The animated gif file of a man mastrubating is in a public domain, Do we need it in public domain? Options

[Peter Damian]

I'm surprised this is not a subject here already (and apologies if it is). On Jimmy's talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ublic_domain.3F .

Notable for the crass and stupid comments of various 'not censored' Wikipedians. Sample below.

I have opened the group [1] I have invited Sue Gardner to join it. Can you join it? I don't know what else can I do.I know that you are a charity. A charity in the UK must be for public benefit http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Chari...it/default.aspx I don't know too much about the USA. I fail to see any public benefit in public masturbation. It hurts. Please do something about it!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Natbrown (talk • contribs) 19:26, 27 January 2012
Did your child see some naughty image you wish they hadn't? Just add Wikipedia to the list of blocked sites on your net filter and have a talk with your child.
Is it what you want people to do? 60% voted for this answer. Natkabrown (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia is not censored. – ukexpat (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
When I masturbate in public, I don't really feel any different than when I do it in private; can you possibly tell us why when you masturbate in public, it hurts? Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 19:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It irritates me when people call such stuff 'adult'. It's not, it's juvenile.

The collapsed box (IRC chat) has a good example of a sarcastic Wikipedian trying to humiliate the objector (who claims to be a woman).

[10:31]natbrown has joined #wikimedia-commons
[10:33] <natbrown> Hi, I found some very unpleasant photos http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mas...rfahrung%29.jpg
[10:33] <natbrown> There is a video attached as well
[10:33] <Funfood> What is your problem with these files?
[10:34] <natbrown> There is a whole category http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_masturbation
[10:34] <Funfood> there it belongs to, yes
[10:34] <natbrown> I am a woman. I find this very offencive. I don't want to see it.
[10:35] <Funfood> you don't need to open them, neither the files or the category
[10:35] <natbrown> Should this be in Wikipedia? Aren't there enough sites dedicated to these techniques?
[10:35] <Nickname1> you'll get over it
[10:36] <Funfood> commons is not wikipedia, but there are, of course a lot of discussions about those files
[10:36] <natbrown> I found them by searching for "roll over
[10:36] <Funfood> I for my part don't think that human body parts are disgusting somehow
[10:37] <Funfood> but your opinion may vary
[10:37] <natbrown> Very often I work with my granddaughter by my site. She is 8 now. Would you like your daughter or your mother to see those files?
[10:38] <Funfood> If they appear by accident on the screen, it is a good time to explain children something about the internet
[10:38] <Funfood> and my mother has surely seen a penis before (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Actually I remember meeting Natka at the meetup in November last year. A grandmother, totally offended by the unencyclopedic nonsense she saw with her 8 year old granddaughter. The Facebook page is here http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-pornogr...307245972661745

[11:01] <Snowolf> natbrown: Wikipedia is not censored.
[...]
[12:01]<natbrown> I will copy and paste this conversation, so people know why I have opened the group.
[12:02] <natbrown> !admin@commons
[12:03] <Snowolf> You cannot copypaste this conversation without the permission of all involved

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[mbz1]

Is WMF would have to make a choice, if Wikipedia is to host a free porno images, or it is a charitable organization?

[Web Fred]

Is WMF would have to make a choice, if Wikipedia is to host a free porno images, or it is a charitable organization?

Why can't it be both?

[Mister Die]

Is WMF would have to make a choice, if Wikipedia is to host a free porno images, or it is a charitable organization?

Why can't it be both?

Because the average person would probably be appalled if they knew that their children's favorite encyclopedia had images of great value for articles of equally great value like "Snowballing (sexual practice)" (a gag-worthy image, and I can look at Goatse without flinching) and "Cum shot."

You don't think there's something off about an "encyclopedia" that simultaneously contains articles for Kwame Nkrumah, Mewto and Salirophilia?

This post has been edited by Mister Die: