US law (Child Protection and Obscenity Act) requires Wikipedia and other porn sites to keep a record of the age of their porn stars. Does Wikipedia do this? How do we know that the people posting nudes in articles like Penis, Masturbation, and Ejaculation are over 18 years old? They could be 15 for all we know, right?

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/02/pu...hotos_need.html

No, and good luck trying to ask them.

You might also ask them why they host photos like this one.

Has anyone ever addressed this issue with them? I'd like to see their response.

This is only an issue if you hold the US-centric assumption that any picture of a naked human is pornography. Many places outside the US don't share this belief.

Wikipedia is based in the US, and is therefore subject to US law. Even if it were based in the UK, it would still be subject to similar laws.

I am not American and when I saw that Wikipedia animation of some nerd ejaculating, sure, I thought to myself ... that's not pornography. Now, hold on, that did not come out quite right.

I mean, a lot of is not pornography but simply because it is so abysmally bad. It is just sick, immature or perverse vanity. It is no different from any other pervert exposing themselves in public but ... somehow ... the Pee-dia gets away with because it is "Knowledge" apparently.

And remember, Jimbo Wales says, the Wikipedia is not really for us but "for the poor starving African girl who is going to save the world by knowing all this stuff" according to him ... (it is one of his famous quote).

Don't know how long you have been around, White Knight, but only a few weeks ago we managed to take off a picture of a young Asian girl exposing herself to urinate. Their first reaction was to revert it and put it back up.

You are right. I think what you are doing is a great thing. Putting it in writing, address it to the Foundation, or Godwin their legal counsel, by registered mail, send a copy to our and their congressmen ... and please come back and post their reply. Don't waste your time mailing Jimbo. Go for the throat if you can. Get your local church ... PTA ... education board, whatever, on the case too etc.

Other concurrent issue are:

• why are there no parental guidance warnings or mechanisms?
• why has Google such a lover affair with it and publish their porn at the top of the internet?

We also have a vengeance case where some boyfriend put his ex-'s name up with a porno picture and had it spammed all over Google. In short, they have no brain and are out of control and so anything you can do to harness them in, is public service.

Its hysterical ... the topic linked above about bondage Animal Roleplay has a nice paragraph about how ...

And links to a 'personal pornography' website, see Pee-dia link here ... or, as the Wikipedians would say, a "personal Knowledge" website uploaded by a user whose only contribution is to upload herself.

Interesting, following the link from Eric's erotic auto-asphyxiation topic to the topic on Sada Abe, it goes into the full detail of what she did to her lover's genitalia after she had murder him and cut them off ... why this is all necessary, who on earth knows?

Some jerk off getting hard because publish it all on the top 8 websites in the world where kids can find it I suppose.

Please do what you can ...

I know if you complain loudly enough to both a Government agency and an elected representative, then eventually somebody will notice.

I don't live in the USA, but I suppose if everybody concerned about the issue lodged a complaint on the links below, something might eventually happen. Don't forget to mention relevant law and provide hyperlinks to the images in question.

CyberTipline

FBI Tips and Public Leads

Thanks for the advice. I'm going to see what avenues I can complain through, and I'll be sure to update you guys on the responses I get.

I honestly believe that many of the admins on Wikipedia are pedophiles anyway.

I cannot say it is impossible but still it reminds me of someone who suspected he was persecuted by a cabal of gay admins.

Anyway, can a 15 years old admin be a pedophile?

Contact David Shankbone, Wikipeda's photoprono czar.

While I am not a fan of most of the admins, I have to state that I find your statement to be offensive and stupid.

Statistically speaking "some" might have been a safer assumption to make. Son of a Yeti makes a fair point. What you are picking up on is the libertarian element of "freeculture" for whom ... "the wiki is not censored" ... is a key credo.

Who knows what lurks behind that mask. Well, we all know. Look at what surfaces on the Pee-dia.

Would you allow your child, or the children of your community, to wander around a library where hard core pornography was casually scattered around and the staff felt at liberty to read, share, make and indulge in that pornography as they worked?

A lot of the hard core amateur porn pictures are being put up by the contributors of themselves and their sexual partners.

That, basically, is what you have going on. And not just with pornography but with other equally corruptive elements. Of course the answer is no. So, surely, the starting point is having the Pee-dia blocked by family filtering services, schools, educational networks and so on?

A big part of the problem are "the masks" contributors get to wear and anonymity. No one is accountable. The other part of the problem is that behind the overall corporate mask, there is no head.

I don't know the case but "persecuted by a gay cabal" - fullstop - is entirely likely. Just as it could by any another cabal. Or some individual who, having labored for no reward, wants some kind of pay back by way of getting to grind their axe.

The system seems to be set up to allow such individuals, often well embedded admins, to indulge themselves grinding their axes on the lower ranks.

Look at recent comments by pornstar buster KevinOKeefe who said he was not going to attempt to engage in removing male, gay pornstars from the Wikipedia for fear of the strength of reaction from such a gay lobby.

A large proportion of "the community" seems to think starring in a porno DVD makes one "notable" human being.

Put all this into the context of David Shankbone being lauded as "leading Wikipedia", and being trustee of a local foundation (isn't it?), uploading yet more pictures of erections, naked homosexuals "meatracking" themselves, live pornshoots and a homeless woman removing a tampon into an environment likely to attract children ... and you have the Wikipedia.


OK, White Knight ... talk is cheap. I do not know how serious, capable or committed you are but there is a good opportunity here to learn and make a difference. It will take work and persistence to chip away at their block until it cracks but I would say it is very possible.

It strikes me that a large part of the Pee-dia's defence is that most critics fail by engaging themselves in the online drama - and thereby becoming burned out - instead of going behind the scenes and working real life and established elements.

Go to the large funding trusts that throw millions at the Pee-dia to keep it going. They are listed on the website and documents as donors. Go to their trustees ... the responsible human beings and see what they say. Make it political and play other political interests.

I would say it is all worth doing.

Considering most admins are children, it would be rather difficult!

Then we should really know who is a child and how many children there are. No more insane masks of anonymity.

To my mind, that is also exploiting child labor ... in an environment where the over-ridding ethics and principles are as I have described as above.

i.e. where the "adult members" engaging in reading, sharing, making and indulging in that pornography - and a whole lot else - as they work?

But, frankly speaking, the pornography is not the reason I would not want my child spending a long time in the Pee-dia environment. For me, it would be exposure to all the malicious and corrupt human interaction that goes on.

Yeah? The ones with the leathery wings, or the ones with a mouth where their belly button should be?

I honestly believe that many of the admins on Wikipedia have leathery wings, or a mouth where their belly button should be, but I think it is irresponsible (and reflects poorly on this site) to suggest that many are also pedophiles, in the absence of real evidence.

Not an ideal topic for my first post but in England a 15 year old boy can certainly be charged with having sex with a significantly younger girl.

...or indeed, a girl of the same age. Nookie is only legal at 16 in the UK. However, the P word would not be applicable in such circumstances.

People have a tendency to use the word incorrectly. It is the sexual desire for those what are pre-pubescent. People should realize that a pedophile is really not likely to find a 15 year old attractive. These 'people' are seriously looking at ages 1-10. It's that fucking sick.

Unless the 15 year old is small and slightly built ... isn't there a separate technical word for individuals whose preference is that age group, not their own?

• OK, on the surface we have the issue of pornography on the Pee-dia.
• Underneath that, we have the issue of the flashers who feel their have a right or need to expose themselves in public on the Pee-dia.

This is no less of a crime than any other public "flashing". I mean, outside of leading Wikipedian David Shankbone's world, it is really not "normal" to expose one's erection or anus on a first date or in public ...

especially in an environment where children would be attracted and have free access.

• But, underneath that, ... and this is the important issue ... what other morality, ethics, lack of inhibitions do the psyche's of such individuals who have such "needs", and how do they reflect, impact and influence the Wikipedian environment?

Now, you might argue that every flasher or hard core perv is perfectly capable of performing functionally in society and that "everyone has a right" to their own particular kinks ... may be, may be not.

But do they have a right to wave it in other people's faces ... expose children ... and does the rest of society not have a right to an opinion back?

And what happens in a relatively closed community when the flashers and hard core pervs start to reflect a disproportionate influence in comparison to "normal" society? Where they are empowered and "voices of reason" disempowered ... all behind the mask of anonymity

I started off my time here disgusted by the obvious racialism prevalent on the Pee-dia and the futility of questioning it. I find it hard difficult not to reflect this current discussion back to that beginning ...

I mean, what are all these scout masters arbcoms and wannabe cops doing lording it over a world of shaved and pierced vaginas, animated cum shots, Heinz 59 anuses, urinating children and sexual perversions? Not that is weird perv.

Looking at this from the psychological point of view, you have all these compartmentalized individuals living in denial pretending that the Pee-dia is compartmentalized and, somehow, their roll is not engaged in the hole.

Explain this to me ...

I am a Scout Master ... other adults empower me with responsibility for their children ... I am a leading responsibility on the Wikipedia ... the Wikipedia publishes a world of shaved and pierced vaginas, animated cum shots, Heinz 59 anuses, urinating children, racism and sexual perversions.

... and I not only go along with it but I defend and support it.

Hebephilia

Thank you. Interesting article. And then there is "Ephebophilia", the sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents.


Now make what you like about alpha male types (wannabe cops, scout masters, gopher whacking admins) wanting to live in a world (the Pee-dia) where they can dominant and punish subordinate adolescents ... or people who act like them.

