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.

[Malleus]

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.

That doesn't make sense. There is no reason why encyclopedias ought not to contain articles about pornography, there are even BBC television articles about the history of pornography. If you have any evidence that anyone is selling pornography by whatever means then you ought to share it with whomever you believe to be the relevant authorities.

[lilburne]

There is no reason why encyclopedias ought not to contain articles about pornography, there are even BBC television articles about the history of pornography.

You mean this series which from what I recall managed to get the point across without any porn. Was scheduled after 9pm, in fact I think it went out around 11pm.

[Malleus]

There is no reason why encyclopedias ought not to contain articles about pornography, there are even BBC television articles about the history of pornography.

You mean this series which from what I recall managed to get the point across without any porn. Was scheduled after 9pm, in fact I think it went out around 11pm.

Without selling any porn, which appears to be Peter Damian's objection.

This post has been edited by Malleus: Tue 22nd March 2011, 1:10am

[Peter Damian]

There is no reason why encyclopedias ought not to contain articles about pornography, there are even BBC television articles about the history of pornography.

You mean this series which from what I recall managed to get the point across without any porn. Was scheduled after 9pm, in fact I think it went out around 11pm.

Without selling any porn, which appears to be Peter Damian's objection.

That was not my point. Even if the encyclopedia is free, then I don’t expect the article about heroin to be giving away heroin. I want it merely to be about heroin.

My point was that an article about X should not be the same as X. An article about pornography should not itself be pornography.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 22nd March 2011, 8:14am

[Sxeptomaniac]

There is no reason why encyclopedias ought not to contain articles about pornography, there are even BBC television articles about the history of pornography.

You mean this series which from what I recall managed to get the point across without any porn. Was scheduled after 9pm, in fact I think it went out around 11pm.

Without selling any porn, which appears to be Peter Damian's objection.

That was not my point. Even if the encyclopedia is free, then I don’t expect the article about heroin to be giving away heroin. I want it merely to be about heroin.

My point was that an article about X should not be the same as X. An article about pornography should not itself be pornography.

Contrary to the nit-picking, I thought it was pretty clear that was the point, and that's what I agreed with. I've tried to avoid the porno articles, but what I've seen pretty consistently has a level of detail that indicates all the article-writing was done one-handed. This is a big part of the problem.

[Peter Damian]

There is no reason why encyclopedias ought not to contain articles about pornography, there are even BBC television articles about the history of pornography.

You mean this series which from what I recall managed to get the point across without any porn. Was scheduled after 9pm, in fact I think it went out around 11pm.

Without selling any porn, which appears to be Peter Damian's objection.

That was not my point. Even if the encyclopedia is free, then I don’t expect the article about heroin to be giving away heroin. I want it merely to be about heroin.

My point was that an article about X should not be the same as X. An article about pornography should not itself be pornography.

Contrary to the nit-picking, I thought it was pretty clear that was the point, and that's what I agreed with. I've tried to avoid the porno articles, but what I've seen pretty consistently has a level of detail that indicates all the article-writing was done one-handed. This is a big part of the problem.

Yes. The serious pursuit of knowledge does not involve getting a large stiffy.