Mcrazychick's "user" photo bugs Jimbo..., ....didn't they have worse in Bomis??? Options

[the fieryangel]

User:Mcrazychick adds a personal photo to complete her user profile, which then gets removed by Jimbo.

Jimbo then explains why he did this :

== I removed the image from your userpage ==

Don't put it back. And you are on very thin ice here. I recommend to all admins that you be blocked very quickly in case you cause any trouble at all. This is a project to create an encyclopedia, not your personal playground.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales|talk]]) 00:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

She then says "Ciao, Bello" and adds a "retired" notice to her user page.

The image is then put up for deletion.

Now, I do not believe for a second that the photo posted was that of the user in question, but Jimbo's self-righteous response comes off as rather smug for a former porn site operator. Plus, everybody knows that Wikipedia is not censored and that you can see much worse in the mainspace and commons, including this recording of a woman having an orgasm by none other than User:Jimbothegreat and this delightful animated image of an ejeculating penis.

Is Jimbo starting to get a bit conservative in his moral views or is this another thing that Mike Godwin has started to enforce?

In any case, the attitude change here is pretty interesting....

[thekohser]

... and this delightful animated image of an ejeculating penis.

Wasn't it just December 7th that Jimbo was reported to have said that teachers who block access to Wikipedia are "bad educators"?

I wonder, at which grade-level does a teacher blocking access to the ejaculating animated image continue to be a "bad educator"? Is this image okay for fifth-graders, Jimbo? How about third-graders? First grade, maybe?

Maybe I should perform a legal test and expose my teenage niece to this image, while videotaping for YouTube her reaction to it. Then, you all could watch as my wife videotapes me being carted off to jail on a felony charge of exposing a minor to pornography. Then, we could monitor how bravely Jimbo, Sue, Mike, FloFlo, Erik, JzG, Durova, Gerard, and Calton all fight for my "right" and my niece's "right" to have unfettered access to "free knowledge". Do you think they would pay for my lawyer and maybe come to court to testify on my behalf?

Greg

[jinxmchue]

Maybe I should perform a legal test and expose my teenage niece to this image, while videotaping for YouTube her reaction to it. Then, you all could watch as my wife videotapes me being carted off to jail on a felony charge of exposing a minor to pornography. Then, we could monitor how bravely Jimbo, Sue, Mike, FloFlo, Erik, JzG, Durova, Gerard, and Calton all fight for my "right" and my niece's "right" to have unfettered access to "free knowledge". Do you think they would pay for my lawyer and maybe come to court to testify on my behalf?

Greg

Funny you should say that. On the talk page for the article on ejaculation, a parent left this comment:

My 12 year old daughter had this page bookmarked. You all should be ashamed of yourself. I did a little research and found pages having anything to do with a penis have multiple explicit pictures on the page. Curiously, almost all the page relating to the female anatomy are without pics and have diagrams instead, as should be for an encyclopedia. If heterosexual perverts were posting they would post female genitalia, right. With this information, one must conclude that there are many women out there that are dying to post male members for each other to look at, or the more logical explanation is that gay perverts have overtaken Wikipedia. Please do not use the argument that watching a man ejaculate is educational. If it is then so is a video of a woman being penetrated or menstruating. It's kids nature to be curious and look, so it is my duty to try to draw the line to keep these perverts from presenting pornographic material on a supposed educational site. I have retained a lawyer and a computer network engineer and have every intention of prosecuting everyone involved with the objectionable images on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.145.7 (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And, of course, the usual "use Wikipedia at your own risk" and "there's objectionable content here" warnings are thrown up in defense of the exhibitionism.

This post has been edited by jinxmchue: