# Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 13

## Wikipedia Takes Manhattan! photo contest results

Photographers on scavenger hunt for the 'pedia.

This event (the first of its kind anywhere) was held on April 4, and we now have all photos online and illustrating articles.

We got photos for 92 specifically requested sites (90 separate articles), nearly half of the 188 on our list.

Check out Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (which is really cool). If you're interested in holding one in your area, see Wikipedia Takes The City, and I'd be glad to offer any advice on an individual basis. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

## Earth's Mass

The earth recieves energy from the sun. In sun, the energy is stored in form of chemical energy. The earth gets the energy but there are not many means for it to go out. The rate of coming of energy is more than it's going away. Overall the Law of Conservation Of Energy is being followed. But taking only the earth in view, the level of energy is increasing. We know that matter is condensed form of energy. So does it mean that the mass of earth is increasing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.153.44.3 (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your question would be better asked at The Science Reference Desk. DuncanHill (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

## Studies about Wikipedia language editions

Hello, for a little research project about Wikipedia language editions in "small" oder "weak" languages I am looking for secondary literature. Until now, I only found:

The en.WP informs about some editions, but often superficially (how many articles when achieved, etc.). Do you know other ressources on the internet than these two? I can read German, English, Dutch, French, Esperanto. Thank you for your help. (You can use my e-mail via my user page.)--Ziko-en (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

## New ambox version

I have made a new version of {{ambox}} that I intend to deploy within some days. {{ambox}} is one of the most widely transcluded templates on Wikipedia and is visible on lots of articles, so this is a rather big update. For more about the new version and to discuss it see Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#New ambox version.

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

## Is consensus judged by size?

A thought had just occurred to me. Say an article has two nominations for deletion over an extended time period. Let's also say that the second nomination for deletion incurs a consensus of 7 !voters as opposed to, say, 21 in the first AFD. While it is true that consensus can change, wouldn't the first AFD hold more authority as representing a larger chunk of Wikipedia? And therefore, wouldn't the second AFD potentially be closed as no consensus, for failing to reach that quota? Just a thought.--WaltCip (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The number of votes something gets is meaningless. One side might call on their wikiproject to vote while the other does not; or, if they are less ethical, they could vote with sock puppets. To implement something like this we would have to multiply each vote by its trustworthyness factor, which would be much too complicated. The best way of finding consensus is to get a neutral third party to judge. Neutral judge can weigh vote counts with trustworthyness and rationality of arguments to give the true consensus of any debate. Nevertheless, it might be possible for a third party to say that the first debate had a clearer consensus that the later. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 03:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
another relevant policy is that Consensus can change. But the repeated nomination for AfD is an abuse, and can best be dealt with by implementing a rule for frequency of repeats: 1 month after a no consensus, so consensus can form, 3 months after a first keep, 6 after a second, 12 after a third. Any additional ones, or any shorter time, should require permission from Deletion Review. The present system is asymmetrical: a single delete is enough to require deletion review. To be altogether logical a second nomination after a keep should also, but that may be too big a change. DGG (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind that (a) an article usually changes over time, so the debates could essentially be about different matters entirely; (b) a subject's notability can change over time, as for example a local band that becomes successful nationally, and (c) policies and guidelines change over time; for example, Wikipedia now leans much more in in favor deletions of bios when the subject isn't a public person and wants to have his/her bio deleted. So the number of opinions expressed within each discussion proposal may not be conclusionary in any way. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

## Font

What font are the Wikipedia articles in? ---Nick4404 yada yada yada What have I done? 02:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

## Secret Pages

I saw the previous MfD for secret pages. Honestly, ever since then I have noticed the focus some users have on secret pages is getting worse. At first, I didn't think it was a bad thing, but now it's been getting a little out of control. It's one thing to have a secret page, but another to have a "Secret Page Challenge" which some users are starting up. Most of these challenges include "fake pages," "cheater pages," and "picture pages." I happen to have a secret page myself, which I'm probably going to get rid of soon. The MfD closed with basically no decision made. I'd like other's opinions about this. Thanks! iMatthew 2008 15:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My own opinion is that secret pages in themselves are fine, and a little note on the UP saying 'try and find my SP' is also OK. Wikipedians don't have to be humourless all of the time. However, when users create myriad 'secret' pages or silly things, and spend inordinate amounts of time on them, then they become very problematic indeed. I think that they should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, putting the worst offenders up for MfD. A one-size-fits-all policy on them would be complex and probably have more exceptions than rules. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |Contribs 09:45, April 24, 2008 (UTC)

## A worrying site

Now I hope I've got this in the right spot. I just happen to come across a site which has an article called "Bringing Wikipedia to Account: The WIKIPEDIA USER DATABASE" on hm. I feel for the people who have tried to hide there name but now have it on a site (the site lined above). Even my name is listed. Bidgee (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

## Backlogs

Recently a software change has made it much easier to get totals on categories. Many of these numbers have been unknown since a bot stopped operating in August of 2007. Here are some of the worst backlogs with the current totals in () and August 07 totals in italics:

As you can see none of the worst backlogs have less articles now than they did in August 2007. Some have grown much worse than others. Sourcing and NPOV have come the closet to doubling themselves while the same time being two of the categories that deal with truely promblamatic issues (i.e. {{expand}} is comparatively unimportant). I know people are out there working on the back end trying to fix the oldest problems, but they are not gaining any ground. On the other end a proliferation of tools have help to create a culture of thoughtless tagging (i.e. Putting {{expand}} on an article that has a {{stub}} tag already}. I don't believe it possible to clear the backlogs working through the oldest articles alone. There needs to be something done about standards of tagging on the front end if we ever want to see progress here. Some tags are meant to flag a dispute and do not need to go on articles with empty talk pages. Others are used as catch-alls when they are designed for a more specific purpose. Can anyone who is involved in the development of these tools look into what can be done to encourage more thought being put into these tagging? Is it possible to require a talkpage message when adding {{POV}} for example? Any other ideas on how to address this?--BirgitteSB 21:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As has been discussed quite often here: It's not the tagging that you need to address, it's the problems in the articles. The question would be how to draw more attention to those. I have a slight hope that the many Wikiprojects could get more involved into article maintenance, with lists such as this one. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have been doing that for months and I don't intend to stop. It is both that need addressed. If any Wikiproject is wanting to work on these, please let me know where you want to focus and I will compile lists for you as I work through the backlogs myself.--BirgitteSB 22:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
For example I can spend 5 minutes reading through the talk page and history (including load time) for each article tagged {{POV}} where the tagger didn't leave a talk page message.--BirgitteSB 22:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been working mostly on the notability backlog, and I must say that I seldomly encountered tags which were straight away unnecessary. That is, I hardly ever saw a {{notability}} tag on an article where the topic was obviously notable. I don't have much experience with the {{POV}} backlog though; I sometimes encountered a {{coi}} tag, but the reasons were usually apparent without further explanation, typically the edit history tells it all. --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've never worked in notability, but I can't always figure out the concerns or waste time trying to figure out concerns in plenty of other places. I will also say notability is a different animal as the tag is pointing to the lack of a positive rather than to the presence of a negative. Similarly {{unreferenced}} does not need a talk page note, although it is easy to find tags of that sort that have become unnecessary over time (i.e. reference add but tag not removed). I think the reason some of these tags become so old is that the ability to easily recognize a problem comes with experience and every time someone unexperienced encounters a tagged article with no problem specified that is not obvious to them; they get discouraged and are not likely to look for similarly tagged articles through the backog system. I would bet that the articles with clear concerns on the talk page get much better results in being fixed in the first three months than those without.--BirgitteSB 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea: Once a year - Jan. 1 or Jimbo's birthday or some arbitrary day - a massive bot run removes ALL tags from throughout wikipedia. The event is well publicized in advance, so editors that have concerns about articles can "watch" them to remind themselves not to forget their problem child (or they could even improve the article and remove the tag, but that's probably asking too much).

After the bot run, articles that really need tags would, I suspect, have them replaced by editors within a week or two. But the tags that were useless (95 percent, give or take 4.99 percent) will no longer be annoying people who are trying to use wikipedia. What bliss! Until the tags proliferate as the months go on, of course, which leads to the next annual exorcism a year later.

It's the only way! Nothing else but Annual Tag Destruction Day will prevent the Takeover Of The Tags! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's some good crazy-talk, but Birgitte does point up a problem - the growth of the tagging-culture at the expense of the sofixit-culture. Here's a counter-suggestion: in order to place tags, you also have to resolve tags, and everyone has to check their balance-sheet. It's far easier to place a {{cn}} tag than to take one off with an appropriate reference (takes me approx. 1/2 hour per valid cite added!). Alternatively, easier to criticize than construct. Franamax (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
And more realistically, Wikiproject-based tag-drives are a possibility. This could be supported with appropriate software to make cross-category comparisons to identify improvement targets. It would also help to identify dead Wikiprojects, but that's a whole different issue. Franamax (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Crazy talk? I'm serious! It's the start of a new movement!!!!
To keep us entertained while we device a scenario to make Annual Tag Destruction Day a reality, let's have a contest: Who can find the article with the most tags on it? (No fair placing them yourself.) I once found a stubby stub with four - FOUR - tags on it, but I can't remember what it was, so I get no points.
We can run the contest for, say, a week, and the winner gets to design a new tag (something as useful as existing tags, like "This article makes insufficient use of semicolons" or maybe "This article sounds funny when read aloud; please improve it") and place their tag on 10,000 random articles! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Franamax, jokes aside, this is not a question of culture but a question of quality. Don't kill the messenger - sources don't magically appear if you stop editors from pointing out the lack of sources. You just avoid that the problems get visible and measurable. In my opinion, spotting problems is just as well a constructive addition to the encyclopedia as is fixing them. Regarding the Wikiprojects: if you know an active Wikiproject, not too large in size, that would like to start a tag-drive as a kind of "case study", I would be willing to provide the cross-category listings; they could start right away. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that mass de-tagging is the wrong approach. Not all tagging is equal, but on one extreme a lot of thoughtless tagging is going on. On the other end very few people are clearing tags. If the tagger would fix one article for every ten they tagged we would be much improved. If taggers would watchlist the article and remove the tag when someone else fixes it we would be much better off. I can spend alot of time removing tags that were addressed months ago. I don't mind article having tags, but when we are getting no movement in the backlogs({{unreferenced}} has been clearing tags from June 06 for almost a full year now) we need to redirect some effort into actually fixing articles (or at lest making fixing articles as easy and quick as possible). But I am not against all tagging. {{cleanup}} may be one of our oldest backlogs but it is keeping up (with a steady 2 year backlog) and on the verge of gaining ground (to having an 23-month backlog). If all the "important" backlogs were in this state I would not be talking about this. But we have 8,000 articles tagged for NPOV. That backlog has nearly doubled since August and this not like{{expand}}; but a key issue. People need to start doing more than fly-by tagging in areas like these, not just less tagging. If there is a simple issue, remove the POV to the talk page and if someone else reverts it then tag it, when people come by later they will be able to see what the issue was. If the article is a complete mess and you don't know where to begin, tag it and put a note on the talk page with a permalink or better yet a note on one of the noticeboards. Watchlist the articles you tag until they are fixed. Spotting problems can be a constructive addition to the encyclopedia: when the problem is actionable (stubs very rarely need formatting cleanup they just inherently lack much formatting); when the right tag is chosen (If there is a link to the subject's webpage use {{primarysources}} not {{unreferenced}}); when the concerns are clear ({{POV-section}} can get by without a talk page note but {{POV}} at the top of a 60kb article is wasting the time of few people willing to fix these issues) BTW If anyone knows how to make templates automatically offer a permlink to the version they were first placed on; it would be really useful for the future.--BirgitteSB 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
A couple of weeks ago I requested a bot to help identify stats on tags being added and removed. That request is here[1] but no one had stepped forward by the time it archived. I can put it up on bot requests again if anyone thinks it would help get a better handle on the tagging situation. -- Low Sea (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

## History of the categorization system

Can anyone tell me when Categories were introduced and if there is a thread or page where it was discussed. I seem to recall that it was about 2004. Moondyne 03:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

forget this. I obviously didn't look too hard. See the top of Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Archive_1. Moondyne 03:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

## An unrelated word shows up on the Google search-not in article

Hello.

I searched "biomarkers". In the search results for Wikipedia it described biomarkers as "a substance used as an indicator of a sexual state". The actual word in the Wikipedia text is "biological" which is correct.

I don't know how to change the searchable field that this error may have come from. Could someone change this?

Susan Gackenheimer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.0.40.10 (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a serious problem, just give Google a little time to refresh its cached version of the article. Roger (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

## Plot Tag Not Taking Off

The Plot Tag for: Howl's Moving Castle (film) Has not been taking off. The plot is no longer overly long anymore. 71.142.208.226 (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

It won't disappear automatically, you just have to remove the template from the article. -- Kesh (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

## cockatiels

Question moved to the Reference desk: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#cockateils - Kesh (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

## Placing address in an article

I'll make this short. Can a user place an address or a list of addresses in his/her articles? If it's not allowed which rule's applied? Thanks in advance. Kurniasan (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

When you say "his/her articles", do you mean onto a user/user-talk page? And what address would you want to place? Franamax (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I mean in an article not the user or user talk page. The addresses that I meant are posting addresses. Btw, thanks for replying. Kurniasan (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
certainly the editor cannot put his address or signature at the bottom of an article. His contribution is recorded in the Article history--and if he wants to be contacted he could put his email address on his user page, though I would recommend instead simply enabling the Wikipedia e-mail feature in his preferences. (If the editor should, despite WP:COI insist on writing an article about himself, then it is appropriate to put an official home page as an external link--a person who is notable would presumably have one, not just a personal home page. But of course such articles will be looked at with extreme skepticism.) DGG (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as policy, leaving aside the COI question of posting your own organization address, I think the relevant guideline would be WP:NOTDIRECTORY, "Wikipedia is not the white pages" and "Wikipedia is not the yellow pages". Franamax (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That means if any pages or articles contents an address or a list of addresses, the address/es should be remove from the page or article? But, what if someone that place the address keeps on undoing you edit/s (of removing the address)? Kurniasan (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ask them to discuss it on the article's talk page. If they ignore that, drop some warning templates on their talk page. If they reach the top level of warnings (or violate WP:3RR), they can be reported as vandals. If they stop to discuss the matter and simply refuse to agree, it might be necessary to go through the dispute resolution process. -- Kesh (talk)
I think I got all my answers. Thanks very much for your help guys. Kurniasan (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

## Encyclopædia Britannica WebShare

Resolved

As partner of WebShare with my weblog http://archiv.twoday.net/topics/English+Corner/ I have a free one year account and am able to make EB articles free by linking to them (no limit). Let's imagine some possibilities for WP:

• Wikipedian A asks webpublisher and Wikipedian B for assistance on his discussion page or a WP: page because he wishes to read some EB articles as background information (no copyvio, of course!!) for WP articles (feel free to ask e.g. me). B gives him the links by writing them on the page.
• Wikipedian C puts free EB links in (i) the weblinks section, (ii) the reference section of an article.
• Wikipedian D makes here a list of known free EB articles.

