Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-12/Pornography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Is there any evidence that the FBI is investigating?[edit]

We only have the word of the originators of the complaint that the FBI is investigating. Just because they've filed a complaint with the FBI doesn't mean there is an active investigation. And the newspaper's claim that anything the FBI investigates should come down makes me wonder what would happen if somebody filed a bogus FBI complaint against any of their content. Corvus cornixtalk 18:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There is not, as far as I've seen, any evidence beyond Schilling's stories and their derivatives. The claim was probably nominally true at some point, in that someone called the FBI and described the situation, and they said they'd take a look. No doubt it would take an FBI agent about 2 minutes to see that isn't worth their time and that the Virgin Killer image (I would guess) doesn't meet their definition of child pornography.--ragesoss (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Colorado Springs Gazette published the WorldNetDaily piece without attribution. Corvus cornixtalk 21:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Wikpedia[edit]

On the whole, now has lost it's reputation. Forget the whole "not censored for kids" thing because it should be. The way it is is rubbish,complete rubbish. Britishrailclass91 (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. This article shatters any hope of making Wikipedia a respectable encyclopedia and a reference in the academic world. Just take a look at these articles. Totally disgusting!! Eklipse (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
To paraphrase what others have said: There are roughly six billion (6,000,000,000) people in this world. That means, very roughly, that we have six billion different ideas of what is "disgusting" or "offensive" or any other adjective you care to name. Those billions of people will have wildly different moral/social/cultural backgrounds. For example: Not all cultures have nudity taboo or sex taboos, for example, and may find someone else's apprehension quite puzzling. Others might object quite strongly to the open presentation of political views put forward in articles about things like freedom of speech. There is no objective standard to follow. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Hear hear. A significant part of Wikipedia's value is its inclusion of material other reference works exclude. Sex is a topic of very wide interest, so it's completely appropriate for Wikipedia to cover it in depth. 142.162.78.180 (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Just because certain segments of the population find something objectionable doesn't mean that a) it's not a valid topic of inquiry and b) that information about it shouldn't be available. I'm not exactly sure what about penises is so shocking, considering that 49% of humans have one. Even the Encyclopedia Britannica has articles about sex, masturbation, penis, and other "disgusting" things. Where do we put research by physiologists and psychologists about human sexuality if not in these sorts of articles.
Censorship of this sort of material does have a detrimental effect on Wikipedia's reputation. Just ask Szfski about trying to add referenced information about the mere existence of a female orgasm to the Arabic encyclopedia. --Gimme danger (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Content control HTTP Headers[edit]

We can introduce new custom HTTP header, for example, X-Wikipedia-Categories and include all of categories for concrete images and articles (for articles need some little modifying MediaWiki software, for images — web server software). Content control software will easily catch it and filter banned words.

We also can add self-censor HTTP-header, for example X-Censored-Content with community defined religious or parental content types. May be we should come to an agreement with W3C, IETF and Content control software suppliers about censored content types.--93.80.101.202 (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)