Difference between revisions of "Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Pornopedia/2010-May porn purge"
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Sunday December 01, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
:No school, with children, should be allowed to have ANY access to Wikipedia. | :No school, with children, should be allowed to have ANY access to Wikipedia. | ||
:School boards and library boards should consider Wikipedia to be pornographic website | :School boards and library boards should consider Wikipedia to be pornographic website | ||
| − | catering to pedophiles, and Namblers, and as such, has a reputation for | + | catering to pedophiles, and Namblers, and as such, has a reputation for its lack of control, governance and responsibility to its patrons. Wikipedia should be banned from any |
| − | governance and responsibility to | ||
respectable institution of learning. | respectable institution of learning. | ||
Revision as of 20:20, 11 May 2010
News coverage
- Wikipedia purges porn Fox news 7 May
- Wikimedia dumps porn following FoxNews probe Silicon Republic 10 May
- Wikimedia pornography row deepens as Wales cedes rights BBC 10 May
- Wikipedia-porn-row-sees-founder-give-up-his-editing-privileges Daily Telegraph 11 May
- Wikipedia roiled by porn row The Inquirer 11 May
- Commons:News regarding the sexual content purge
Wales' purge
- Wales' deletion log. A red link indicates a deletion that stuck. A blue link indicates subsequent restoration.
Restored material
Material that was always there
- List of genitalia
- Wikipedia editor's child porn collection (now deleted).
- Bad images
- Worst_of_Wikipedia#Revolting
Debates on the Commons and Meta-wiki
Wikipedia culture
Evidence that the political culture of Wikipedia is deeply hostile to getting rid of porn.
- Rosenzweig, fatuous comment on Wales' talk page
- David Gerard "These vicious morons"
- Wales' talk page at commons
- Wales' talk page at en:Wkipedia
- Pro-pedo POV pushers
- pro-bestiality POV pushers
- Sexualised images of children and the Wikipedia mascot
- Paid shills for the porn industry
- Pedophiles can be productive editors
- "The censorship of centuries-old art is a very frightening event" a Wikipedia editor speaks to the press.
- Pedophiles are welcome
- Hand wringing over whether they should be welcome
- Should 6 year olds be allowed to edit?
- Public librarian user DGG says "There is no general agreement here that any system of filtering for any purpose is ever necessary, and I think it is totally contrary to the entire general idea behind the the free culture movement.
- Village pump discussion
- Don't think about the children
Wales attacked by the community
Reaction of Wikimedia foundation
- Wales admits deletions to foundation
- Statement by Michael Snow
- Statement by Sydney Poore "I support the clean up effort by Jimmy and the administrators on Commons for the images that have no significant educational value. I also understand that to some editors who are new to thinking about the issue that this may seem abrupt. So, I encourage good communication between all the stakeholders so that we can understand each others concerns and address them."
Reaction of 'Victim of Censorship'
Wise words from a respected contributor to Wikipedia Review [1].
- No school, with children, should be allowed to have ANY access to Wikipedia.
- School boards and library boards should consider Wikipedia to be pornographic website
catering to pedophiles, and Namblers, and as such, has a reputation for its lack of control, governance and responsibility to its patrons. Wikipedia should be banned from any respectable institution of learning.
