Wikipedia Founder Caught in 'Porn Purge' Debate

So no more porn of Wikipedia? What am I going to do now?

Seems just. Way to go! I like hearing about people trying to do the right thing.

wow this is ridiculous, finally somebody that is doing something about this trash and he's being punished.

Its too bad he didn't keep it up. While wiki should be open and all, it's no place for pornography. People should be allowed to write about it if they want but pictures of that nature do not belong on wiki!

Yes it seems just he shouldnt of given up his admin rights.

had he left them there - bad
he took them off - bad again.
make up your mind, people!

"Porn Debate" .. *sigh* I better play 3d tanks in a browser.

Victory for Fox news?

Wikipedia is the most useful website next to google today. Having it's reputation maintained as a purely informative website is far more important than some sidestepping admin decisions. I support his decisions, though I would caution him not to go on a spree, but more of a thought out cleansing. Still, good job and love to hear the good news.

You know you're at a new low in life if you're going on Wikipedia to look at porn.

Can you get that on a T-shirt?

Really... I mean, get your porn elsewhere. There's no need for porn on a site meant for collaborative information. I just cant believe that people are actually *AGAINST* this!?!?! Against censoring... no PROTECTING... innocent children??? I just hope that whoever is a part of this is caught and held accountable. The Internet is the 'wild west' but still you are governed by the laws of the land you live and and last I checked child pornography was something that all modern societies punish.

What about the porn purge on the entire Internet now? Oh no, nothing to see there, move along. There's no real porn problem, it's perfectly healthy for society and people. Maybe good old retro porn was, but not what I now see these days.

Maybe no more pictures of Penis' now?

this is all about power, who is stepping on who's toes. This guy helped create Wiki, his Wiki buddy felt honestly that he HAD to blow the whistle, actually the law SAYS he must blow the whistle. These guys are the good guys. The jerks who are destroying the huge project are narrowminded idiots worrying about thier 'turf' when the room they are in is on fire. They just shot the guy putting out the fire.
Idiots.

One thing I've always thought was dumb was the introduction of lolicon comic banning during the Bush administration in the early 2000's. In real child pornography, there is clearly a victim in the child being exploited. In lolicon comics, everything is fiction. The characters are created from nothing, so who is exploited? No one except an idea. The US government is effectively saying an idea is against the law. I personally find lolicon disturbing, but I recognize there's no one being exploited so who am I to judge its readers?

While its a good thing that obviously disgusting images are removed (there's no excuse for any kind of kiddie-porn ever), where it gets more grey I would hope that the decision is comitee based rather than the whims of one man. A single person making decisions smacks of Jobs-like dictatorship and ideally should not be part of how the internet is maintained.

Stupid Faux News. Of course they have to find a way to smear Wikipedia, since they hate it so much. Education and information - the antithesis of Conservatives everywhere (just go look at Conservapedia!).

Yeah cause ya know...2D drawn children have feelings and rights..it just makes so much sense!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon

i mean.. look at those poor defenseless girls being abused in that picture!!

someone should totally adopt them into their loving home right away!

Jane is a porn addict. Either that or just a porn enthusiast who enjoys reading and writing articles about it. lololololol!

By giving up his admin rights is he just trying to limit his legal liability?

And when the avid fans of cartoons get tired of looking at fictional content? I think this is a pretty obvious gateway to pedophilia. I see no problem whatsoever in banning this type of perversion. There is a lot of room for freedom of expression and choice, sexual exploitation of children in any form be it real or imaginary is not one of them.

While not a huge fan of Wiki due to its manipulative nature of content I do agree with this move. There are plenty of places to find this type of content without having to introduce it onto a site primarily for education purposes.

While I usually try to stay away from partisan crap, this is spot on. Conservatives are trying to push their special "limited edition truth" through outlets like Conservapedia, a disgustingly ignorant web site that doesn't even deserve to share the same vowels and consonants as Wikipedia. They would love to have mainstream media smearing the horrors of Wikipedia just long enough to get their foot in the door so they can reprogram all the e-heathens who have gotten a taste of what unfiltered truth is like.

If anything, Jimbo didn't do enough to stop this from happening. Wikipedia has high standards for fairness and accuracy, but that doesn't mean a thing when it gets blocked by every educational firewall for serving smut.

Er...the Pope, 'God', 'Allah', 'Muhammad', 'Christ', 'Bhagavan', 'Yahweh'... So, apart from the first mortal and a few historical characters, we allow additional totally fictitious characters to determine internet morality. Given that, I suppose Job's has as much right to talk drivel as anyone else.

The People's Liberation Army doesn’t have to be in Washington to make American do things that Beijing approves.

That makes as much sense as saying people who play GTA will go out into the streets, carjack police cars and then proceed to mow down people with submachines guns...

Go ahead and rate down my comment, I don't care. I just want to get my opinion out.

Jobs isn't a dictator, he's not evil, etc. He's a businessman who is making decisions for his audience and for the products themselves. When PC manufacturers use a mid tower case and only allow two hard drives, or when microsoft doesn't allow you to downgrade your OS, etc., that isn't compromising freedom?

It's funny that when an article says that Jobs decided not to allow porn on the iPad, people call him a dictator, and when Wales removes pornographic images from wikipedia, people commend him for doing the right thing..

Perhaps not a good example, but seriously. We have to be nonpartisan here.
Cheers.

Fisrt off, who is raising the fuss? The people who wrote the articles with the questionable photos, the people who uploaded them? Secondly, were these photos truly hardcore porn, e.g. stills of Jenna doing her thing? I think we all know porn when we see it, save Robert Mapplethorpe and his ilk, however, I don't hear anyone yelling about these pictures being art. Third, if it is hardcore, think I'll lock the door for some private time, pornography, then I have to ask who are the sick weirdos posting them to an online encyclopedia?

The number of ignorant posters on this topic is astounding, but maybe the reporting on this is the problem. This is not child porn but drawings. Drawings, people! Comics. Cartoons. Or 250 year old sketches.

If there was actual child porn that would be something else.

The reason the other founder reported this is because he has a competing site and no one has heard of it. He's hoping to bring wikipedia down for his own benefit.

Fox news is making the fuss.

None of the pictures in question were hardcore porn.

Majority of the fuss was over lolicon, which is a subgenre of japanese porn comics dealing with characters who appear prepubescent.

Specifically, I think it has to do with some comic covers posted in the article as an example of the genre.

Honestly I think it's just Fox news blowing smoke. I personally think it's a weird genre, but I think the same about S&M, and as no actual people are being abused or hurt or taken advantage of in any way, who am I to judge?