his website. Nobody is forcing anyone to use wikipedia for anything, and the notion that the population at large has to swoop in and filter a private resource that is shared freely is preposterous. If you don't want your kids seeing porn on wikipedia, don't let them use wikipedia. If you would like to change how wikipedia works, how about you send the guy a wad of cash to help him make those changes. "OH NO! This free stuff doesn't work the way I want it to!" SHADDUP!

Wikipedia was reported to the FBI (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186663)

Until I read this headline, I didn't even know there was pornographic material on Wikipedia.

Then you must have missed these [slashdot.org] three [slashdot.org] stories [slashdot.org] earlier on Slashdot.

I take exception on behalf of Jimmy Wales at the notion that anyone would concern themselves with a "problem" on his website.

When someone reports your allegedly illegal porn to the FBI, of course you take action to keep the FBI from taking down all WMF sites and arresting people.

Re:Not a problem (1)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186687)

Yes, in the age of 24/7 internet access it is entirely feasible to keep your kids off Wikipedia, especially at school and so on. How do you know the proponents of this filter haven't donated to Wikipedia? I personally don't see the entitlement angle here, and it's really not difficult to add one more user setting and one more category for pages.

Re:Not a problem (2)

thesameguy (1047504) | more than 2 years ago | (#40187069)

Are you kidding me? When I was a kid my porn didn't require electricity, was reasonably water resistant and completely shock proof because it was on paper. There was *always* a guy at the convenience store who would sell to minors and there was 'always* some kid with a father or brother who wouldn't miss a Hustler or two so it's not like it was tough to get. And yet, somehow, despite being completely portable and usable anywhere my parents managed to do a reasonably good job of keeping it out of my hands. Are you telling me that in 2012 where porn requires electricity to power the screen and some sort of subscription (like an ISP) to get to it, the job is now somehow more difficult? We used to have to run out to the farthest reaches of the baseball field to crowd around Sexual Fantasy and they still found us. You're saying sitting in the library at school is somehow stealthier? The reason why Wikipedia is a problem is because modern parents think the internet is like TV and a perfectly good baby sitter as long as you don't subscribe to the premium channels. Turns out that just because both technologies show up on a screen, they aren't actually the same. Just like the library was 30 years ago when kids could look up foul words in the Oxford Dictionary or sex in romance novels or violence in World Book, the internet requires guidance and oversight by parents and other authority figures. I gained an amazing vocabulary of dirty words and depraved acts from printed material when I was a kid, but I didn't know how to properly apply them til my dad taught me.

Re:Not a problem (5, Funny)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186745)

Search for forefinger [wikipedia.org] (obviously NSFW) and find porn.

Re:Not a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186901)

MOD UP!

Re:Not a problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186925)

That's not porn, that's clearly educational material.

Re:Not a problem (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186821)

I second this. This is not like google where innocuous searches will lead to objectionable material because of the market driven nature of searches. Firms and google wants porn on search results as it will lead to click throughs and profits. Therefore the filter is necessary for googles survival.

OTOH, Wikipedia has no such problem. Articles are not competing Against each other for clicks. Furthermore one thing that is superior to other ebncyclopedia is that controversial content can be hosted without consumer and retailer pushback. I hate to say , but this is one of those parent problems. Monitor your kids, install a filter, join a good sexual health program early so kids do not have to learn about sex on the street.

Re:Not a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186835)

I too didn't think this was a problem. If you go to the article for breasts, you expect breasts... penis... well, your probably gonna see a penis. Even on these articles the images still seem at least tasteful. I even came across something for masturbation once that was a video, and even that was pretty tame all things considered.

However, this is a link to the search page for multimedia, which a student might use if they are looking for an image for a project of some sort...

Wikipedia Multimedia Search [wikipedia.org]

Make sure you use the search box and not the Wikipedia search box in the upper left... try these innocuous words (nsfw):

forefinger

male human

Both things that I would expect at the very most, diagrams of body parts... But you will get more than you bargained for. There are probably many others as well.

Re:Not a problem (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186909)

I use Wikipedia extensively, often wasting hours on mammoth wiki-trips that lead all over the place. I can report that I very rarely come across porn of any description.

Possible exceptions to this rule are: Tales of scandals involving mistresses/concubines, etc in historical articles, and passing references to homosexuality in articles related to Great Britain.

Obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186413)

Wank to it!

So? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186415)

"Wikipedia continues to host an enormous amount of extremely gross porn and other material most parents don't want their kids stumbling across. And this content is some of the website's most-accessed. "

So?

"Nevertheless, children remain some of Wikipedia's heaviest users."

So?

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186479)

So THINK of the CHILDREN! This must be stopped!

Re:So? (-1, Troll)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186527)

Kids are easily f*cked up. If your response to that is "So?", then you might be a sociopath.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186649)

Then don't plug them into the unfiltered Internet.

Seems like the parents are even more "f*cked" up these days.

Re:So? (0)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186897)

If you believe any parent has control over their kids 24/7 you're crazy. They could do things like make sure they never go to friend's houses, etc. but that's also crazy. A filter, especially an opt-in one, won't prevent purposefully searching or even accidents, but at least it's a helpful and easy to implement step for the people who want it. I don't see a problem with that.

Re:So? (4, Insightful)

Sigma 7 (266129) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186747)

Kids are easily f*cked up. If your response to that is "So?", then you might be a sociopath.

Kids are already f*cked up because they are placed in environments that f*ck them up.

They aren't going to receive a lifelong emotional trauma just by looking at some genitalia. In fact, there's more serious threats to their emotional well being, including misapplication of religion, improper/incomplete education, or an unsafe physical environment.

Once those problems have been solved in a general case, you can then worry about Wikipedia.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186777)

citation needed

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186895)

Kids are easily f*cked up. If your response to that is "So?", then you might be a sociopath.

[citation needed]

How are kids fucked up by porn? Please explain with references (if it comes from a church or is based on religious reasons, please try again).

Also, how does this compare with how they are fucked up by violent images?

Btw, if you disagree with anything I say, you might just be Josef Stalin.

What porn (3, Interesting)

Sperbels (1008585) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186417)

I've never seen any porn on wikipedia. I've seen some nudity before...but porn?

Re:What porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186481)

Same here..!

Re:What porn (2)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186557)

Read the article. There's quite a bit.

Re:What porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186607)

I've never seen any porn on wikipedia. I've seen some nudity before...but porn?

I was looking at a rather innocuous page a few days ago (I forget which) and someone had vandalised the references section with some explicit GIFs. I guess this is the kid of pr0nz the filter may be looking for.

Re:What porn (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40187063)

A matter of definition. To some people, all nudity is porn. I've even met one person online who was outraged at the display maniquins used in a store window because they were provocatively posed and wearing lingerie.

Links? (2)

s0lar (217978) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186429)

So, do we have any good links?

Re:Links? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186507)

I've looked up porn stars on wikipedia and have not been offered any links to porn.

I believe the wiki-editors do a good job of keeping things on topic.

Re:Links? (2)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186709)

Links to sample porn aren't on-topic in articles about porn stars?

Re:Links? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186683)

So, do we have any good links?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sex_positions

Re:Links? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186887)

So, do we have any good links?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sex_positions

I'll be in my bunk.

Re:Links? (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186775)

Suppose someone wrote a filter for porn; would his filter be deemed to have accessed the porn. As the alarm went off poooorn, the cops came in.

porn? where? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186443)

I've been contributing to the Wikipedia for seven years.

Not once - not ONCE - in that time have I seen porn on the Wikipedia.

Re:porn? where? (2)

MPolo (129811) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186593)

I have also not seen anything in this category. Certainly there are some articles that many parents might not like their children to see, but education and supervision is probably a better solution than any filter Wikipedia could manage to install. Of course, boys of a certain age are going to find it regardless of what the parents do.

Re:porn? where? (1)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186729)

I've been contributing for less than that and seen porn a few times. Anecdotes are meaningless.

Wikiporno.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186453)

Separate the content, problem solved.

