Urolagnia
This edit, October 31, added an image of a woman urinating. The caption: A classic example of [[Voyeurism]] as well as [[Exhibitionism]] while peeing]]

It was removed five days later with the comment: (→Some common variations of urolagnia: the image used was not a depiction of urine used in a sexual act or voyeurism - it was just a woman urinating.. removed)

However, 11 days later, another IP (probably the same user) re-added the image with (Undid revision 458999148 by 000peter (talk) Picture use justified because it is voyeurism).

Looks like 000peter didn't notice. Maybe he has ANI on his watchlist. Is "ANI" the plural of "ANUS"? Might as well be, eh? Be that as it may, a simple, uncomplicated image of a urinating woman still stands as a "classic example" of Voyeurism and Exhibitionism.

The mind boggles. Why is this worth any attention? Because it demonstrates the total insanity of imagining that one can have "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" without establishing an efficient structure to filter information fairly and neutrally. Such structures can be designed, but that, as well, takes "an efficient structure to filter information -- including argument -- fairly and neutrally." And such structures will be opposed, by those who benefit from the existing chaos. Mostly, they don't understand that the chaos will eventually burn them out. There are only a few, maybe very, very few, who actually desire the chaos, positively benefiting from it, long-term. Like those who are paid to maintain some position on Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by Abd: