Tue 9th September 2008, 10:03pm
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Tue 9th September 2008, 4:52am)
•Wikipedia Has Come Under Fire for Showing 'dressed-up Porn
MedIndia, India -3 minutes ago
In fact, some of the site's own editors have confessed that the objected content is 'dressed-up porn'. Using Wikipedia, instead of dictionaries, ...View the article
One entry on the site shows an 18-second video of a man ejaculating, and that too, without any warnings or age verification. [...] According to a Wikipedia editor, who wants to get the ejaculation video removed has said that the concerned clip is "overkill".
Probably not the same guy on ED we know as WarmSticky
This one is sort of a prime test for whether or not WP ever gets the brown paper wrapper on some articles in some form or other. As usual, they haven't really come to grips with the problem.
Other than to say obviously untrue things, such as "Wikipedia is uncensored." Of course it's censored. There are far odder sexual things it could have perfectly encyclopedic videos of (the ejaculation video is unusual only for a certain vigor....)
You know, I'm at the age where I really hate Wikipedia's hypocrisy and lack of self-honesty more than I dislike any photo of any biological thing or process you can name.
I'm disgusted far more by "Wikipedia is uncensored" said over and over by people with eyes glazed over, than by anything you can call porn.