http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Za...d_Shankbone.jpg

and please, shankers, no wanking on the set. Just where is that right hand?:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Th...ult_film_15.jpg

...and for the "Making of..." argument....is this supposed to document camera placement techniques in film?

The technique, with respect to filming, is no different and adds no further information from Kurt Wild Takes it Up His Rear While Shankbone Watches 6 inches away" than documenting the film set of the latest Kate Hudson Smooches Matthew McConaughey's bare chest scene from the Chick Flick of the month.

Wikimedia is being used to host hardcore porn, gratuitously. Above and beyond any reference material use.

Yeah not looking at shankbone's pics (NSFW everyone in case you didn't realise)

are you an admin?

if so, do WP admins have "jurisdiction" over wikimedia to delete material?

Who in their right mind would think that hosting some of those photos (it's fine showing film crews on a set...it's not fine showing pictures that are hardcore porn on a site that does not present itself as a hardcore porn site to the world) is in the best interests of the future viability of the hosting company?

If I'm a Wikimedia "admin" I nuke those pictures, ban the contributor, and send all the links to the lawyer for wikimedia asap so they can prepare themselves. You'd be doing wikimedia a favour.

Jimmy Wales is an idiot. Unbelievable.

It is a fair question. In a sense all admins that don't fall on their RPG swords trying are responsible for the offensive content. At the heart of the issue lies Wikipedia's inability to exercise voluntary editorial restraint in any fashion. If a person of good will and common sense was an admin and attempted to rid the "encyclopedia" of obviously inappropriate material they would quickly run into a mob of "don't censor us" types who have no idea that decency, taste, respect and concern for others is not censorship when self-imposed. This will alway set Wikipedia standards to the level of the lowest common denominated of the "crowd." This is inherent in wiki logic and deep seated in internet culture.

someone should post the link shown first in the first post in this thread (kurt wild fluffing himself) to Jimbo's WP talk page and ask him "are you aware of this (and a series of photos that are even more dangerous to the future of the site they are hosted on) ? If you aren't aware of it, could you review and then give your opinion on the presence of this material on your site? If you aren't aware of it, why not, by now? If you are aware of it, have you reviewed with your lawyers the risks that you are taking by hosting this material?"

Get it on record whether jimbo "doesn't have a problem with it" or not.

Actually, these aren't so bad. They actually depict consenting adults who signed up to be in explicit photography. OTRS could probably even get legal documentation for them--they're porn stars, after all. Some photos are worse in my view because they don't adhere to this modest standard.

In other words, Mr. Meat Rack Man should be posted to Jimbo's talk page, along with the thin justification that he was seen in outdoors, so must be fair game.

Do you suggest you need permission when photographing a nude adult person from public land?

If so, I know now how the government should make all its "secret" sites impossible to photograph legally. Just put nude guards outside

I think your missing point here. That the photos do not offend you (or me either, actually) isn't the issue, nor should it be. The issue is what place such photos should have in a general use encyclopedia. It seems to me that anywhere else but Wikipedia, people would have no problem answering "none whatever". Think if you will of what else is fair game if such photos are "ok". Do we really need pics of people defecating in order to illustrate an article that describes the working of the bowels? I think not.

I agree in part. Some photos seem to have zero encyclopedic value, but that's true of a lot of non-graphic photos too. Moreover, Commons has a broader purpose than Wikipedia, so they might have a legitimate place there (I don't know much about Commons).

I just find the other photo more unsettling because there's also a potential BLP aspect. It's supposed to be a GFDL photo free for any purpose whatsoever, but it's an anonymous shot of a naked guy in the woods. That strikes me as both unethical and unnecessary.

New guy gets to chime in...

I agree as well. These photos have no place in the encyclopedia. The ''spirit'' of what the encyclopedia is ''supposed'' to be in surely not this.

I think the porn aspect will be their undoing. That Magical First Amendment, plus Section 230, will shield them from a lot of "trouble" with regard to libelous BLPs. But once the lunatic fringe of "moral" America goes after WP for "polluting the American family", all bets are off.

One could always report this to Focus On The Family. Or that freak Brent Bozell.

