|
Help
This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.
|
|
Mcrazychick's "user" photo bugs Jimbo..., ....didn't they have worse in Bomis??? |
|
|
the fieryangel |
|
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined:
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
|
User:Mcrazychick adds a personal photo to complete her user profile, which then gets removed by Jimbo.Jimbo then explains why he did this : QUOTE == 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....
|
|
|
|
Disillusioned Lackey |
|
Unregistered
|
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:53am) This just cracks me up. If it was obtained from some institute........ maybe. But the disgusting horror of some user (mister Shadow69, a SPA) adding this online in some kind of sick voyarism move....... Ugh.
|
|
|
|
the fieryangel |
|
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined:
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
|
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Tue 18th December 2007, 9:43pm) QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:53am) This just cracks me up. If it was obtained from some institute........ maybe. But the disgusting horror of some user (mister Shadow69, a SPA) adding this online in some kind of sick voyarism move....... Ugh. What I find the most amusing is the fact that it's an animated gif, so he's been ejaculating on WP constantly since the .gif was uploaded. What is truly scary is that there are multiple people who had done this for the good of the project...When Wikipedia is finally defined as a cult, this is going to be pretty important evidence as to how far people were brainwashed.... This post has been edited by the fieryangel:
|
|
|
|
Disillusioned Lackey |
|
Unregistered
|
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 18th December 2007, 2:50pm) What is truly scary is that there are multiple people who had done this for the good of the project...When Wikipedia is finally defined as a cult, this is going to be pretty important evidence as to how far people were brainwashed....
Please. There's a lot of weirdos different kinds of people who would love to have their privates-in-action online on the 8th most visited site in the world. Imagine the voyeurs notarity that garners. The cult didn't make this guy do it. He would have done it somewhere else if not here. Its just that here, he can call it art encyclopedic content. Ha. Joke's on us.
|
|
|
|
the fieryangel |
|
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined:
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
|
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Tue 18th December 2007, 9:57pm) QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 18th December 2007, 2:50pm) What is truly scary is that there are multiple people who had done this for the good of the project...When Wikipedia is finally defined as a cult, this is going to be pretty important evidence as to how far people were brainwashed....
Please. There's a lot of weirdos different kinds of people who would love to have their privates-in-action online on the 8th most visited site in the world. Imagine the voyeurs notarity that garners. The cult didn't make this guy do it. He would have done it somewhere else if not here. Its just that here, he can call it art encyclopedic content. Ha. Joke's on us. This reminds me of the "PubligirlUK" incident....Was she on the level or was it a practical joke? In any case, there's still plenty more where that came from on WP...
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 18th December 2007, 9:53am) 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
|
|
|
|
Disillusioned Lackey |
|
Unregistered
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 18th December 2007, 3:35pm) QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 18th December 2007, 9:53am) Wasn't it just December 7th that Jimbo was reported to have said that teachers who block access to Wikipedia are "bad educators"? ....... I'm looking for words where the punchline is "bad ejaculators", but it isn't coming through...... QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 18th December 2007, 3:35pm) 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
Huh. Sorry Greg. They'd be cheering in on the other side of the court room. (not to mention your nieces parents) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) AND Durova woud send (irrelevant) emails to the District Attorney claiming you tried to elicit illicit relations with her. You just KNOW she would. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:
|
|
|
|
jinxmchue |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 16
Joined:
Member No.: 4,080
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 18th December 2007, 3:35pm) 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: QUOTE 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:
|
|
|
|
the fieryangel |
|
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined:
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
|
QUOTE(jinxmchue @ Fri 21st December 2007, 11:55pm) QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Wed 19th December 2007, 3:35am) That's not the half of it. ALL FOLLOWING LINKS NSFW OR ANYWHERE ELSEhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:SexNope. Still not at half. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitaliaStill not even close. Pick and choose from here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:SexThis editor apparently does nothing but post pornographic pictures of himself and others: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:...butions/RichiexHey, let me get one thing straight; I'm not a prude. I enjoy this sort of thing myself from time to time. I have no problems with looking at sexually charged images. It's just this: Sometimes, in spite of having been "around the block a few times" myself, Wikipedia shocks me. If I were an innocent child who knew nothing of this stuff, I have no idea how exposure to this sort of thing would affect him or her. The point being, if this is really about helping children, especially poor children in Africa <ahem>, wouldn't it be normal and... responsable to take their psychological welfare into account and at least add some sort of "rating system" for this kind of content? I mean, there was a time when the "ejaculating penis" image probably would have sent me into a psychiatrist's office....many, many years ago...but I still remember that being possible... This post has been edited by the fieryangel:
|
|
|
|
Disillusioned Lackey |
|
Unregistered
|
lol
|
|
|
|
jinxmchue |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 16
Joined:
Member No.: 4,080
|
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Fri 21st December 2007, 5:24pm) If I were an innocent child who knew nothing of this stuff, I have no idea how exposure to this sort of thing would affect him or her.
The point being, if this is really about helping children, especially poor children in Africa <ahem>, wouldn't it be normal and...responsable to take their psychological welfare into account and at least add some sort of "rating system" for this kind of content? Exactly. And besides, anyone with half a brain can tell that these images aren't about being encyclopedic. They're about perverts getting their kicks off of millions of people looking at pictures of their hoo-has and whatnots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |