Reporting of lolicon images on Wikimedia Commons Options

[Tarc]

Reporting of lolicon images on Wikimedia Commons (T-H-L-K-D)

Perhaps a legitimate article on the topic could be made, but this one reads like reflexive loli-defense by the Wikipe-tan regulars.

This post has been edited by Tarc: Mon 21st March 2011, 1:20pm

[Silver seren]

Looking over his contributions, I notice that he carried on the anti-porn thing beyond just this incident, considering his comments at the content noticeboard.

Are there really parents out there who don't expect an encyclopedia to have entries pertaining to sex? That seems a little daft to me.

I mean, I know that I already presumed religious parents keep their children away from Wikipedia because it has articles pertaining to homosexuality that present it in a light that isn't negative (considering said articles relate the scientific community's consensus that was laid out by the American Psychological Association that homosexuality is normal). Are the parents who don't expect there to be sex just these same religious parents? That would make sense.

But any other parents believing as such doesn't make sense to me. Even Britannica has multiple entries related to various kinds of sex in it.

[Peter Damian]

Are there really parents out there who don't expect an encyclopedia to have entries pertaining to sex? That seems a little daft to me.

As a parent, I don't expect an encyclopedia to contain pornography. Any more than I expect an encyclopedia that contains articles about heroin to be selling heroin.