I don't know if the links also expire after a year but I don't think so.

Some thoughts? --Historiograf (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sample: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1192818/Wikipedia --Historiograf (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Answered on the Help Desk. Please don't cross-post questions, as it causes duplication of effort. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I got the account too with my user page [2] being the web site. If I understand correctly, you can access any britannica article by simply editing my page. I'm not sure what they are thinking. -- Taku (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
He is talking about sharing references. Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange is a place where editors can list reference material they have access so that others can use it upon request. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 08:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

## WikiWax

I occasionally find a helpful hand from the lookahead search engine WikiWax and was surprised that we have no article. Looking further I noted that there had been some deletions. Further, there is no mention of the WW engine on our list of search engines. So, not wanting to step on any tender toes here, is there something taboo about this omission or should I boldly ... well, you know. --hydnjo talk 23:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Reading the deletion discussion, the main concerns were lack of sources and notability, so you would probably want to see if the search engine has enough sources to establish notability before writing a new article on it. Tra (Talk) 09:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

## What could I do, if I found a website, which uses my image without giving me a credit?

Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Supposing your image requires attribution, you can contact the webmaster or the owner of the site (or leave a comment if that is available where the image is) stating that the image is released under a license that requires attribution, point to the Wikipedia link where it is stored and the license explained, and request in good terms that you would like them to give you credit as the license stated. Try a couple of times, and if it still does not work, you will have to threaten with legal action. Unfortunately, Wikimedia does not enter into legal problems by itself, so nobody from here will do this for you.
I noticed that people usually accept if all they need to do is give you credit (when Gary Gygax passed away and many sites used the image from Wikipedia in their own articles, I went to the ones that did not credit the author, and fortunately all of them corrected the attribution in hours).
Note that if your image is dual licensed under GFDL and something else, or if it is in the public domain, or exclusively licensed under GFDL, you have no right to request attribution. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, all.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

## History merge needed?

Basilisk: The Kouga Ninja Scrolls needs a history merge to Basilisk (manga) but does Basilisk (Mutant) need one with Basilisk (comics)? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 00:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an issue better raised on the relevant talk pages. Dcoetzee 07:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

## Dealing with systematic erroneous corrections

I've noticed in several articles on several independent occasions a user (usually an anonymous user) "correcting" the word "provably" to "probably", which is of course incorrect and completely invalidates the accuracy of the statement; I'm sure if I searched the database I could come up with 20 or more examples of this. On another occasion I was forced to add HTML comments to an article to discourage users from erroneously "correcting" an explanation of polynomial addition mod 2 (the users didn't get the mod 2 part and assumed it ought to work like normal polynomial addition). I've also frequently seen changes to example source code that either made the code incorrect (introducing bugs) or even made the code not compile at all. Edit summaries usually provide vague justifications showing they either didn't understand the original code or hadn't really thought the change through.

My question here is, what can we do to combat erroneous corrections by an endless supply of well-intentioned users who misunderstand the article? It seems futile to simply point out the error and revert, as new users with the same misunderstanding will inevitably come along. There is the argument that these type of corrections are a signal of potentially confusing issues in the article and the right course of action is to clarify the article, but this may come at the expense of clear and concise presentation for the readers who aren't confused. What should we do about this? Dcoetzee 21:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What you have done - correct the error, attempt to explain it, move on. There's no systematic way to prevent erroneous edits in a project that is open to the masses. The hope is that when you make the correction you are not only improving wikipedia, you are educating some person somewhere in the world. It's like a twofer! (I took the liberty of breaking up your comment into two paragraphs, by the way - it's a pretty big chunk of text to keep in one 'graph) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

## Backlogs / Cleanup listings for WikiProjects

There has been a lot of discussion about the massive backlog of articles flagged for cleanup, and how to remedy this. My hope is that the topical WikiProjects could play a larger role in the cleanup process, if they can become aware of articles in need of attention (which is currently not that easy).

In an attempt to improve the situation, I offer to generate project-specific listings of articles flagged for cleanup. See further details here: User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings

I am currently looking for some WikiProjects that would be willing to give this new method a try. Volunteers are welcome.

Also, the per-project notability listings (announced last month) have recently been updated; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability/Listing by project. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

## Article being used for marketing?

In regards to Image:EdSim Clitoris anatomy.jpg, Image:Edsim Vascular.jpg, and Image:Edsim clitoral glans innervation.jpg; while the copyright issues involved have supposedly been resolved, am I the only one who is uncomfortable with the fact that the external links that are being put into articles in these images' captions are to video teasers for the poster's product? Then there's the fact that the poster, BioSim (talk · contribs), is in violation of the username policy. The editor's even put the promotional external links into the *infoboxes* of the Corpus cavernosum clitoridis and Clitoral crura articles. My own opinion is that neither the computer cartoons nor their screenshots add significantly to the articles. Actually, I think that the existing diagrams and photographs do the job better. Is it worth having Wikipedia being used for promotion just to have these images? As an aside, even though the marketing nature of this makes it likely that the poster does own the copyrights, isn't the usual procedure to have them either go through WP:OTRS or create an orphan page on their website with the licensing release and link to it from our image page? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 13:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The username policy point no longer applies, the editor requested and got a change of username [3]. I would like to thank LearnAnatomy (talk · contribs) for being so proactive. My thoughts about the external links remain the same, though, and I was hoping to get some feedback on whether my concerns are shared or if I'm way off base. Am I in the proper forum, or should I bring this to WP:AN? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of the username policy on Wikipedia. Therefore, I have changed my name to comply with it. I have also removed the links from the clitoral pages as requested. However, I’ve noticed a lot of pages on Wikipedia have an external links section which contributors have featured links to “promote” their websites. So I was curious why you flagged the pages I edited. Are there guidelines regarding the posting of links in the external links section? Consequently, I have removed the links as mentioned and look forward to any further suggestions that you may have to help me contribute to Wikipedia properly. --LearnAnatomy (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the guidelines are at WP:EL. -- Kesh (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the external links from the image captions, that's extremely understanding of you; most people put up more of an argument! :) I don't have an objection for the video links being placed in the "External links" section of the Clitoris article and perhaps a couple of the others. As for the image permissions, you might want to use the suggestions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online. The method I think works best is to create a page on your website with the images and a copyleft release, then you place a link to that page on the image pages here. Thanks again for being so very understanding! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 07:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone here aware of this? http://www.newwikipedia.info/ They compied wikipedia's all articles and put paid ads on the website and they use the wikipedia name. Is this legal? I suppose they shall not use the wikipedia name, because it is a trademark, right? --Timish ¤ Gül Bahçesi 11:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

They appear to give attribution to Wikipedia, as required under the GFDL, at the bottom of every page, so copying info and adding ads isn't a problem. Hundreds of sites do the same, e.g. Answers.com. However, "Wikipedia" is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation and I believe this counts as infringement. Anyone know who we report these things to nowadays? - BanyanTree 23:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't know. But you can consult Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. -- Taku (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

## Vancouver, British Columbia meet-up

 Vancouver Meetup Please come to an informal gathering of Vancouver Wikipedians, Monday, May 5 at 6:30 pm. It will be at Benny's Bagels, 2505 West Broadway. We'd love to see you there, and please invite others! Watch the Vancouver Meetup page for details. This box: view • talk • edit

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

## RecentChangesCamp 2008 -- May 9-11, Palo Alto, California

RecentChangesCamp is the world-wide unconference for wiki admins, developers, and users. The fourth RCC will take place from May 9-11 in Palo Alto, California. More information is available at the RecentChangesCamp 2008 organizational wiki. The 2-day event is free of charge for all participants and uses Open Space Technology to focus on peer-to-peer working sessions.

Any Wikipedian who hasn't heard of the event is heartily encouraged to check out the above Web site. Many Wikipedians, other Wikimedia project contributors, WMF board and staff, and developers will be there. Social, organizational, technical, and editorial issues for wikis will all be under discussion, and people involved in related fields, not directly wiki-oriented, will be there to talk, too.

I've been to all three previous events and I've really enjoyed each one. Open Space is a very wiki-esque method for event scheduling, and getting to talk with people who care as much about wikis and Wikipedia as I do is really great. --ESP (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

## Deletionpedia Patrol

Deletionpedia Patrol has been launched. It is an effort to find pages that should not have been deleted, and get them undeleted. All are welcome to join. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And it has been shut down; the editor who created it was a sock of a banned user. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

## Re: History merge needed?

Was my comment unseen? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 00:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're basically requesting assistance of an admin, though you didn't so state. WP:VPM is a bad place to do that. And you confused the situation by not seeming clear as to whether this assistance was needed in one case or two. It should be rather clearcut as to whether enough content was merged from one article to another to justify a history merge; it's inappropriate to ask an admin to decide (and you're better suited to decide than the typical editor reading your question; if you can't, then - yes - ask at the article talk pages.)
So, back to admin assistance (again, decide first if you need this in just one case, or in two cases, or work the cases separately) - I suggest posting at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. If that doesn't seem the right place, then try WP:VPA. And reword for clarity. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

## Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc.

I came across this newly created article Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc., which looks to be a propagandistic puff piece. The sources are either internal or other Wikipedia articles made into footnotes. If one does a Google new search, one finds many news articles which are, um, decidedly different in their emphases. I don't think this article is appropriate for Wikipedia in its present state, but am unsure about what to do about it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

All of the information in the article seems both factual and supported by citations. The Google news search you mention turns up a lot of court cases (I suspect fairly closely related), but only a couple of old news stories, none of which are really about the organization per se. But to answer your question: you can (a) add missing information, and see what happens - if someone objects to that, then you have lots of options with regard to content disagreements, and/or (b) you can remove information, either because you think it is minor/trivial or because you think it gives undue weight/balance (a violation of WP:NPOV). My strong recommendation is that you do (a); I didn't see anything that jumped out (like a listing of the board of directors) as being excessive fluff, so it's better (I think) to expand the article, for balance, then to try to shrink it, for balance. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

## Pseudoscience and alternative science

I have asked ArbCom to endorse discretionary sanctions in pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPseudoscience_and_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FMartinphi-ScienceApologist.. Vassyana (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

## Not the Wikipedia Weekly

New episodes are available. DurovaCharge! 00:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

## New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 72 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help.

P.S. - Sorry for posting this here, but I didn't want to post on everyone's individual talk page (I started to, but I felt like I was spamming everyone). Useight (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

## Duplicate images.

I wrote two simple tools to find duplicate images:

Have fun. multichill (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And what can be done about them? Where can I report? Nice work, anyway. -- Taku (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
They can be tagged with {{isd}} (if a copy exists here) or {{ncd}} (if a copy exists in the Commons). Algebraist 08:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
When using the Dupe finding tool press one of the two buttons on the right to tag one of the images with {{duplicate}}. When using Nowcommons all the dupes press the button on the right to tag the local image with {{ncd}}. multichill (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Dupe finding tool, Image:Kopje mbalabala.jpg and Image:Kopje mbalabala1.jpg are the same image, but clearly they "look" different to me. How does the tool work? Does it only look at file names? That might not be a good idea, since I know many image files share the similar name even though they are completely different images. -- Taku (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

See the file history of Image:Kopje mbalabala.jpg and click on current. Pretty strange. The tool uses sha1 hashes so the change of a collision is *very* slim. multichill (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

## Adding Spellcheck for Better Searches?

Is there any discussion of adding spellcheck to the search to suggest alternates to misspelled words like other internet search engines do? I find it frustrating to be trying to find an article on some obscure person with a tricky last name and have no results only to find that I left out a letter. I believe that most users could benefit from faster searches with this if it is possible. I have looked around and I do not see anything on this topic.--John7son (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This exists in MediaWiki, but is disabled due to server load: see WP:PEREN#Search should detect spelling errors. In any case the best way to search Wikipedia is normally to use Google. Algebraist 08:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Generally, if I've input a plausible typo, I'll create a redirect once I find the real spelling. EVula // talk // // 21:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly this was just brought up again at Village pump proposals, see here. Equazcion /C 21:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

## Visitor stats

How can I find out the number of visitors per day to a particular article - is this possible?

Thanks Mr Miles (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Go to http://stats.grok.se/ and type in the name of an article to get the number of visitors each day to that article. Tra (Talk) 14:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Beware though: if the viewer got to the page by a redirect from say another spelling, then it will not be counted, or rather it will be recorded under the alternate spelling, if I remember right.--Aspro (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

## Messages, messages everywhere

We've got a {{cmbox}} and {{imbox}} message at the top of the watchlist, we've got a Wikimania 2008 message at the top of every page, and I just noticed a message asking me to donate that disappeared when I logged in. Are we going message mad? They're everywhere! And they're breeding like rabbits. I don't nessecarily wnat them to be prohibited, just controlled and restricted to important messages. We receive no notification of interface changes outside of very select circles, yet we get a message telling us about a new template that's not even been finalised yet and some Africa-central event...... Dendodge.TalkHelp 11:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please define "important" for everybody. That way we'll know where to start.—RJH (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the watchlist message can be hidden, and you can only access a watchlist if you're logged in... SpencerT♦C 01:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
By important, I mean interface changes, policy changes etc. I just noticed another one telling me how to navigate, and that one looks really ugly on my school's IE6! I know you can hide the watchlist one - but that's not the only one visible when lgged in - I think we'd get more unregistered users liking the site if we don't constantly spam them with adverts. Maybe a little notice about donating, a 'How to navigate' link in the sidebar and messages about important changes instead of the stupin watchlist or Wikimania ones...... Dendodge..TalkHelp 10:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

## NEED BASIC DEFINITIONS/ASSISTANCE!

I have just joined Wikipedia and edited many articles to a fair quality already. Under my 'My contributions page', some of the articles I have edited say (top) next to them. What does this mean?

Can anyone tell me please? Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domiy (talkcontribs) 04:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That means that your edit is the most recent to the page (and so "top" of the history). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it means you have edited the unnamed top section of the article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Confusing Manifestation's definition is correct; as soon as someone else edits a page, the "(top)" text disappears. EVula // talk // // 05:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

## Unrelated quibbling

If we are going to start removing pictures from articles (as Equazcion just did), wouldnt it be better to bring up a consensus on the relevant talk page? Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 01:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That removal has nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. See the edit summary. Equazcion /C 01:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That's BS Equazcion - you clearly haven't actually read the article, including the second paragraph (which I did not write). Now you are edit warring to remove content because of censorship. --David Shankbone 01:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I love how people are so quick to cry censorship. What was I trying to censor, then? A guy handing another guy a towel? The photo wasn't explicit at all. You're right about one thing, I didn't notice the alternate definition of the word, so I won't remove the photo again. But ironically, if the photo had been more explicit, I wouldn't have seen the need to remove it. You should really assume good faith rather than calling my edit summary BS. I was not trying to censor anything, and my edit summary was completely honest. My ulterior motive is your own invention. Equazcion /C 01:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a little hard to assume good faith when you aren't going to do the courtesy of actually, you know, reading the article while stating in an edit summary it doesn't illustrate the text. --David Shankbone 01:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I've already admitted to making a mistake in that I missed the alternate definition. I'm not sure what else you're looking for. I'm sorry assuming good faith is so difficult for you, but that's really not my problem. Equazcion /C 01:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please all, lets just get along, lol ive messed up 854 times already, lets move on. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 01:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

## Removal of metric units at St. Stephen's Episcopal School (Austin, Texas)

Can people take a look at the removal of metric units at St. Stephen's Episcopal School (Austin, Texas).

I added a metric conversion in parentheses. An editor removed them with weird summary 'remove unsupported claim' plus a 'warning' on my talk page that I need to cite sources. I just assumed that the editor was just confusing the unit conversion with some other editor's copyedit. I note that the editor has less than 250 contributions, 19 of which relate to that article . I added the conversion again but it was reverted again with a similar summary and 'warning'.

Can anyone else shed any light on this? Lightmouse (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Two different editors have now attempted to add metric units to that article. Both editors have been reverted by the owner of the article. Does anybody else want to try? Lightmouse (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

## Longest article = Best article

The title of the section is basically the thesis of this paper:

Blumenstock, Joshua E. (April 2008). "Automatically Assessing the Quality of Wikipedia Articles" (pdf). School of Information, UC Berkeley. Retrieved 2008-05-09.

It says they were able to, with 97% accuracy, determine if a given article is featured article or not by only looking at the word count of the article. If it is right, then that means we'd better spend time lengthening articles than debating the quality of featured article candidates or revising them so that they can be featured. Very disturbing finding. But it is hard to believe, though, since I know of many long articles that are of poor quality because of lack of reliable sources or prose by non-English speakers, etc. -- Taku (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a gross oversimplification. This paper uses a sophisticated statistical model that incorporates length as one of many factors, and correlation does not imply causation. Dcoetzee 00:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so because the point is its simplicity. You can read [4] as well. He tested various methods, and his conclusion was that the word count of an article was the best (or close to best) indicator among ones he tested. -- Taku (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
My mistake - I was actually thinking of "Measuring Article Quality in Wikipedia: Models and Evaluation", which was published in a more respectable venue and describes a much more detailed and accurate model (using length as one of many factors). It should come as no surprise to any seasoned contributor that length is correlated with quality - more mature articles tend to be longer, but correlation does not imply causation and just adding random text to all our articles will not make them better. Dcoetzee 00:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Does the word count include references? If so, that's gotta be a huge factor, since our FAs are extremely well-referenced (much more so than any conventional academic writing).--Pharos (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The thesis of the paper is not LongestArticle = BestArticle -- it's LongArticle => FeaturedArticle which is a rather different thing. Mind you if there really is a 97% correlation, perhaps we should just set a bot on the job of proposing/approving featured articles and concentrate on defeaturing as a manual process. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I admit I used a little logic. First, we know it generally holds that FeaturedArticle => LongArticle. Since, according to Wikipedia, we also have: BestArticle = FeaturedArticle, it follows from the paper that LongestArticle = BestArticle. Anyway, Ross's point is exactly why I said "disturbing"; the finding means that the elaborate review process we have for FACs is, basically (i.e., 97%), equivalently to nothing but counting words!. About Pharos' question, I don't know the answer. The paper says "irregular content such as tables and metadata" are removed. To me, "reference" sounds like "metadata". Finally, to respond to Dcoetzee, of course, adding random text fails to increase the quality. But I think one interesting conclusion is that "wikipedia works" (if we don't know that already); it is hard to add text to an article without an overall increase in the quality. Additions to an article cannot survive if they don't increase the quality of the article at the same time, which, I guess, we might already know. Maybe the wiki model is more robust than we thought, we the wikipedia editors. Still I think this is very interesting. -- Taku (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is very interesting. And I was only half joking about the bot. These results definitely imply that it would be more efficient to give Featured Article status upon request, to any article over a certain length, unless someone is able to make a case on other grounds that it should not have been given, since we would only have to work on the 3% which need de-Featuring. Sort of innocent until proven guilty for articles. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

## Some Comments to be heard

I do not want to sound rude, but I have some opinions to share with Wikipedia itself. I don't want to start any war or anything. I don't want to get banned I just want to express some concerns that I have. In my opinion I think Wikipedia is edited by hypocrites.

I do not like some of the policies that are around. In Wikicommons you are suppose to give a picture credit for the original author (for example a picture like Mona Lisa and we said the author was Me that would be incorrect because it was painted by Leonardo Da Vinci.) But in anime articles though, in Wikipedia, they say the romanticized English name is the official and the correct name, but that isn't true. The English didn't create the anime or manga you should leave the names the way the original author had attended them, not the English licensed and the way the English intended them.(I know its an English Wikipedia, but you're not giving credit to the write author.) It goes back to the Mona Lisa you are saying the English created the names when they didn't.

In certain articles such as the buttocks article they are using photoshopped images of a womans butt and a mans butt. Those aren't what butts look like. And on the discussion page they say that the womans hair is disgusting and it wouldn't look right. People are people they do have hair. Its all right to show a hairy butt of zebra all natural, but not a humans butt we have to photo shop those images. They have normal human private parts such as the vagina and the penis, but a butt isn't okay.

This one is all cleared up, but it still makes a point another valid point. Recently in the human feces article people were saying a picture of human poo was gross and made them sick. That is why they removed the first image. But in the animal feces article it showed a nice picture of horse crap piled up high. Its okay to show animals poo, but not human poo. This has been cleared up now with many complaints of there not being a picture, but still its kinda hypocritical to have pictures of animals poo and not humans poo.

Well I hope you heard this and read this. I hope you understand my opinions and my concerns. I don't want to disrespect anyone. I just want people to realize the silliness going on and the problems that people might see.

Thank You

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

I agree that the article on human feces ought to display a photograph of human feces. It's clearly on-topic and appropriate in that particular article.
As for using Romanized names, it's conventional to use standardized or official English-language versions of names on English Wikipedia, because that's the name our readers know these subjects by; it's not an issue of credit but of familiarity. The same applies to many world cities. We still list the native name as well. Dcoetzee 17:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think the native name should be the official name not the romanticized no matter the fact that this is English Wikipedia. Since I watch anime in the Japanese format the native names are correct. But other then that at least thank you for replying to this.

But what about the photo bucket pictures of the human buttocks? You never gave me an answer on that one. Cardinal Raven (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

I felt free to give my opinion on the human feces talk page, I think removing the picture would be a ridiculous act if it is for such reasons that "we all know what it looks like". I will most likely be participating in discussions that take place there. Regards, 13:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The picture of human feces is unnecessary and inappropriate People should be able to read about it with out seeing a picture. The least that can be done is to put the picture on a separete page or hidden in a drop down menu fashion. The picture of animal feces is less repulsive and shown in manure form. We don't have photos of people having oral sex or penile vaginal intercourse but we have drawings instead. We do have photos of animals having sex though. Do you want to see pictures on wikipedia of a man jackhammering his penis into a woman's vagina? We don't have photographs of beastiality but we to have drawings of it. Do you want to see pictures that are legal in some states and countries but not others on wikipedia? We'd have to move wikipedia's servers from florida to texas or california if pictures like that on here. Where do we draw the line? I think it is only a matter of time before someone argues for the inclusion of picture of virtual child porn on here (after all the supreme court says it is legal). Maybe a non photographic picture of human feces would suffice. --209.104.244.164 (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And I disagree with you 209. We have picture of real men's penis have you read the article. We have real pictures of woman's vagina. I also disagree because its silly to say that an animal shit is not as repulsive as human shit. They are bough just as repulsive, but at the same time there are necessary.71.142.208.226 (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

I see no evidence that either photo in buttocks has been modified beyond perhaps removing the background. In any case, it's irrelevant until and unless someone can produce a better picture. Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The womans butt is normal now. But I have a question have you looked at the man's buttock in that article? It doesn't look real. Its textured smooth and it looks like a 3D image or something. Its not real. I can tell its not real.71.142.208.226 (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

## Encyclopedia Dramatica

Hi! I'm just curious as to why Wikipedia seems hell-bent for leather on sanitizing itself completely of any reference whatsoever to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Why are the articles always deleted? Where can I go to learn about the whole controversy between Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica in an objective way? Normally I'd go to Wikipedia first, to find a fair and balanced article, but it seems that Wikipedia itself is averse to even mentioning this issue! I don't really have an opinion either way, but I find it distressing that I can't really find any information about it, except on Encyclopedia Dramatica itself. ATD (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ED has failed multiple attempts at recreation, usually because of lack of notability, though this may change at some time in the future. The "controversy" between WP and ED is not likely to be notable soon as most of it would probably be self-referenced. Mr.Z-man 05:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Hut 8.5 06:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I swear, I don't know what will happen when we get enough sources for notability to be clearly established. One entire piece in a major source entirely devoted to ED came out just today. People had better get used to the probability that there will be an article on this at some point. -- 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
When Encyclopedia Dramatica is notable, we'll have an article about it. I don't think anyone has a problem with that or needs to "get used to" the idea. But we don't base decisions on someone's predictions of future notability; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And we're not a newspaper, and we don't care if some other source "scoops" us. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I know of several people who say "there will never be an article on ED". I don't see the relevance of the rest of your post. -- 18:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Your crystal ball says it will notable in the near future and we should get used to it. I say that becomes notable we'll need an article about it, and I think the Wikipedian community will agree with that. If your "several people..." are saying their crystal ball says it will never be notable, because if so it would indeed follow that we'll never have an article about it. If these people are saying that we will never have an article about it even if it becomes notable, then they're wrong and the Wikipedian community will overrule them. But none of this is worth discussing until Encyclopedia Dramatica does become notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsolicited opinion: Speaking as somebody who has never heard of it before - and who, after a short perusal, finds it tedious and predictable (oooooh, it makes fun of things and uses bad words! how original!) I nonetheless think it is notable enough to deserve a wikipedia article. It appears to have at least as much online presence as skads of other online sites that are topics of articles. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem I believe, is coverage in reliable source Nil Einne (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem isn't really reliable sources, for that it has plenty. The problem is significant coverage. IIRC, the draft in the last DRV had more sources than sentences, mainly because most of the references couldn't source more than a single sentence, if that. Mr.Z-man 20:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, I think it's a personal thing. At this point, there's far than enough more sources available to write an article about ED than there are a lot of other things we have articles on. ED's articles, while satirical in nature, illustrate a number of the problems that Wikipedia has in its policies, its implementations of those policies, and its users. (The articles on JzG and Sceptre are particularly ... interesting). While I always assume good faith, there are some things you just can't ignore. Celarnor Talk to me 09:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

## how to get added to wikipedia?

hi i have a site called myonitlive and i was wondering how to get it included in wikipedia?

it is a site for unsigned bands, and gets about 500,000 to 1 million hits a month and growing:)

please tell me what i have to do to be included in wikipedia..

thanks so so much joe

joe@myonit.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myonitlive (talkcontribs) 12:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. Sites will only get added, if they add significant information to an existing article. Even then, many of these are subsequently culled for the reason that Wikipedia is not a link farm. Being a directory of bands is not a reason. Sorry to disappoint. ClemRutter (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Check out the Open Directory Project— this is a collection of links. I often clean out external links and replace them with a single ODP link using the {{dmoz}} template. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

## Porn for prudes

Chelsea Schilling, Is Wikipedia wicked porn?, WorldNetDaily, May 6, 2008 is a perfect example of what my late friend Sharma Oliver used to call "porn for prudes": "Oh, tut tut, isn't that salacious! Look here, isn't that awful! And here!"

God forbid that the article penis should show a penis. Or that an encyclopedia should attempt to cover pornography. Or that a list of sex positions contains illustrations (if anyone can get off on that particular set of images, better not let them near an art gallery. Or an anatomy textbook). She also seems particularly outraged that we are not outraged by homosexuality. - Jmabel | Talk 18:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, but what exactly is encyclopedic about a list of human sexual positions? There are many extraneous articles in Wikipedia; and even more extraneous multimedia. The lack of centralized editing is both Wikipedia's strength and weakness. Let's not pretend that Wikipedia is perfect. DeeKenn (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Why would that not be encyclopedic? It's the subject of some very, very old books. That said, anyone who takes WorldNetDaily seriously is pretty far gone anyway. That group is rather distant from reality. -- Kesh (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Crimeny, the book itself is noteworthy for its literary value, not its age. So, in your case, an article completely unrelated to it (as I'm sure you know the Kama Sutra is not primarily about sexual positions) is without basis. It is these uncontrollable and nonsensical tangents that retard Wikipedia's academic acceptance.
As to what is encyclopedic? I'll put a twist on Potter Stewart's line: "I don't know what is encyclopedic, but I know what isn't." DeeKenn (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
"Crimeny"? Who uses that word anymore? ;) In case you can't tell, my comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek.
That said, a pure list probably isn't encyclopedic, but I don't see why (an) article(s) about commonly noted sexual positions wouldn't be. As for "I'll know it when I see it," I've never found that to be a particularly useful measure. -- Kesh (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is not encyclopedic about a list of sexual positions? It's discussed in encyclopedias about sex and is basic material about one of the most important human acts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen the content of commons:Category:Peter Klashorst? You sure prudes only?Geni 23:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Cum splattered bums; how could they be encyclopedic? Do we have an article devoted to where ejaculation may land after intercourse? DeeKenn (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Pearl necklace (sexuality), for one. Powers T 14:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
A good example of a nonsense article. A dictionary should track and catalog slang, not an encyclopedia. 14:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeKenn (talkcontribs)
I tend to agree, but most of my efforts to have dictionary-ish articles deleted fail. Powers T 14:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Added to Wikipedia:Press coverage. Bovlb (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few subjects that get special treatment on Wikipedia. If you try to remove something sexual, people scream censorship, even though this particular thing might not be encyclopedic. A list of sexual positions is one of those things, in my opinion, and the fact that Kama Sutra is notable is completely irrelevant. If the "list of sexual positions" article had nothing to do with sex, I think it would already be gone. Equazcion /C 00:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Here we go again. Anyone want to take bets on how long it takes for someone to yell "not censored not censored not censored not censored..." The problem is that the lack of finesse to the four-word policy "Wikipedia is not censored" may prevent us from taking steps to preserve the "encyclopedic" nature of Wikipedia. The fact is, Wikipedia is censored -- we edit out unsupported assertions, personal attacks, trivial or non-notable content and lots of other stuff we don't feel appropriate for the encyclopedia. We need a policy along the lines of "No topic is 'too sensitive' for Wikipedia, but all material must be presented in a manner appropriate for an encyclopedia." That means anatomy-textbook-type pictures of human breasts are OK, but hardcore pornography isn't.
Why should we bother? Well, I don't want to look at a picture of men engaged in anal sex, if, as the WND article describes, I visit the fluffer article. I may hear the word "fluffer" somewhere and log on to Wikipedia to find out what it is. What if I'm at work or school and innocently visit that page? Don't laugh -- I was reading the Oscar Wilde article at work and clicked on buggery, since I didn't know what the term referred to (it's not commonly used in the US). I was shocked to be redirected to the page on anal sex. Fortunately, there was no picture on the top of the page, or I may have wound up fired! Even if I know what a fluffer is, I still should be able to visit the page without seeing hardcore gay porn. I'm sorry if this makes me a bigot, but gay sex makes me sick -- heck, I don't want to see hardcore hetero sex, either. I should be able to read encyclopedic content about the pornography industry without actually seeing porn.
I have on several occasions recommended a partial solution to this issue -- require that pages with "not safe for work" content be labeled at the top (similar to a "spoiler warning"); that NSFW content be placed "below the fold" on landscape monitors; and that users be given the opportunity to click and view the page without the NSFW content. In addition, editors should be cautioned to make sure the NSFW content is really necessary. This is not censorship; this is just saving people from getting shocked sick, fired or suspended from school. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
An NSFW is a useless distinction for students/younger people. Something a little more clear would be better: This topic may be too graphic OR This topic contains elements of an adult nature and may be offensive OR may be inappropriate for minors. Straight-forward, no censorship; it seems like common sense. DeeKenn (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Should this discussion be at the Policy page? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia takes place in an alternate universe, where work doesn't actually exist. I mean, don't get me wrong, I like it. But it does tend to have a kind of socialist/hippy/rose-tinted-shades-view of the world. It's a new political agenda, where adults are completely open and honest with each other and even children about sex, people aren't uncomfortable with nudity, even in professional environments, etc. etc. It's a nice thought but not realistically compatible with the current world. I'll enjoy it til it dies though, which might have to happen eventually. Equazcion /C 00:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Socialist, thats another label to add to my list, its a first lol. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 00:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but the word "fluffer" makes a great case for this, but almost ALL of our objectionable content is found on articles where nobody at work who is concerned should be visiting them - such as hardcore pornography or penis. Additionally, most work filters are going to pick up on key terms, not images. So, regardless of whether you are at school or work and curious about "Fluffer" you will be at risk photo or no photo. But most of Mwalcoff's arguments I disagree with - but since it is mostly my photography on the pornography articles, that is to be expected. --David Shankbone 00:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• (ec)Yeah, I think we've all seen this argument before. But really, this isn't just any encyclopedia. At the office, if you open up a book, it's pretty hard to end up on the penis page unless that was the reason you opened the book in the first place. Wikipedia is website where half the words in every article are links, and it's made for people to browse around randomly. I remember one specific time when I accidentally clicked on the link for analingus, and was treated to a particularly, shall we say explicit photo. The argument that "if you don't want to see porn, don't search for things related to it" doesn't work quite as well online, even within this site alone. It's just too easy to find even when you're not actually looking for it. Again I'm not exactly complaining, just stating once again an incompatibility of Wikipedia with the real world. Equazcion /C 01:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• How about "if you don't want to see porn, don't use Wikipedia"? Powers T 13:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think that sentiment is what we're aiming for. For one thing, if that were a guiding principle here, we would be a strictly over-18 site, but we're not. Equazcion /C 13:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Well certainly "Be very very careful using Wikipedia if you don't want to see porn," then? That's basically what the disclaimer says, isn't it? Powers T 13:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• What about "Don't go to an article if you don't want to see the subject of the article"? Expect to see a Zebra at Zebra. Expect to see hats at hat. Expect to see examples of pornography at pornography.... --David Shankbone 14:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Uh, that's been addressed a couple of times -- people sometimes visit articles at which they don't know what to expect, either because the word is unfamiliar (e.g., fluffer) or because a piped link or redirect was misleading. Powers T 14:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• What about rape, David? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Don't be stupid - nobody has advocated graphic depictions of illegal acts, such as rape and murder. You are only making yourself sound extreme by asking such bone-headed questions. --David Shankbone 01:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• I was only pointing out the inherent absurdity in your idea that one should not go to an article without seeing the subject matter in image form. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
(Xxec) As an avid reader, which nowadays makes me "non-visually-literate", I would prefer to investigate any particular topic of choice, where the wording has been extensively gone over and debated, without being confronted with the images that a relatively smaller number of contributors have decided are necessary to describe the subject. Wording can be extensively debated, images are much more subject to the not-censored argument and the outlook of some few people. Franamax (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The only real solution there is to browse with images turned off in your browser Preferences. -- Kesh (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• One should never assume that a reader is expecting NSFW content. As I described above, a reader could very easily happen across an article like fluffer unaware of its meaning. And even if the reader is aware what the term means, he still might not be expecting NSFW images, especially above the fold. It's a cop out to say that people just shouldn't visit articles like penis or hardcore pornography at work or school. What if I'm in a church group or the PTA and am researching pornography to report on its dangers or lack thereof? I should be able to get unbiased, "encyclopedic," scientific information on pornography without actually seeing it. NSFW content, like all Wikipedia content, should only be included if it makes a meaningful addition to the article. If NSFW content has to be there, the reader should be warned and given an easy way to see the page without it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• What about our readers from say Saudi Arabia? Should we provide a warning for all images showing the female face because these are NSFW images? I agree we should only put images when they add something to the article, but this isn't censorship. I disagree that we should try and add warnings by letting editors decide when some image may be NSFW because ultimately, it's going to mean 90% of our images are probably NSFW because it's going to be NSFW somewhere. And really, if you are researching pornography, I would say it's ridiculous to not expect to see some pornography by accident during your research or it will be incredible poor research Nil Einne (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Edit: In case anyone is going to argue that wikipedia is already blocked in SA, which it probably is, then I should point out that it was only an example and perhaps it's blocked because we don't provide sufficient warning/tagging to make it easy for them to block NSFSA content like what I've already mentioned and articles on Human rights in Saudi Arabia. Heck isn't it more important that Saudi Arabians (a large country with 27 million people) et al are at least able to use some of our content then the poor long suffering PTA researcher 20:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• The only way to make such disclaimers remotely effective would be to put them on the links themselves. By the time you get to the article, its too late, your browser has already loaded all the images and text. If you have a high-resolution monitor, you would probably need a massive disclaimer (something like this) to avoid seeing any of the images without having to scroll down. The pointless nature of them is one of the reasons that we don't currently use disclaimers in articles. Mr.Z-man 15:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Couldn't disagree with you more. Anyone who read the relevant content before using the site and performed due diligence would know that we have a disclaimer already, and it covers everything in the encyclopedia so we don't need individual disclaimers. The content of this is available at Wikipedia:Content Disclaimer. Celarnor Talk to me 09:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Images are highly effective at conveying information about these topics - including information that is difficult to convey in words such as colors, shape, and relative position and orientation - and therefore deserve inclusion. We can't possibly decide which images ought to be "hidden" without taking up the position of some moral standard specific to a particular location - even the idea of what's "NSFW" is the result of corporations converging on enforcement of some particular local moral standard (generally to avoid offending sensitive employees or creating negative PR). Images that are not useful or informative should be removed; images that offend certain people or groups should not be, solely for that reason. Dcoetzee 05:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
And here comes the reductio ad absurdum argument again. Let me turn the argument around: Is there anything you wouldn't allow on Wikipedia? Images of bestiality (legal in Holland, or so I've heard)? Gruesome pictures of car-crash victims with a guy's eyeball hanging out? Japanese kiddie porn? Yes, any line we draw will be somewhat arbitrary, but no solution is perfect. As far as I can tell, the lone negative to adopting a policy on NSFW content is that the criteria will be contentious. On the other hand, there are several negatives to not adopting an policy on NSFW content and pornography:
• People getting fired from work
• People getting suspended from school
• People unexpectedly being confronted with images (such as gay sex pictures) that make them sick
• People abandoning Wikipedia (the inevitable result of the belief that "If you don't want to see porn, don't use Wikipedia")
• People feeling unable to use Wikipedia at work or school -- which is where Wikipedia is most useful
• Wikipedia falling subject to the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, the law governing pornographic media. Jimbo Wales has deleted at least one pornographic image on Wikipedia because it would trigger the law's record-keeping requirements. (see WP:Pornography)
• Wikipedia getting dragged in front of Congressional or legislative hearings to be lambasted for having porn on a site widely used by kids
• Wikimedia Foundation having to use all of its money on legal defense instead of keeping the sites running smoothly
• Wikipedia being forced to become an "adults-only" site
As far as I'm concerned, the NSFW issue is the closest thing Wikipedia has to an existential threat. You might laugh at those right-wing groups making a fuss over porn in Wikipedia, but those groups have a lot of sway with certain politicians. People need to drop their inflexibility and compromise to save Wikipedia from a legal nightmare. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no "legal nightmare". Your examples went from reasonable to way off in left-field rather quickly. I'm sure you can imagine all sorts of nightmares, but there's really no precedent for assuming that the presence of images some people find objectionable* are going to kill Wikipedia. (*And as pointed above, "objectionable" is going to vary from region to region, not to mention person to person.) -- Kesh (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this issue is going to kill Wikipedia. I have faith that the Wikipedia users who have created this wonderful site will be able to work something out. I do think it's the biggest threat Wikipedia faces at the moment, because knowing American politics, I think Wikipedia will serve as a perfect target for vote-hungry politicians going into election season. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a thought, but if the site is brought up in Congressional hearings, couldn't we just ask the Congressmen themselves why they didn't just go fix it. I mean, nothing's stopping them. Like I said, just a thought. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
In short, no, there is nothing I consider inappropriate for Wikipedia, as long as it is informative, the production of the content does not exploit or harm any person or animal, and the image does not clearly violate the laws of the jurisdictions in which the servers are operated. If an outside source raises legitimate legal questions to our office team, they will take appropriate action. Meanwhile, it's inappropriate for us to attempt to predict, with our limited legal knowledge, what content will cause legal problems. Dcoetzee 00:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to adopt a precautionary principle on legal matters, just as we do with copyright; libel; and medical and legal questions on the reference desks. We are extraordinary cautious about copyright, and for good reason. It doesn't make sense to have an "anything goes" attitude toward pornography when we have very different attitudes toward several other forms of potentially problematic content. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The difference with pornography is that it's firmly attached to local moral standards, and there isn't nearly enough consistency between regions (or time periods) for an international project to find effective common ground. And our attitude towards copyright and libel is anything but paranoid; if you upload an image with a PD-self tag, it's likely to stick around as long as no one has a strong reason to believe you didn't create it yourself. Likewise you could add a libellous claim with an invented source, and it would take people a while to notice. At the end of the day, we trust our editors to make good editing decisions, and let the office deal reactively with any serious fallout. Dcoetzee 08:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a solution begging for a problem. If you're afraid that your workplace is so hostile that they're going to fire you over the content of a Wikipedia article, then you have a few possible outcomes, all of which allow Wikipedia to maintain being an uncensored encyclopedia and allow you to not fail at your life/job. These are all great solutions and don't require Wikipedia to shoot itself in the foot for those offended by the human body's reproductive functionality. Celarnor Talk to me 09:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

a) Don't browse Wikipedia at work. You're probably there to do work anyway. Wikipedia has a content disclaimer that specifically says that Wikipedia isn't censored, so wherever you go, you run the risk of encountering inappropriate content. If you choose to take that risk anyway and chug along reading fluffer and the like, that's your problem, and if something happens, its your fault. Next time, RTFM. Celarnor Talk to me 09:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

b) Search sites that are censored to find out what the topic is about before going to Wikipedia, to scope out any potential sexual meanings that you hadn't anticipated before. Google exists and has an option to censor images. Use it. Celarnor Talk to me 09:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

c) If you're concerned about images and are too lazy to do either of the above, you can set your browser to ignore images from the Wikipedia domain, or you can use text-based browser like Lynx that doesn't show images. Celarnor Talk to me 09:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly with the view that, "If you don't want to look at porn, don't use Wikipedia (or view it text-only)." I find that to be absurd. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a porn site. It is selfish and arrogant, I believe, for the millions of people who want to use Wikipedia without seeing porn to have to yield because the tiny portion of editors uploading NSFW content don't want to take simple, non-censorious precautions to prevent people from seeing things they don't want to see, just as we use do for plot spoilers, or used to do for plot spoilers and still should do for plot spoilers. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I find the notion absurd that a non-censored encyclopedia should censor itself for those offended by pornography. That is a burden the user should take. Another solution could involve Category:Bad images. An enterprising user could write and use a script on their account that would read the categories of the images involved, and not load any with that category. These "steps" you think of already exist. If you don't want to see it, there are lots of things that users can do / could be doing to censor the pages as they're downloaded onto their computer. Celarnor Talk to me 03:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Give me a break. What percentage of people out there do you think know how to write scripts? One in a hundred? The burden should be on the editors to make Wikipedia friendly to the users. If you find it "absurd" that Wikipedia should have no pornography, you should write to all of the other encyclopedias that have ever been written, since as far as I know, none of them include pornography. (Except, of course, the Encyclopedia of Pornography) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I am commenting on this thread- solely to support Celarnor arguments, and try to assist him in explaining to Mwalcoff that while his deeply felt POVs are respected- they should not be forced on users in different cultures with less restrictive mores. It is time to move on. The thread started with an article on internet new sheet that looks to me to be written by a pressure group. Anything with he title 'The World thingymajig' flags up something written by two men and their dog with a localised focus. ClemRutter (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
They don't have to write scripts. They can take one of the other avenues presented, which are all perfectly doable by anyone. I was just making the suggestion that out of the (apparently) large number of people who find pornography offensive, there has to be a few that know PHP and will understand the MediaWiki documentation. One of them could write said script. Hell, I'll help them write it if it'll help keep the "Lets censor Wikipedia" arguments out of here. Celarnor Talk to me 20:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is already friendly to users. We provide users with all the information we have. Doing the opposite, providing only some of the information we have, is unfriendly. To do that would be to impose the mores and morals of a smaller group on everyone. How they deal with the information given to the users is up to them, not up to us. If they don't want to take the effort to fork Wikipedia for their group, there are other avenues that they can take that don't ruin the encyclopedia for the rest of the users. Celarnor Talk to me 20:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Even in providing information on how to script for the environment, Wikipedia is friendly to the users. The database (MySQL), the scripting environment (PHP), and the software itself MediaWiki are all entirely open and free to anybody to use. Anyone can open them up to see how they work. Anyone can "apt-get install mysql-server-5.0 apache2 php php-mysql", install mediawiki, and get going on said script, completely free of charge. Celarnor Talk to me 20:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I stand with Celarnor here as well. What often gets lost on this whole discussion is that there are images depicting the making of pornography and examples of pornography on the pornography pages. The image at the top of Pornographic film is not also found on the article about Love. The argument that we need to save all the PTA parents and children who are coming to Wikipedia to learn about pornography the problems of seeing exactly what it is they are seeking to learn about, makes no sense. If they are here to learn about pornography, let's educate them. Nobody is putting the image found on Fluffer into the Webkinz article, or any other mainstream article. Lastly, using arguments that Funk & Wagnalls or Encyclopedia Brittanica were never as comprehensive as Wikipedia can be shown to be the same reasons why those institutions have failed or are failing. --David Shankbone 20:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not like we have a "Teh free pr0nz" category that people can browse and fap to. We have examples of pornography on pornography pages, just like we have examples of equations on equations, and have examples of vegetables on vegetables. This is exactly the function of an encyclopedia. Should we censor Wikipedia for people that are offended by equations and vegetables? Celarnor Talk to me 21:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
And once again, the pro-pornography argument reverts to reductio ad absurdum. Look, we all have lines that we draw somewhere. I'm sure, or at least I hope, you don't want to see snuff porn, beastiality or gang rape on Wikipedia. The difference between pornography and vegetables is that there are no legal implications of displaying vegetables, no one gets fired for looking at vegetables and nobody in the real world has an aversion to looking at vegetables. I think that considering the legal and political implications of having pornography on Wikipedia, the cost of having porn outweighs the benefits by orders of magnitude. You may forget that while Wikipedia may be virtual, we all live in the real world of judges, prosecutors and zealous politicians. Why not just link to porn sites for a particular type of porn. For example, if we have an article on gay porn, we can link to a top gay porn site (with a NSFW warning) rather than actually include a picture here. That way, we don't wind up in the legal quandary of being a porn site, and people who want to see the porn can still do so. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You still don't quite seem to get it. If you're going to pretend this is a legal problem. you also seriously need to review relevant case law (particularly Miller v. California, but pay attention to the later state discussions as well) or if you aren't able to read the abstracts, ask someone who can, because you're simply wrong there. The idea behind classifying something like you're thinking is basically "One with intent to distribute pornographic material for the purpose of arousing the viewer, lacking scientific value in the work as a whole". That's not what Wikipedia is, has been, or ever will be, unless some really weird things happen here. Like a textbook for a high school health class, we have examples. We don't have porn. We don't have anything here presented with the purpose of arousing our viewers. We have pictures of vaginas for Vagina. We have pictures of penises for Penis. We have a video of ejaculation at Ejaculation. We have pictures of sexual positions at Missionary position. Celarnor Talk to me 03:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
A picture of anal sex isn't porn? A picture of ejaculation onto buttocks isn't porn? Look, I'm not a lawyer, but I know my politics, and I can tell you that a website widely used by kids that includes pornography is an extremely inviting target for a politician seeking to make a name for himself as a "friend to parents." Or a DA who hopes to get elected judge someday. And, as I explained above, there are plenty of reasons other than the potential legal liability why we should take precautions regarding porn and NSFW content. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to ask you again to review the relevant case law. To answer your question, no. A picture of anal sex is not porn in the context of a collection of academic articles about anal sex. It is an illustration. Of course, that definition is open to challenging and all the way back to the Supreme Court (again), but that's true of a great many things that we do here. If something happens or looks like it will happen that would legally force some kind of censorship, then an OFFICE action would be taken. Celarnor Talk to me 03:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

### Arbitrary "Oh no, Teh Pr0nz!" break

(Outdent, moved out of thread for readability and coherence.)There are two issues here. One is with pornography -- picture of people engaged in sexual activity. A website that has porn is subject to certain legal obligations in the United States. It would be dangerous for Wikipedia to fall into that category. That's why Jimbo Wales, who knows a thing or two about pornographic web pages, has deleted pornographic pictures in the past. The other issue is with non-pornographic NSFW content, like the naked picture of a man at man. I have nothing against such material provided that it's appropriate for the article. But because most people out there -- who are used to Britannica and World Book -- don't expect to see pictures of naked people or other NSFW content in their encyclopedia, we should not shock them by having NSFW content without warning. IMO, we should warn people about NSFW content and give them the opportunity to a page, such as man, without it. To say, "We've got a content disclaimer, so that covers it" is a cop out. Wikipedia exists to serve its readers, and we're not doing that if we're refusing to take simple precautions to improve their user experience and keep them from getting in trouble. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

First, about your legal obligations, you are both incorrect and correct. You're correct about regulations on pornographic websites (US Section 18, Part 1, Section 110 would be the relevant material, available here.) Again, before pulling out the legal card, please review relevant case law, particularly Miller v. California and the assorted state quibbles. An academic work is generally not subject to such things. Miller v. California gives that the work "lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors." Later cases (although none have reached SCOTUS) have upheld time and again that academic works aren't pornographic, so there isn't much of a threat there. If there was, OFFICE action would be taken. Celarnor Talk to me 02:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Also... again, we DO warn people about NSFW content. See Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, which contains the following:
It's pretty clear. Celarnor Talk to me 02:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
To rely on the content disclaimer alone and take no further precautions regarding porn and NSFW content is to say, "If you don't want to use porn, don't use Wikipedia at all." I think that's a tremendously selfish and irresponsible attitude, and if it becomes the predominant attitude on Wikipedia, it's only a matter of time before opportunistic politicians make Wikipedia their next target -- just as they've gone after violent video games, "indecent" TV and profane rap music. You and the tiny minority of Wikipedians who feel compelled to upload pornographic content are playing a very dangerous game that could jeopardize the entire project. All because you refuse to compromise at all and take extremely reasonable and easy-to-implement precautions. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
That already is the predominant view on Wikipedia. See NOT#CENSORED, which requires massive support from the community to make policy. I'm not a tiny majority. It's actually a supermajority in the case of official policy, upwards of 70% or 80%, depending on when it was made official. It has been this way for, um, ever. And for the record, I haven't uploaded any sexual content. I mostly sit here and help clear up things like this. There's nothing we can do about the politicians of which you speak. To the really bad ones, it doesn't matter whether we have individual disclaimers or not, they'll still go after Wikipedia for whatever they can find. In that case, whether we censor explicit material or not is the least of our problems. For everyone else, who actually has any idea about the legal requirements involved, a content disclaimer does everything needed. For those users who don't want to see pictures of anal sex (but are looking at Anal sex for some reason), then they can disable images somehow. I don't see how that doesn't solve the problem. Celarnor Talk to me 03:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)\
There is something very easy we can do to head off the politicians -- get rid of the hardcore pornography and replace the images with links to appropriate porn sites elsewhere on the Web. This would take nothing away from the encyclopedia, since people would still be able to see the porn if they wanted to, and it would tell the concerned citizens out there that we're being responsible. As for non-pornographic NSFW content, we can allow them to disable the NSFW images, as you suggest, with a simple technological workaround -- "This page contains an image of {{1}}; to see the page without the image, click here." Everyone happy.
Incidentally, the original policy was "Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of minors." As I remember, that meant "indecent" material like body parts was OK. After the Muhammad cartoons controversy, the policy was shortened to its first four words. This was silly, because Wikipedia clearly is censored for many things, including accuracy, notability, libel, etc. But when that change was made, I don't believe it was to be a signal that anything goes, including hardcore porn. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Even if you don't think NOT#CENSORED applies, this is a proposal that comes up quite often, and always gets shot down with the reasons that "Wikipedia isn't censored" and "No disclaimers in articles per the No disclaimers in articles guideline. Celarnor Talk to me 03:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a better suggestion so that people don't get into trouble at work: don't do your pornography research on-the-job! How about that common-sense idea? --David Shankbone 02:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This was addressed above, David. There are plenty of people out there who want to research pornography without seeing it, and there are many situations in which someone may inadvertently wind up at a page with an NSFW or pornographic image. The burden for making Wikipedia reader-friendly should fall on the editors, not on the readers. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious we need more porn on here, not less. Like the articles I had written on various porn starlets were speedy deleted -- those were good f*n articles, man!! JeanLatore (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would not be too difficult for someone to create a "shell" site, allowing one to read or even edit Wikipedia articles, with the only change that images are default-disabled for articles in sexuality categories. Such a shell was created for http://wikidashboard.parc.com/ (for a quite different purpose).--Pharos (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

## 90.xxx.xxx.xxx vandal for Edna Parker

I would like to know about this 90.xxx.xxx.xxx. vandal for Edna Parker who removes an important HTML comment asking not to change the image from 200 to 300 pixels. Any easy way to find out. Using their talk page can't do because the IP address can change. Georgia guy (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

When there is a repeated edit / revert war going on, the first recommended step is to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. I see nothing about this at all on the talk page. Why not create a short talk page topic explaining why this is an issue (i.e. why the image must be 200 pixels), and inviting anyone with questions or comments to post a reply on that page, instead of making the changes again. The next time you do a revert, use the edit summary to tell the other editor to go to the talk page for discussion. You may not get anywhere with this, but it doesn't hurt to try. It could be that the other person is also frustrated at being unable to communicate, and will take up the offer. BTW, I notice this person is not actually changing the picture size, just removing the comment asking for it to not be changed. A recent edit summary from this person asks what authority you (or whoever) have to insert the comment. It sounds to me like this person does have a question about the process, which you can answer. Also, I would not classify this person as a vandal. He or she seems to think they are doing something constructive, and it's others who are acting improperly.--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Study the article's history for detail on this. Georgia guy (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

## Once shunned by academics, Wikipedia now a teaching tool

FYI. Bstone (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is somewhat misleading. Student editing experiments for classes have been going on since the dawn of Wikipedia. This article advances the viewpoint that the overall opinion of Wikipedia in academia is improving, which whether true or not is a claim it fails to support adequately. Dcoetzee 00:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

## Conservative blogs picking up porn story

It looks like conservative blogs are picking up on the porn story - I think there is a Concerned Women for America hit piece going around:

This hysteria is a little silly. --David Shankbone 16:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nyet christian newswire. Oh and morality in the media or whatever are avialible for interviews. Might almost be worth pokeing someone over at wikinews.Geni 16:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I've occasionally run across a wikipedia article with an image that made me want to switch to another page ASAP. It's unfortunate, but I think wikipedia has something to offend just about everybody. Maybe there is something that can be done (without imposing blanket censorship) to work voluntarily with content blockers for those who don't want to view such material? (E.g. Google's safe search filtering.) I'm not sure how that blocking technology works, however. Maybe some sort of meta-tag is applied to pages or images? <meta name="rating" content="mature">RJH (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Um no becuase wikipedia cannot make those kind of judgments. Of course nothing to to stop a 3rd party createing a browser plugin to block certian pages.Geni 18:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
That already exists, and is implemented in numerous blocking solutions. Enter the world of regexen. Celarnor Talk to me 18:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. But regex is how legitimate expressions like "heavenly bodies" (stars, planets, &c.) get blocked. Plus it is useless for images.—RJH (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The heurestic elements of other peoples regexen are not something we can do anything about, short of using some kind of obfuscation protocol between the server and the client that garbles the HTML until it reaches the client; in the end, such a solution would require stateful packet inspection to get around, and I guess we could go in that direction if we don't want other people censoring Wikipedia. In any case, you're incorrect about them not being useful on images. Companies who produce blocking software can and do operate on the name of the image. Like any other element of the HTML, the name of the image can be a filter trigger. Celarnor Talk to me 01:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused -- according to the original blog post (the second one on the list above), a child searched for "fluffy" and was "re-directed" to a page about "fluffers" in the pornography industry. But "Fluffy" has consistently been a disambiguation page, and the article on fluffers is Fluffing, to which there are only two redirects, Fluffers and Fluff girl. So was there recently a history deletion, or (more likely the case) did someone simply misuse the term "re-direct", and what really happened was that the girl (innocently enough) clicked on "Fluffing" in the search list?

