User:Norsehorse89/Obscenity on Wikipedia

Hi! I will be using this page to debate the presence of Obscenity on Wikipedia. Feel free to comment for or against the presence of such material. --Norsehorse89 (talk)

Reasons for Inclusion in Wikipedia

Q: So, why is Wikipedia being so thorough about certain topics, such as Sex organs and Nudity? These articles arguably have TMI and/or too many pictures.

A: Probably because Wiki is not paper.

A: Because people tend to edit (and add info to) pages in topics they're most interested in, and these articles interest a lot of people. Kimchi.sg (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Explicitness of Photos in Aforementioned Articles

Q: Most encyclopedias do not include explicit photos of, to mention sex organs again, Penises or Vulvas. Why doesn't Wikipedia employ the same practice?

The Losing Battle against Censorship on Wikipedia

Q: Are there any ways to restrict or warn users of Wikipedia to mature or obscene material, ranging from, again, sex organs, to List of sex positions, without violating Wikipedia is not censored or No disclaimers in articles? On a side note, why is the aforementioned article even included in Wikipedia at all? Doesn't it violate Wikipedia is not a manual? As if there weren't enough Internet porn sites...

A: To start you guys off, I was thinking about forcing users to sign in in order to view the content (Apparently Youtube has recently adopted this practice) or creating other obstacles to the content. Also, in response to WP:DISCLAIM, I propose that the disclaimer link be moved to somewhere around the top of the page. per Greenprint's statement in the "More visibility" section of an archive of the talk page of Wikipedia's General Disclaimer, "I suggest to put the disclaimer link in the main menu. Currently the link is at the bottom and very difficult to find considering the disclaimer importance," I propose moving the disclaimer link to the "interaction" box at the left side of the page. This will make it more prominent and increase the chances of users, especially noobs, knowing the existence of such disclaimers. No one is going to, after seeing an obscene article, all of a sudden note the link to the disclaimer at the bottom of the page.

Child Safety and Wikipedia

Responding to the section of the same name in an archive of the talk page of Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer:

Our ad-hoc policy is one of common sense - if you go to penis, don't be surprised if you see an explicit photo - it's assumed that you knew what you were getting into by going to that article. - Raul654

I'm so f***ing sorry y'all have to deal with such "innocent" users like me =P, but there are just those users who inadvertently find out about Wikipedia's disclaimers the hard way. Personal example: Vulva. How many people bloody well know that that refers to feminine anatomy? Or the explicit photo there to greet you? (And be honest in your answer.)

• I know. Most people I know know. And if you don't know it, why would you ever type in "vulva" into Wikipedia's search box? Pardon me, but you've gotten me interested--I'm going to look at that article. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A. To continue my personal example, I searched Google for Pudendum, as I was researching the Canterbury Tales (The Miller's Tale), and clicked on the Wikipedia link, which was a redirect to said body part.

On the other hand, I grant that people should know what a penis is, but at least a labeled anatomical drawing would serve the purpose better than a glossy color photo, no? Not even other encyclopedias print such color photos.

• So, they should know what a penis is but not a vulva? How's that? Drmies (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)