I have a friend who lives in Australia. Years ago, he became so concerned about Aussie government censorship of his satirical website, he moved hosting to the US. Because very few other countries have a First Amendment. And he may have been right to do that, judging by recent news reports.

Report the "bad images" list to that Conroy fella. See what happens at the WMF. Would they willingly blow off all access to WP in Australia over this?

Mate of FT2.



Yes they are so bad.

Maybe there is some significance here. 'If' there is some point to Wikipedia that none of us know about, such as the CIA use it to manipulate public opinion, this sort of stuff must reduce the effectiveness of the site... to about nil.

This is a troll--or you have me absurdly wrong.

The reason I know so much about this history is I was there, fighting for what I believed to be common sense. My side lost even though it was a majority--Wikipedia has never heeded Jimbo on this issue, and I doubt he's eager to be ignored. I also feel a little bit icky knowing that Jimbo is about the best hope for a sane image policy.

On wiki, I don't weigh in on these disputes anymore. No one apparently cares about mere graphic images. I agree they're unencyclopedic, but [[WP:NOT]] is really easy to cite, and usually wins--even if it's a minority. I offered the woods photo as an example because it's even worse insofar as it's no "victimless" photo. I think it would be pretty shocking even to most of the anti-censorship crowd.

Cade,

One more jpg on the WP for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofellatio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Autofellatio_2.jpg

Well, at least you read what I write. Yes, it's damned absurd.

hey man, that sketch by "Rama" (who's quite sketchy in regards to his own wikiversion of the kamasutra) just isn't enough....Wikipedia just needs a porno-lit graphic photo of a guy sucking his own...for the children....you've got to think of the children...otherwise, they might not know how to do it in living colour.

Folks, if you're an adult, have a liberal-hip-laidback social support network/family, and you'd be ashamed of what's on your PC screen when browsing WP when your wife/mum/grandmum/daughter walks by, then it's probably shouldn't be on the pedia.....

there are some people who are punking the 'pedia, and they're crying notcensored when you call them out on their bullshit....and jimmy's going to be lucky if its just the "tabloids" that call him out on it and not some folks with more clout.

Does Bono know what goes on, on the Wikipornpedia? Shimon Peres? Salman Rushdie? Jeff Merkey (you know, he's in the $200K+ club!), Richard Branson?

Email them the links you've seen here today on the W-R.

Sorry, which side was that? Not a rhetorical question. Are you in favour of such images being placed in a reference work widely used by children, the older generation such as myself who tend to be offended by such things, or not?

Not actually that I am particularly offended by such things, but look at how a medical reference work treats such subjects and images, and how Wikipedia deals with it, you will understand what I am on about. There is a truly neutral way of presenting the subject, and there is a mildly pornographic way. So which side were you on?

What amaze me is that with all these sex-pictures all over WP, we do not have the ones WP really need. I´m thinking, of course, on the article "Condom": now, there I would want a as detailed series of pictures as are possible! Yes! for the children! Honestly, that is something which really would be useful --and could in fact save lives.. ...Presently there are only rather bad drawings as to how to put on a condom correctly, I want detailed pictures!

But instead of useful, necessary pictures we get a hell of a lot of narcissic self-promotion from Shankbones "friends".

Jesus H. Christ. Did you even click the link? If you can't read the tone from my earlier post (which I think is quite clear), I at least said "my side lost." You can go to [[Autofellatio]] (linked now by piperdown) and tell me which side lost.

Wikipedia has no sense of editorial judgment when it comes to photos, and it hurts its credibility. In my view, photos that are linked from articles are worse than those that Shankbone merely threw into commons. Once again "not so bad" does not equal "not bad," and I resent your implications otherwise. My point is only that there's even worse, and [[Autofellatio]] strikes me as one example (a high profile one that Jimbo should be aware of), the meat track guy is another. The Zack Randall masturbating picture is not in any article, so I think it's reasonable to say "not so bad." The porn set is featured in [[Hardcore pornography]], but seems less reprehensible than [[Autofellatio]]. In 2005, I was at the receiving end of more than one "censorship is evil" rants by Tony Sidaway and others; I don't deserve your scorn on this issue.

Thanks - it would have helped if you had explained that - I can't click the links you mention.