In any case, it's the sort of page that a competent web filter would almost certainly be able to block without having to also block non-offensive Wikipedia pages. (Not that I'm blaming anybody, because nobody can be expected to just go get a filter if they if they aren't already familiar with the idea.) ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Lenoxus " * " 18:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my guess is that the blogger was exploring more than fluffy bunnies and wanted to add a hysterical 12 year old to the mix. I think it's made-up. --David Shankbone 18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what it seems like to me, too. Celarnor Talk to me 18:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Like, why would a kid go to an encyclopedia to look up the word "fluffy" anyway? --David Shankbone 18:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. They go to a dictionary or Wiktionary for that. Celarnor Talk to me 18:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Gets more hits than I realized, but not nearly as many as Fluffer. --David Shankbone 18:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
She probably didn't know how to spell fluffer. Just like a lot of people that go to Mother are actually looking for Smotherbox. Wikipedia is the place for porn info. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't stop laughing. "My 6 year old boy was looking up the word for Mother and next thing I know, he was sticking his head in a shoebox and telling me to sit on it! Help me, Concerned Women for America...." --David Shankbone 18:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, god. Don't give them more ideas. Celarnor Talk to me 18:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I imagine most of them end up going places like Hagrid's dog. But yeah, I find this whole thing pretty hilarious. Celarnor Talk to me 18:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not too concerned with the blogs, but this has me worried. Captain panda 19:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Clarification: Just to prevent confusion, I meant that I don't care what some blogs are saying, but the possibility of the US government stepping in has me worried. Captain panda 20:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about a one-line, uncited and unquoted statement made in an ultra-conservative newsrag that seems to be entirely dependent on advertisements to support its site, that is completely insecure and unprotected against SQL and HTML injection, and that uses a free polling system (xPoll) without attribution to the author and possibly without a license. Start worrying when you see real news pick this up. Celarnor Talk to me 20:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Has anything approaching a reliable news service covered this yet? DuncanHill (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• A quick Google News search brought up an editorial from the Colorado Springs Gazette, but no real articles. Mr.Z-man 20:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Which reads "OMG dirty dope-smoking foreigners and artists are destroying America" (I paraphrase slightly). DuncanHill (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

### Wikipedia Review Part of the Porn Smear Campaign

My guess is that it's WR's resident high school music teacher, TheFieryAngel, but somebody has been engaged in trying to whip up conservative frenzy over pornography, tarring me in the process and bringing in Wikia boy scout stuff that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Here are two posts on "The Lonely Conservative" website (the second clearly placed by a WR member):

So, for all you Wikipedia people who go on WR, if the defamation of the Deputy Director of the WMF wasn't enough, and their extortion negotiations of Newyorkbrad wasn't enough, now we have a porn smear campaign that doesn't even involve our website. --David Shankbone 20:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Damn it, David, how did you get to be so awesome? I want to be personally defamed by conservatives, too... In all seriousness, though... I heard about the Wikia thing before in what became a massive discussion back on the policy part of the pump. I don't really see how what other people do with free-licensed images is somehow our fault. We just used the image in question within our own encyclopedia. So did someone else. So could anyone else. That's what freely licensed means. Celarnor Talk to me 20:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, people still have Personality rights - you can't misrepresent people's images. I don't mind being smeared by the religious right (this looks like the meme that is going around in e-mail), but for Erik his job is at stake and they have defamed him on the WR, attributing to him comments he never made. That's serious. --David Shankbone 20:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, of course there are other rights in question that aren't waived by accepting the GFDL, but Wikipedia wasn't the infringing party there. That was someone else entirely, the only connections being that we both use the license and both run MediaWiki. Also, I really like that post: " I started searching on the Internet and Shankbone is all over the place - according to this story, he was the one who was responsible for telling children that Santa Claus is not real. Children! Children see this pornography, and then he ruins their dreams! This is what Wikipedia is about?! This is what is so great about this website?" The ignorance of people never ceases to astonish me. "Oh noez, he released the truth about Santa! CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN." Celarnor Talk to me 20:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I know. Although my insistence of including the word "mythical" on the lead of Santa Claus and including the controversy section lost me some friends around here... I don't think we should be supporting myths, be they Muslim, Christian, Druid, Scientology... but the Christmas season does something to people. --David Shankbone 21:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It's the children. Celarnor Talk to me 21:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I actually had one person I highly respect over at Wikinews insist that I interview Santa at Macy's (think Miracle on 34th Street) as "penance" (he used that word) - this was before he found out I was not going to be here so that I could interview the President of Israel. But, I just couldn't imagine doing the Santa story - and I was raised Catholic! --David Shankbone 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion : When Wikipedia and its editors are attacked on issues of pornography, morality, save-the-children, etc. let us respond with "The issue we face is what specific edits can we make to make that article a better encyclopedia article" or more broadly "The issue is what can we do to create the world's best free encyclopedia for all humanity." The attack and its solution here, guys, lies in the framing of the issue. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Really everyone, its just some people with strong beliefs that feel to get attention. Just deny that, move on, and don't let it disrupt us. Just tell them that we're not censored, we have these pictures because we are an encyclopedia, not a porno site. By this reasoning all encyclopedias are porno mags. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 01:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes...ideally, I don't even think we should really discuss it, although knowing that we have a few laughs at it might not hurt. Just denying them the satisfaction of knowing they've bothered us will send the strongest message. Celarnor Talk to me 02:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you folks understand the influence of the "family values" lobby. Their ranks include politicians, prosecutors and judges who can make Wikipedia's life miserable. I'm going to guess that 99.9% of parents and educators don't want their kids looking at hardcore pornography. You may disagree with them, but you can't pretend they don't exist or don't matter. We don't have to do everything they say, but we have to at least be responsive to their concerns. To dismiss their concerns out of hand recklessly endangers the future of Wikipedia.

Furthermore, even if pornography-shy people didn't have a lot of political power, they are potential users of Wikipedia, and therefore, their concerns should be considered as much as those of any other user. And there are a lot of porn-shy people. If you know anything about Middle America, you'll know there's a lot more of them out there than there are of people who are comfortable with, say, drawings, let alone pictures, of gay sex. There's also the millions of people who use Wikipedia at work or school, where NSFW images may be forbidden. Encyclopedic information should not be withheld from Wikipedia for their sake, but at the same time, we should try to do what we can to make Wikipedia a more pleasant experience for them, just as we would with any other group of people. As I have proposed several times, this can be done easily and without censorship -- Every page with an NSFW image should be topped with a warning specifying the NSFW content below, and users should be able to click on an option to see the page without the NSFW image. This would not interfere in any way with anyone's ability to read Wikipedia with NSFW images.

It's a matter of simple courtesy. Saying "If you don't want to look at porn, don't use Wikipedia (or turn images off in your browser)" is an example of what I call the cardinal sin of Wikipedia: Doing what makes you happy rather than what makes the potential reader happy. That is, selfishness. Wikipedia exists to serve the readers, not to serve us. -- -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what this debate always boils down to. Consensus is (and always has been, in every examination) that we serve readers by providing them all information we, free of the POV of any individual values group and free of disclaimers for "special" topics, and conversely that we don't serve readers by self-censoring or by cluttering pages with extra disclaimers, and that those concerned about inappropriate material can take steps to prevent it. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you, but I've certainly tried. At this point, you're just bringing up the same point over and over again. Maybe you should start an RfC or make a straw poll to invite other users to say "yes" or "no" to your idea so you could see just how against it the majority of Wikipedia is? Celarnor Talk to me 04:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the problem comes when determining where to stop. If we remove images that offend the "family values" people, then every other group has a precedent for getting changes made based on things that offend them. As I said above, putting the disclaimer on the article is pointless - by then its too late. Your browser has already loaded all the images text and if there is a filter to trip, its been tripped. For any sort of disclaimer to be remotely effective it would have to be on the links to the page or as an interstitial before the page load. I imagine many people would be just as offended by the text as they would the pictures. Mr.Z-man 04:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Right. Pampering the "Middle America" values group creates a number of problems aside from the obvious disclaimer and censorship issues. If we give into them, why not give into the Muslims who don't want to see images of Muhammed and want them to get similar treatment? Why not give into people who think video games are evil and want those articles screened/censored? What about people who think divorce is a sin and don't want their children to hear about it on Wikipedia? Where do we draw the line? The answer is that we can't. We can't say "Well, this ejaculation video has to go, but the images of Muhammed can stay". That would be giving into one values group's POV, and Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view at all times. We can't give into all of them, so we don't give into any. Celarnor Talk to me 04:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Like i've said before, its a touchy situation. But face it, porn is a real (and arguably significant) of english-speaking culture. Its would be different in discussing the inclusion of porn on other language wikis (like arabic, for instance, or Anglo-Saxon). JeanLatore (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. We're here to make the readers happy, but we're not a business, we're an encyclopedia! We're not here to serve on our hands and knees! We're not going to hide or change the truth because of culture and what some people think is right. We're not going to say that Santa is real! We're not going to pretend all evidence of Muhammed doesn't exist! We're not going to pretend that sex is fake! We're here to make sure everything is factually correct, and not politically or culturally correct. The truth is the truth. You CAN NOT hide from it. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 20:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

## We are being watched

In a wacky 21st century turn of events, the blog people keep talking about is talking about this conversation. [5] How self-referential. It's like looking into a mirror looking into a mirror. BTW, this isn't quite a "blog".

The guy at the other blog at least seems to be rather level-headed for a right-wing blogger. [6]

"If there is any hope for the progress of civil rights and the human struggle in the 21st century, it’s almost assuredly going to come from the proliferation of uncensored information to people who never have otherwise been exposed to it. No two people are going to draw the thin line between appropriate and inappropriate at exactly the same place, so we have to create very basic guidelines about protecting the lives and well being of the innocent (including children) and just learn to accept that we have to take the good along with the bad."

As for the Lonely Conservative, if you are reading this, you needn't worry about being lonely anymore. Do you like picnics? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I was half-hoping to see myself get quoted, but alas. Maybe I made too much sense. If you don't like picnics, do you like massages? I know the owner of this great spa in town... Celarnor Talk to me 08:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The Lonely Conservative is illustrative of the problems in American political discourse. In her description she talks about how she feels she is the last conservative left in her area, and that she gets angry because some of her left-leaning friends are "stupid". But in her original post, she admits she hasn't looked at any of the material on Wikipedia that she has criticized. She relies simply upon sources that support her wworldview, instead of going straight to the horse's mouth. She then states that I'm the "#1 at Wikipedia" and that Erik Moller had written a book about child pornography (she had to correct herself, so you only see this in the comments now). She then warns parents against material she hasn't seen--out of fear, I suppose--and information that was incorrect. And her left-leaning friends are stupid? Or do they simply challenge her comfortable world-view, which she can't bear to have challenged so she'd prefer to stick her head into the sand (perhaps still looking for WMDs)? The problem she illustrates, though, happens on both sides of the political aisle in America: we discount each other as "stupid" and we make up our minds about each other without even looking at and considering information and ideas. --David Shankbone 12:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

## Wiki

What does "Wiki" even mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero Worthe (talkcontribs) 23:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See History of wikis. Celarnor Talk to me 00:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Um...OK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero Worthe (talkcontribs) 00:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

## ...

Are we not aloud to say anything about....god on here? It is Miscellaneous.....Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero Worthe (talkcontribs) 02:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

From the main Wikipedia:Village Pump page: "This set of pages is used to discuss the technical issues, policies, and operations of Wikipedia". If you wanted to discuss something about the article God itself, that for whatever reason didn't belong on Talk:God, or one of the other Village Pump pages, or the help desk, then it might belong here. This is not just a forum for general chat. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
On top of which, I prefer not to be discussed aloud. Quietly is better. But I'd rather you worked on improving Wikipedia. -- God —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.178.61 (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Neat, now I can nmap God... --Kubanczyk (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Find out what port he listens for prayers on. Celarnor Talk to me 22:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Launches DoS attack Muh Ha Ha Ha. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 01:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

## xfd?

Is there any particular reason why WP:AFD, WP:RFD, WP:MFD, and WP:CFD are so different in terms of method? It's frustrating. This, that and the other [talk] 11:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

One particular reason would be that RFD and CFD are "for discussion" processes instead of "for deletion". So there are different possible outcomes that can be generated. --Gwguffey (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Because they all deal with very different things, so the methods that we use to bring problems to the attention of a wider audience i going to be different. Celarnor Talk to me 18:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

## Jimbo has spoken

I asked User:Jimbo Wales for his comments on the matter of pornography on Wikipedia, not just because of his personal involvement in Wikipedia but because of his personal knowledge of the laws governing "adult content" on the Web.