On one hand, you get the guys who don't actually do any of the stuff but just like looking at pictures of it; on the other hand, you get the guys who are lusting after it but cannot admit it and so pervert it into some other form of activity.

Cue the Dummies Guide to Freud and Alder ...

Either way, all the shit ought to be hived off into a separate adult only Pornopedia.

In the meanwhile, Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia gives these people free rein to indulge themselves in their fantasy of both prurience or repression.

Wikipedia masochist: Punish me ... punish me ... ban me ... revert me ... I have been so bad!!!
Wikipedia sadist: No.
Leading Wikipedia David Shankbone: Can I upload a picture of that?

I really hope this isn't attributed to my own wanton desires. I was simply pointing out that US news generally stigmatizes those that engage in statutory rape, are simply pedophiles. I don't know why it was important for me to make the distinction, but when I was a misguided fratrat of 21, I dated a 15 year old girl. Yes, it could be construed by many as morally bankrupt. However, clinically, it wasn't pedophilia that motivated me. Said too much? Yeah probably. But again, I don't hold much back.

Away from the hysteria, there are two issues here: one is that many a teenager under the legal age presents as an attractive young woman, and for all the moralising, it is natural to be attracted to a person who is physically mature.

The other dimension is recognising that the person inside the body is not mature. Indeed one of the many British (I can't speak for elsewhere, but I am sure it applies elsewhere) diseases is that modern life idolises "maturity"* which pushes young girls into imagining that the body image they have reflects their mental state - and also that acting like a child is somehow wrong. (Yes, there is a point about Wikipedia in there too).

Back to Wikipedian content, it is that conflation of being uncensored with a misguided belief of being open about sexual matters is a mature attitude and also that somehow children would be better off if they were fully aware of adult matters as children, rather than being allowed to enjoy a bit of innocence when they do not have the tools to be able to grasp the information. It seems to me that people can understand that children do not have the mental capacity for higher level maths in their young teenage years, yet expect that in the complex moral dilemmas of pornography that they are magically skilled and fully equipped to deal with it.


*Not a subject that need revolve around Majorly, but it applies.

I've been busy and haven't had time to post to this thread before this. I believe that asking such questions represents a valuable level of critique. It certainly is possible that WMF and/or individual Wikipedians have ran afoul of laws protecting children from exploitation by inadequate verification of the models for sexual explicit depictions. It is also possible, in my view likely, that law enforcement is looking at this and that such investigations take time.

What surprises me more is that WMF involvement under Gardner into the mainstream non-profit/foundation funding community hasn't produced enough pressure to make WMF act in a more responsible manner. Sloan has given $3,000,000. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation only recently gave $500,000. Each of these grants are overseen by a specific program officer. If these foundations were caught with their pants down, so to speak, over a major child protective issue that these program officers should have, with due diligence in their oversight, known about this would be a career ending event.

No, you're confused. I think that means you find Jews sexy.

That would be a strange world indeed.

Some educational nudity for anyone else who failed A&P:

Students will note the distance of the vagina from areas which are commonly shaven or pierced.

You can take the Pee-dian out the Pee-dia but you cant take the Pee-dia out of the Pee-dian ...

Poetic license or WP:COMMONNAME (Currently ranking at 2,500,000 and 1,400,000 links on Google respectively)? It is your choice, CharlotteWebb.

And it is true, there are probably Pee-dians that get off on pictures of women's bodies being cut up too. Please don't show me if they have already upload their images.


To be honest, I think it is time for 'them what is' The Wikipedia Review.Com printed off some headed note paper and send out their first mailshot press release about the outings, excesses noted and successful vigilante work done here.

Gosh darn, you guys might as well incorporate and send in a funding request yourself for being the most effective and responsible medium of critique within the Pee-dia world.

I have some screenshots I can add. A picture speaks a thousands words. I can imagine a thick file of porn, urinating adolescent girls, kids touching themselves etc (which is what we removed) - and a few libertine admin quotations - landing on a responsible donor or trustee's desk would have a failure rapid result and gain the foundation's attention.


Here is one from 'The Smoking Gun' about a 21 year old being busted for posting pictures of his 16 year old girlfriend.

So, how does the law breakdown with regards the Wikipedia? Is it according to the state/national laws of the uploader, or where the items are hosted?

Why can't Wikipedia have educational line drawings like this instead of David Shankbone pictures and the like?

It seems to me that Wikipedians want pictures of model genitalia and such for the sole benefit of saying "We can have naughty pictures and saying we can't is a form of censorship!"

Yeesh, just because the mountain is there is not a reason to climb it. Whatever happened to common sense and ethics?

Last summer, Jimbo Wales declared ethics to be "beyond the scope of the project."

Wikipedia is untouchable and above the law; a true cyber sovereignty succeeding the very state, in which the wiki web servers live.


Wikipeidia = the World of SHANKBONE, Wikipedia very own sex pervert.

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. What choice are you referring to?