Hmmm... (5, Informative)

SarekOfVulcan (133772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186461)

I wonder why Larry Sanger could possibly have an interest [citizendium.org] in making WP look problematic.

Piffle (1)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186489)

Never seen anything resembling porn on Wikipedia, granted I'm not looking for it, but without a link to the alleged porn I'm calling BS.

This is why Brittanica is better. (0)

Khyber (864651) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186511)

It handles things that actually matter. Not trivial bullshit like porn.

Re:This is why Brittanica is better. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186793)

O, if the world was confined to the definitions in Brittanica what a small one it would be...

"Extremely gross porn"? (4, Interesting)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186555)

I followed a bunch of the links on Sanger's site just to see what he's talking about. Having a dozen or so videos of male ejaculation seems excessive. But a lot of the rest of it is 19th century French engravings, naughty postcards, and the like. Is that stuff appropriate for Wikipedia, even out of historical interest? I don't think that's for an automated filter to decide. Given that most home Internet connections don't have comprehensive content filters installed, I also think "the children" are about four clicks away from far raunchier material than that.

Re:"Extremely gross porn"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186731)

Having a dozen or so videos of male ejaculation seems excessive.

Not if you love bukkake. Then it's just an appetizer.

Re:"Extremely gross porn"? (1)

broken_chaos (1188549) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186837)

There's also a lot of self-made porn that just seems like it's done because the 'creator' gets off on exhibitionism.

How come... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186569)

I never found any porn there. Giuess I never looked.

Concept of "pornography" (1)

mykos (1627575) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186573)

Doesn't the very concept of pornography go against the core reasons for Wikipedia's existence?

Re:Concept of "pornography" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186725)

Nope. Otherwise 90% of the other things that get deleted off Wikipedia wouldn't be.

True, there is a significant contingent that believes everything belongs on Wikipedia with no removal, however that has never reached consensus, and even finds itself in disfavor in some quarters.

pics or it didn't happen (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186583)

you know the rules

links (4, Informative)

hldn (1085833) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186585)

Not really fixable (1)

mcavic (2007672) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186623)

I don't think it's more of a problem on Wikipedia than anywhere else on the Internet. First, they should require that people sign in before editing. The problem with a filter is that it would be difficult to prevent kids from opting out. Even on YouTube, all you have to do is click a button agreeing that you're at least 18.

What problem? (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186633)

I have neer seen porn on Wikipedia, though truth to be told I have never searched for it. But if someone does it's reasonable to assume that they do want to see porn, isn't it?

If It's Porn, How Can It Be A Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186641)

If it's porn, how can it be a problem?

Look, this is stupid (1)

doston (2372830) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186655)

If your kids look for porn, they're going to find it. Who cares if it's on Wikipedia especially? If it is, it's likely for informational purposes. I don't think Wikipedia was designed to be a porn site. If your kids want to look at porn, I suggest parental software and supervision. Take some responsibility for your kids. Reminds me of Kyle's mom on South Park going after Terrance and Philip. Anyway, who cares if your kids see sex? They're going to see it anyway. You might as well banalize it now. Try to be a little more French and a little less Tea Bagger; your kids will be the better for it.

Re:Look, this is stupid (2)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186973)

It's obviously not perfect but it can be helpful to have SOMETHING between the kids and the pr0n. Policing your kids isn't bulletproof either, you simply can't do it all the time without chaining them in the basement. I don't see how a somewhat helpful optional filter is problematic given that it seems pretty easy to implement and there's probably people willing to donate to it if they went that route. If you had kids you would probably see the difference between "young kids seeing sex" and "young kids seeing mutilation, simulated rape," etc. etc.

Interns? (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186749)

From the summary:

And this content is some of the website's most-accessed.

Because I have never run across porn there, I didn't even realize Wikipedia had a porn problem. That said, if pornographic content is really the most accessed content on Wikipedia, why not get a few paid/unpaid interns to review the top N accessed images on Wikipedia. I am sure there are people who would like to be paid to look at porn.

A Modest Proposol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186787)

Why not a "WikiPorn" site, where everyone can upload whatever porn they have.