This is what he said on his talk page:

I take a very strong stand against having sexually explicit images (those that would trigger USC 2257, especially, but ignoring the pre-1990 versus post-1990 distinctions to err on the side of sanity) of any kind on Wikipedia. Most of the hysteria that happens in this area ignores the fact that mere nudity, or appropriate educational illustrations, does not constitute the problem, and even highly conservative critics are likely to appreciate the need for, and appropriateness of, such illustrations.
Illustrations in this area, as in all areas, should be tasteful, encyclopedic, and directly to the point. We have to understand that a lot of really juvenile people want to tweak us about this by uploading whatever they can "at the fringes". And that there is a lot of kneejerk, "oh yeah, you can't censor Wikipedia!!!!" The issue is not censorship, the issue is the creation of a great encyclopedia.

Jimbo's opinion seems similar to mine. For legal reasons, hardcore pornography should not be on Wikipedia. Non-pornographic nudity is acceptable provided that it meets the same kind of demands we make for other content on Wikipedia. However, the "not censored" policy be abused by people who upload content that does not improve the encyclopedia.

Jimbo is not the be-all and end-all, but he know what he's talking about when it comes to porn -- and he's the one likely to be dragged before a congressional committee to explain why we're "pandering porn to children," or whatever they'll say. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and? Corvus cornixtalk 04:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
What Jimbo's comment overlooks is the diversity of Wikipedia. The article penis or vagina has no need to show photos of hardcore pornography; an illustrative photo of a particular method of hardcore sex, on the other hand, would be difficult to imagine without such an image. Brittanica doesn't need such images because it doesn't cover the breadth of topics that Wikipedia does. The important thing is that images should be appropriate to the article and be straightforwardly informative on that specific topic. Dcoetzee 06:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you're reading into this comment something that isn't there. Obviously, we aren't here to provide porn. USC §2257 is a record-keeping requirement for pornographic websites. If there is material here that would require us to keep records of the age of those depicted in image contributions, we would of course not be able to keep these for more than a few reasons. Anything would trigger such requirements probably is of limited encyclopedic value anyway, since it wouldn't fall under "literary or scientific value". There's probably some stuff over at commons that would fail a close examination, but I've yet to see anything like that in the mainspace. Wikipedia isn't the stash of pornography that you seem to think it is. Celarnor Talk to me 22:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

### The real question: What is pornography?

I specifically uploaded images of the making of an adult film that I think demystify the process of what goes into the filming of the genre. The photos were taken at the studio of a major adult film company, with major adult film stars, directed by a major adult film director. There are a couple of users in the minority who label these photos 'hard core gay pornography' (take your pick of prejudicial term), but they are not. I would like to point readers to the Stanford University encyclopedia of philosophy to help guide the discussion. The definition of pornography they eventually arrive at is "pornography is sexually explicit material designed to produce sexual arousal in consumers that is bad in a certain way." I don't think the photographs on Pornographic film, Fluffer, Pornography, Gay pornography or any other image actively used on our articles qualify by this standard. They are clearly not meant to illicit sexual arousal, and indeed the presence of so many people in most of the photos removes for most people the ability to fantasize about the scenario. The focus in the photographs is on the ulterior actors, not the sexual acts. In this regard, the photographs are educational and don't appeal to the prurient interest, but seek to demystify and expose the process of adult film making. --David Shankbone 04:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Jimbo knows what he's talking about when it comes to the legal ramifications of "adult" images. Have you read his bio? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you read any of the other things we've presented to you regarding that subject? It doesn't seem like you have. You seem to be of the opinion that explicit images are somehow inherently lacking "literary or scientific value" in an encyclopedic environment, which simply isn't necessarily the case, and while those specific circumstances (i.e, involving this work) haven't yet been tested, similar circumstances involving printed material that were actually intented for minors have. I would again ask you to review relevant case law and decisions before you make assumptions about such things. And as difficult as it may be for you to believe, there are other users out there who have knowledge of the field, and it is considerably more complicated than the "Penises on my internets = PRON!" knee-jerk reaction that some seem to be having. Celarnor Talk to me 03:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Celanor -- I'm not a lawyer and I'm not going to become a lawyer. You appear to be an undergrad student who has taken some classes in Internet law, which gives you some credence, but not authority. Jimbo is not only a co-founder of Wikipedia and board member of the Wikimedia Foundation but a former adult-content webmaster. I can't think of a single person who has more authority on this particular debate than him. When choosing whether to believe Jimbo or you, I'm not going to side with you, sorry. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm a graduate student working on my thesis on the status of transfers between two countries whose traffic passes through the US. A substantial amount of that research went into explicit material. In the meantime, I teach ethics in the information age, basic internet law and basic programming to undergraduates. I'm just trying to help you wrap your mind around a subject that you seem to think is substantially different than it actually is. You seem to have an issue with potential problems that can be raised by having explicit content. While that is certainly a valid concern, as long as we continue to be an encyclopedia and not a porn archive, we only have to worry about useless explicit content that doesn't add anything to the article. Those already get deleted and removed accordingly, so it's really a non-issue. Everything else is just the usual huffing and puffing by the ultra-right-wing blogosphere. Celarnor Talk to me 01:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. I assumed from the breadth of subjects mentioned on your user page that you weren't in law school, but I didn't gather that you were getting an MA or PhD. Anyway, I think your issue is with Jimbo, not with me. I'm just repeating what he's saying on the legal ramifications of porn. And while I admit that your knowledge of legal precedents regarding the Internet is superior to mine, I assure you I've had a great deal of professional experience with politics and politicians and know that this is something no sensible organization can dismiss as "huffing and puffing." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I completely agree with what Jimbo said. If we have something that can trigger §2257, it doesn't have any place being here, as compliance would be difficult. But I don't see anything wrong with having explicit material so long as it is relevant to the article it is connected to. Thus far, I haven't seen anything that fits that bill. I see penises at Penis, vaginas at Vagina, buttocks at Buttocks, anal sex at Anal Sex, illustrations of the missionary position at Missionary position, and fluffers at Fluffing. If there was a picture of a vagina on the main page, then we'd have some problems. Celarnor Talk to me 02:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You should go back and read Jimbo's comment -- he clearly opposes sexually explicit images of any kind, especially those in violation of Sec. 2257. Clearly, a picture of anal sex, no matter how "educational," fits that definition. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

### Relative naivieté

Jimbo is naive if he thinks that all "highly conservative critics are likely to appreciate the need for, and appropriateness of, such illustrations." One of the key post that set off the current esisode specifically objected to illustrations of human anatomical parts, (among other things); and also objected to the non-pornographic presentation of material about pornography.

On the other hand, there will be some topics which can not be illustrated with direct visual illustrations--we are, for example, not going to be able to have a representative sample to ilustrate the article on child pornography. DGG (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You bring up a point I had been thinking about through this whole discussion. You say that we can't illustrate the article on child pornography. Why not? Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to, but ultimately it comes down to consensus, pure and simple. Most people would agree that they don't want to see (even tastefully done) pictures illustrating child pornography, or put them out where they would offend people. And I think it should go without saying (although I'm saying it) that the argument "That's different because that's wrong/immoral/etc." wouldn't hold any water. It's also illegal in most places, but porn in general is illegal a lot of places. We cannot pretend that this is a matter of "information vs. censorship, not matter how offensive to some". And I would like to clarify that I do not find any of David Shankbone's photos distasteful or offensive (except for maybe the fact that Sean Combs is listed under Musicians)... ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, it's illegal where the servers are. In an ideal world, we would be able to illustrate an article on child pornography (I'm sure there are people here who wouldn't on principle, but I would) However, Wikipedia doesn't exist in an ideal world. Our servers have to be somewhere, and at the moment, they are within the jurisdiction of US state (California, I believe) and federal law, where obscenity is much, much less forgiving with regards to explicit images of people below the age of majority. Even if we wanted to have such images, we probably couldn't, at least not without incurring extreme risk from whatever jurisdiction the servers are in. Celarnor Talk to me 19:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this viewpoint - we clearly can't do anything that is obviously illegal in the US or California, but within the bounds of the law, we should strive to be as informative as possible. If it were legal, I'm sure we could find an example of child pornography whose production didn't involve exploitation for the purpose of illustration. A lot of things on Wikipedia, both text and images, are considered morally wrong by some people, such as using the name of God in vain, or describing how bombs are produced; but as long as they are providing educational information, there is compelling motivation not to omit them. Dcoetzee 02:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

## If you are colour blind and have problems with images

Hi! I created a template on Wikimedia Commons to help those of use who have some form of colour blindness: {{Colour blind}}. With this template, you can tag images that you wish some one would edit so that even you can see what is meant to be seen.

When you use the image, please describe the type of colour blindness you have (if you know it), and the problem you are having with the image. The template adds images to Commons:Category:Images with problems for colour blind people where some helpful soul may pick it up and fix the problem. Samulili (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! This may be very helpful. I sometimes run into graphics that are impossible to read on account of my color-blindness. Unfortunately, the creators of the images are not often receptive to improving them for we retinally challenged. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

## Jump the shark

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think it is about time that we need a Wikipedia pool about when Wikipedia "jumped the shark". Any discussion?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A "pool"? Like a betting pool? Or what? Equazcion /C 16:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Like the 5M and 10M pools. Georgia guy (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what that means. Equazcion /C 16:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Check out the Wikipedia:Five-million pool and Wikipedia:Ten-million pool for what this means. Georgia guy (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia hasn't jumped the shark. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
A "pool" would require some kind of definite indicator of when it happened/will happen, so this is frankly an ill-conceived suggestion, at least. And at most it's just an off key attempt at posting a commentary on Wikipedia in the form of a proposal, and that's not what village pump is for. If you have an opinion about Wikipedia, feel free to blog about it. There are some free sites around you might try. Equazcion /C 17:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Requests for Adminship rules say that "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections" but that "Any Wikipedians, including users who do not have an account and/or are not logged in ("anons"), are invited to participate in the comments section and ask questions."

The "general comments" sections of most of the requests seem to contain only two auto-generated links, and no discussion. If one chooses not to Register, but wishes to comment on a specific request for adminship, where should one post one's comment? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Just post your comment under "general comments", under the links. Equazcion /C 17:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

## New Wikipedia logo

Please see Wikipedia:VPR#Wikipedia logo improvement for a discussion regarding improvement of the Wikipedia logo. I've uploaded a new version of the logo, and since this would be a major change, I'm guessing it would need wide consensus, so I'm posting notices around. Please direct any comments to the Village pump discussion. Thanks. Equazcion /C 16:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

## Pet peeve

The Sirius article begins as follows:

Sirius (Greek: Σείριος)(α CMa / α Canis Majoris / Alpha Canis Majoris) (pronounced /ˈsɪɹiəs/) is the brightest star in the night sky...

It's hardly the only article with this issue. I think it is sad how disruptive that Greek/Alternate name/pronunciation clutter in the first sentence has become to wikipedia articles. Do other encyclopedias do this? I know the Encyclopedia Britannica certainly doesn't. That is why we have dictionaries. The clutter just breaks up the whole flow of the lead, and it has reached the point where my eyes just automatically skip past the parenthetic text in the first sentence as it is almost completely obtuse to the reason for viewing the topic. Isn't there a better solution? Am I the only person with this issue?—RJH (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Britannica (online, library edition) has a little 'also called' subhead-thing. We could do something like that, perhaps looking a bit like a hatnote. Algebraist 16:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we could make that little section act like the notices that appear when you first log in (about Wikimania or the elections, etc.). All you would have to do is click [[hide]] or [[show]] or [[dismiss]], something along those lines. TNX-Man 22:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Remember paper - solutions designed for dynamic webpages only are insufficient. I think a little infobox would work nicely for this. It's also nice to additionally have a sound file for pronounciation, which is much easier to use than reading IPA. Dcoetzee 02:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that anything along these lines would be an improvement. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

## Arbcom vacancy

When Newyorkbrad resigned from the Committee, did someone or will someone take his place? I haven't been keeping up with this business and am not quite sure where to look for the answer. WP:ARBCOM didn't seem to have any info about a vacancy.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Jimbo Wales selects someone to fill Newyorkbrad's seat in a couple of weeks. More than likely, the current members of the Committee would be consulted. Candidates in the last ArbCom election who got better than 50% support would be considered.
2. Jimbo promotes User:Thebainer to serve a full three-year term instead of the one-year term he has currently. Then, he leaves Newyorkbrad's seat vacant through December and appoints six new arbitrators from the next election. It would not be the first time an ArbCom seat has sat vacant for months at a time when an arbitrator retired or took a very long wikibreak.

I think the second option is better. None of the also-rans from 2007 is a perfect choice, and there is no rush to add one arbitrator just for the sake of having 15 instead of 14 arbitrators. I think Jimbo should let this wait until December. Shalom (HelloPeace) 03:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this to me.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

## Anti-German editing

I took interest in the case of "Molobo", complained of on Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board [7]. I believed at first the commotion was exaggerated, but I have since pored over his edits over several months, not just read up on his most recent [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] contributions. It is my conviction that his ulterior motive for his strange doings is a nationalist antipathy to anything German, the extent of which in his edits is restricted by a realist understanding of how far he can go before experiencing costly resistance, longer-term opponents and sanctions. An excessive, creeping accumulation of purposeful but not totally inflammatory edits attains its aim, while a very small number of very inflammatory edits with the same design surely could banish you from this network. On Wikipedia a user has considerable power. Historical issues are determined by one or very few contributors under pseudonyms, while the site is read by hundreds or thousands. Texts are completely open to their authors. Systematic bias can be easily introduced in the selections and representation of statements from sources. A few users support him, opponents lack knowledge of the etiquette in here or of historical topics. Piece of cake for him. "He who controls the past commands the future," he writes mysteriously [17].

His abstinence of sharing his personal views pertaining to Germany or Germans is useful to him. Under pressure, such as on the other board, he produces doubt, calling his doings "simply his expansion of topics related to German history and Polish-German relations, which he has personal interest and knowledge of", and goes on to suggest that he is simply an anti-Nazi. This sounds good and deludes certainly some people, but his disputes and actions suggest a different motivation; they are all argumentatively against anything German. Has he ever written anything positive of Germans or Germany in the past instead of always against [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]? Although actions speak louder than words, actions can be interpreted in different ways, and so the importance of clear-cut statements remains to understand his motives behind his doings. For this reason I was especially lucky to have found a genuine account of him in an internet forum. In contrast with on Wikipedia he did not have to mince his words in the forum and really he did not do it very much. This is also because he has a novel pseudonym, "Shade2". His genuine views are the missing piece of the puzzle that is his editing. As we will see, they blend into haughtiness, bigotry, rhetoric, egoism and ugly nationalism. Someone who likes questioning others` neutrality [41][42][43][44][45][46][47] turns out to be the biased user. I found his novel account as I was searching about "Selbstschutz and 741,000" [48] because of a recent edit about that [49]. The only thing I discovered was this forum, and the strange person in it who brought up Selbstschutz, the same number and the interconnection between number and organization turns out to be "Molobo".

To move on, I will start with samples of less relevant views. One thing I noticed in the posts of "Shade2" was egoism, often political. Cell phone prices are the first thought about a conflict in Congo [93]. About the global climate catastrophe he bumps in "Finally I have nice tanning summer and worm witners, and I can go out in winter clubbing with my t-shirt instead of having to wear warm clothes [Smiley]" [94]. "Where can I buy toilet paper with EU flag on it?" [95]. "Those who are against progress can go eat grass and berries in forest." [96]. Rich create global warming, poor suffer most? "The poor should try to become rich then." [97]. "Its cheaper and easier just to block the wave o migrants then fix Africa and accomodate the migrants." [98]. Few foreigners bad? "Why should I want terrorist attacks in my country or riots ?" [99]. "I rather have prosperity built on blood then poverty." [100]. I took notes of his insane view of Russia only very sporadically. His propagation is wholly negative. Russia, according to him a third-world country [101], a failed state [102] with resemblance of cemetery [103], "has never brought to Poland anything but destruction, exploitation, slavery, hatred, mass opression and poverty." [104]. "The less Russian influence in the world, the more prosperity and peace for the world." [105]. "Russia isn't interested in money, culture, its image. Only in power." [106]. "All of Russians' dreams will be crushed by us Poles. Always." [107]. "I don't feel like I have an expecting audiance when adressing Russians." [108]. "I will be happy to meet a non-imperialist Russian. So far I haven't. But I am still full of hope." [109]. He also makes fun of the Russians` life expectancy [110]. "The monster that is Russian Empire is hungry again. We can now hear its trembling belly on the internet, lusting for new slaves and victims, hungry for people of Central Europe. It is a certainity that the hunger for enslavement of our people will be followed by actions trying to satisfy that hunger." [111]. "The path of conquest and exploitation of others is the only way Russia is capable of seeing as means of developing itself." [112]. "the peace and love-giving Russians" is meant ironically [113]. "its such fun to see Russia dreams ruined [Laugh out loud]" [114].

"I am for Poland having nuclear weapons also. It would ensure our security against Germny and Russia." [115]. Exactly, he has the same sick propagation about Germany as about Russia. "It was mistake to let Germany exist in its form after WW2." [116]. "Yes, we know Germans respect treaties very much. Molotov can confirm that." [117]. "And you forgot to mention that NPD is growing in power. But it wasn't NPD that gave a highest Bavarian medal to somebody who served in elite bodyguard unit of Hitler... It isn't NPD that praises Prussian state, claims parts of Poland belong to Germany, claims Hitler's colonists as victims of Poland, makes racist jokes about Poles in German TV. This is a daily part of German media and society." [118]. "Right now Poles are generating jobs and profits for EU. EU in return gives us fines, and people from Germany, England are buying up our house market, making it impossible to buy homes for Poles. " and "USA won't try to abolish our state. France and Germany are trying though. " [119]. Relations between Poland and Germany are bad because? "its Merkels governments attempts to re-establish German nationalism " [120]. "A German source is hardly objective as scholary knowledge." [121] and [122]. He does not think that Germany and Russia really are different from 1940 [123] or learned [124].

According to him Germany brings death [125]. It is often hard to quote just one part in stead of everything; read this [126] and the next [127] and here [128]. What nations do you consider to be imperialist powers? "Today only Russia, Iran and Germany. All other countries are interested in peacefull and prosperous co-existance of the world. The three rogue nations named by me are interested in destroying the status of the world in the name of creating empires that would serve their nationalistic desires." [129]. "Yes, without those two countries the world would be a lot better place. They are responsible for most of major conflicts. Other potential powers are either concentrated inward or helpfull." [130]. Germany tries to enslave Europe [131]. Germans dress awfull and sloppy [132] and live 60 years in the past [133]. He compares a united Europe to Nazism [134]. "Tell that the next time Bundestag appoints milions of euros on attempts to portay Germans as victims of WW2. It should be next year, as suall." [135]. "Did anything good ever came out of Germany" [136]. "German press if full of slogans that "Germany must educate others" "They haven't grown to level of Germany" etc.The typical German attitude of arrogance and nationalism." [137]. "Unlike Germany, we in Poland have opinion that citizens aren't bound to have opinions identitical to government. In my opinion, and in opinion of many others Germany should pay 540 bilion of euro of compensations it owes Poland." [138]. "But as you show, not in Germany that bloats itself in its nationalistic visions of German "virtues" and "gifts" to the world. Perhaps this last word is true-Germany gave a lot of "gifts" to others, Poles and Jews especially, but only if you use the word in German meaning-gift after all means poison in German language." [139].

"Shade2" was created and mainly used only while "Molobo" could not edit the English speaking Wikipedia due to being blocked. This provided us the temporary opportunity of capturing his clear-cut views that are kept from Wikipedia away but that determine and make his constant doings understandable. There are more anti-Germans, I suspect, and the entirety of German-Polish topics wants screening. It is obvious that not every Pole here is like that, because for example, although there are reflexes to talk down and defend the user [151], his activism has been quashed on the Polish Wikipedia again and again [152]. On the lax English-speaking Wikipedia he learned gradually to keep within the limit of three reverts and watches what he says [153]; so he cannot get blocked. I pay homage to the contributors who are willing and bold enough to take him on and try to discourage, instead of letting him. Too many edits still get through. For example, everyone who sees them can understand that his edits about Cambridge senior lecturer Christopher Clark were tendentious in the extreme [154] in the old manner of flooding an article with bias [155]. But they remained in the article for 33 hours until from Cambridge University [156] "the subject of this article" had to go to the trouble of displacing them himself [157]. Any normal search engine query could produce enough material about Christopher Clark and his well-known book on Prussia, "the best history of Prussia currently available in any language. However, more than that (and here it beats its German rivals hands-down), it is written with a literary finesse and narrative elan that establish its author as one of the finest writers of history at work in Britain today. It is a virtuoso performance." [158]. The fact that there are not enough rules or people to really contain and discourage his static and enormous or exclusive pursuit of Polish nationalist interests is endorsed by his more than eleven thousand edits. It is good news to the Polish nationalist holes in general that that activity is worthwhile.--Sebastian Z. (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

WhAt??!? CWii(Talk|Contribs) 20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not even going to try to read that massive block of text, but I will ask why this hasn't been addressed by following the proper dispute resolution procedures. Corvus cornixtalk 21:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
155 diffs. Wow. Dispute resolution is the third door on the left. Major kudos for having 155 pieces of evidence. Celarnor Talk to me 22:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Sebastian Z., is there a reason this is your first edit, although you've obviously been around for a while? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 23:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not try dispute resolution, because I do not have a dispute with him. I am not a political scientist, a historian or a lawyer; I have enough sense to see my own limits and not enter a boxing ring with a heavyweight. My treatise was meant as a consciousness-raiser. It was a complete summation of my understanding of his editing. From here Wikipedians could be able to take over the matter. It also stretched my overtime to the breaking point, so that I have to catch up with unrelated personal affairs, instead of being able to maintain my expenses of time. I will not participate in long or circular discussions. "Molobo" is not really my problem. If Wikipedia does not decide to see it as the problem of Wikipedia, my time is wasted here. I am mistrustful of the abilities of Wikipedia in general. The maximum sentence after dispute resolution is a ban. But a ban does not override or discourage his or her past doings. It is also improbable to come to a ban; I do not believe that the framework of rules and procedures on Wikipedia has what it takes. My best bet is to raise awareness.--Sebastian Z. (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You may not be in dispute with him. If you do, however, think he is a problem editor, feel free to drop this bunch of text on the WP:Administrator's noticeboard and see if they want to do something about it. 19:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

## My school system blocked Wikipedia due to 'inappropriate material'

Not makin' this up. Gwinnett County Public Schools, Georgia.

It's ridiculous. I often use Wikipedia to get a general idea of a topic. Sure, there's a few articles on Wikipedia I can think of that are kind of pornographic (do we really need an article for every sex position with illustrations?), but you might as well block Google if you're trying to block out everything pornographic.

Part of me wishes that Wikipedia could implement some sort of NSFW filter, but it's stupid that that would be needed to satisfy some people. I swear, I'm going to have to buy a 4 gig flash drive and put a text version of Wikipedia on there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyktoo (talkcontribs) 19:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

School filtering systems have to bee seen to believed. The one at the school where I work filters out a good half the internet with no rhyme or reason as to why. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you run configure your browser to use a proxy? Users such as myself manage closed proxies set up for just this kind of forced censorship (See the WikiProject on closed proxies). Celarnor Talk to me 20:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
My school's blocked Google.com, all image searches, the Microsoft website, anything with the tiniest mention of sex or breasts, search results for 'proxy'. I had to fight to get Wikipedia unblocked. Trust me, it's bad! They blocked it because there was a picture of a naked man on Paris Hilton (vandalism) and they didn't know they could revert it. It's effing bad, trust me...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 20:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
That's bullshit. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 20:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Not at all, my high school did, too. I had to use proxies to do any meaningful research, since we didn't have any database subscriptions and the faculty there didn't believe the internet was useful for academics. Celarnor Talk to me 20:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There is definitely some demand for a 'censored' version of wikipedia. I know WP:ISNOT censored but it surprises me that someone has not tried to create an fork of wikipedia content that can get marked for various issues, religious , pornographic or of an adult nature while duplicating the rest of the contents. Is anyone trying to do this? GameKeeper (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There's always the Wikipedia on CD. As far as I know, that doesn't contain any pornography, although I'm not sure about the religious bit; I would find an encyclopedia that didn't include religion as completely useless, myself. I think that creating a forked version of Wikipedia for elementary / middle schools is a great idea, myself. That would get rid of pretty much all of the "OH NOES TEH CHILDRENZ" arguments that came up during that recent flurry, but I don't know if anyone is actually doing it. Celarnor Talk to me 21:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Not at all I meant the filtering lol. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 21:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia for Schools is at [[159]]. You can't edit it, and it is indexed rather than searchable. DuncanHill (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow. That looks like it came straight out of 1992. Celarnor Talk to me 22:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the quality of your school's blocking, you might be able to access Wikipedia via https: [160]. Not to mention one of the many mirrors that exist of our content. GracenotesT §

Personally I don't think it needs to be censored. Also I think the schools are taking this to far. We will all in our lives masturbate or not, we all see our penises when putting on underwear, we all see our animals masturbate, and we will all have sex with a woman once in our lives. Its a part of keeping the species alive. Our instincts are not inappropriate for the world to see. Our instincts are natural and shouldn't be banned. When we caveman did we care. I don't really think so. Now I can see if they were in elementary now that is something else. Middle school should be introduced to that kinda stuff. But once you are high school and in college its fine. The problem is that we want to shelter our children. Its not a bad thing, but once they are in the world, are adults and exposed to that stuff without the knowledge or the exploration of it now they might not be to handle it as properly as they should. The purpose of these is to talk to them about the idea, introduce the idea, and then subject the idea.71.142.222.245 (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

Ummm... personally, I don't have a penis to see in a mirror, nor, I believe, does about half of the population. ;-) I don't know what the filtering program was picking up on, but a few weeks ago, I couldn't access, for a few days, the main page from the school where I work some. Aleta Sing 22:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Find some proxies at home, and write down the URL's. Odds are your school can't have blocked each and every proxy on the internet. Ilikefood (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a penis to see in the mirror. So that was my view with my penis. I can rephrase. We all masturbate, we all see vagina in the mirror, we will see an animal masturbate, and we will see our boyfriend or husband's penis the mirror and have sex. There rephrased.Cardinal Raven (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

Hey, I went to Duluth High School in Gwinnett County. I'm a bit surprised they would really block Wikipedia, but then they imposed some rather Draconian controls on student movement and other things. This is probably a result of some conservative parent reading the latest hype about "porn" on Wikipedia. I would take it to the administration, expressing concerns that the block limits useful research. Maybe if the complaints aren't just coming from one side, they'll act differently. Maybe. Dcoetzee 23:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a lesbian, who may never have a husband or boyfriend, is not going to see her husband/boyfriend's penis. Or women who for whatever reason, choose never to have sex similarly may not see her husband/boyfriend's penis (presuming she even has one). In either case, if she has or otherwise takes care of a male child, she is likely to see child's penis and could easily see a penis in a variety of situations but it's a bit silly to presume all women are going to see a penis IRL one day. Not that this is a reason to censor wikipedia of course Nil Einne (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)