I admit though, that I don't quite understand the business model.
Making even half-decent porn can't be cheap; why give it away on Wikipedia?

Protect the children! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186809)

Yes because boobs will destroy them, yes they will, you just watch us get destroyed... oh, wait.

Porn is the last thing you go to Wikipedia for. It's the last thing you expect to find there. If some "trusted" entity made a survey about it, they would probably find out that there's a higher % of atheists in Texas than their's people on earth that nows about this Wikipedia porn. Maybe a guide to how to make/ host/ find porn but not actual porn.

Wouldn't it be nice if they just let the kids be, think how quiet it would get.

Original Premise is False (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40186847)

"Wikipedia continues to host an enormous amount of extremely gross porn"

That statement by the original article poster is an outright lie. Show me a single example of extremely gross porn on Wikipedia. I've never seen it, and I seriously doubt that it exists. I see several extremely tame and inoffensive uses of vegetables and other things cited above, along with videos of people doing what people tend to do, but that's it. My statement stands.

I don't get it (1)

Pirulo (621010) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186883)

I never seen it [on wikipedia]
I just tried and the three first intents got me to legit and informative content about what porn is, but not porn graphic content.

What Should We Do About Wikipedia's Porn Problem? (2)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186979)

What should we do about Wikipedia's porn problem? Recognize that there is no "problem"---that this is no more a "problem" than any other content on Wikipedia that some people don't like---and move on to something that's actually important?

Porn is a red herring... (4, Insightful)

fsmunoz (267297) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186981)

extremely gross porn

I remember voting against a filter some time ago. One of the reasons was that "extremely gross porn" is not something consensual. A picture of a naked women having a baby, is it "gross porn"? Many would actively deem it so. Which is why this whole thing sounds to much like a first step towards self-censorship in the name of cultural relativism. Who will define what is porn and what is relevant?

Mind you, this different approach is valid between Europeans and North-Americans, let alone when talking about... others. Why not also consider additional content as "extremely gross"? Once it is done for "porn", whatever that means, the door is opened for everything else.

My position is not that porn should be in wikipedia. But images that are relevant to an article should be maintained if there is an agreement that they add value to it. Porn is but a red herring used to get the foot in the door.

Slippery slope (4, Insightful)

rhysweatherley (193588) | more than 2 years ago | (#40187021)

Porn problem? What about Wikipedia's bomb problem? Enough information about chemistry and physics to build your own homemade bomb. Depending upon your budget, everything from firecrackers and pipe bombs to nuclear weapons. What about Wikipedia's computer security problem? Blow by blow descriptions of common computer vulnerabilities and how they can be exploited.

And so on.

We've been down this road before with the debates over the Anarchist's Cookbook and hacking manuals. Banning, or labelling, or whatever serves no purpose except to enable government censors to make up excuses to block other information. And look - you gave them a nice little filtering system to help them do exactly that!

Of course Wikipedia needs to tread softly - they are the repository of the world's knowledge and anything that reduces access to knowledge is against its charter. Make the descriptions of various porn acts more clinical and less explicit, perhaps. But that won't stop the "think of the children!" crowd.

Minor issue. (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 2 years ago | (#40187079)

For years I've noticed that any article even remotely associated with anything sexual gets loaded up with photographs. Search topics in many other area for which you'd expect photos and illustrations and you're luck to get anything. I don't have any inherent problem with an explicit photo if it's relevant and constructive. The problem is that a lot of the stuff on there is pointless and gratuitous. It's people thinking they're taking a stand for free speech or some asshole getting some kicks.

And it isn't just that... It's the absurd granularity of these articles. There will be legitimate articles flagged for review as irrelevant or redundant but then you've got article after article on every little sexual quirk, stuff that could be lumped under a single parent article.

I mean, at the end of the day, it's not all that surprising people expend so much energy on this stuff. And the fact is that I've never stumbled onto it without specifically seeking it out. At that point only a fool wouldn't just go to a proper porn site. So at the end of the day it's a bit of a tempest in a tea cup.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>