I’ve never seen any porn on wikipedia. Heck, the articles rarely have pictures at all. Except for pathetic low resolution pictures that are considered copyright safe.
They do have bios of some adult actors. IMDB does that too. I see nothing wrong with that. The bios I’ve seen are professional. There’s no sex in them.
Veronica Hart is a former actress and currently a producer/director.
I just don’t get it. There’s hundreds of thousands of porn sites. Why would anyone waste time posting porn on wikipedia? That seems so dumb.
There are a few illustrations of sex positions. I believe the penis and vagina pages have actual pictures (or at least, they used to, with Wikipedia you never know what the current page looks like). But as for actual out-and-out (or should that be in-and-out?) porn? I’ve never seen it.
I’m listening to the History of Rome podcast, and a couple months ago the podcaster covered the life of Hadrian, who was pretty openly…uh, I guess “gay” is kind of a modern political term, but he was into guys. And his lover, Antinous, died at an early age and was then deified by Hadrian. The podcaster said that because of this, Antinous’ face is one of the best known of the era because everyone trying to get into Hadrian’s good graces built shrines to Antinous and his cult was quite prominent.
So naturally, I went to wikipedia to see what Antinous looked like. And I was a bit surprised to find a totally pornographic 19th century picture of Hadrian and Antinous getting it on.
I can think of two gay pornographic images that were on there. But they were removed very quickly and I was looking up gay porn actors, so it wasn’t a shock
Ok, that makes sense. I can easily imagine classic art pictures appearing with historical articles. Some of those get pretty vivid. The ancient artists drew some pretty wild stuff. The historical context of the article would be incomplete without at least linking to the pictures.
Again, it’s not Wikipedia that’s hosting the images, but Wiki—>m<—edia Commons. There are all sorts of random media in the latter site that aren’t necessarily used by Wikipedia directly.
Wikipedia history to the rescue. It looks like the image was part of an image gallery of Antinous and the whole gallery was removed a few months ago as Wikipedia frowns on image galleries.
Even when it was there, the image was never prominent.
But there’s still a large image gallery. It looks to me like the pornographic picture was targeted. (Which is okay with me. I mean, I’m an adult and I’m no prude and it was still surprising to see that on Wikipedia entry.)
It’s worth noting that Wikipedia is not censored. There is no requirement that Wikipedia pages be “safe for work.” Sexually explicit images and other material that some might consider objectionable is perfectly fair game for inclusion in an article so long as it’s relevant and informative. If you go to the Wikipedia article on “Penis,” you will see (surprise!) a photograph of a penis.
But as for the claims in that Fox News article, they sound completely bizarre and sensational. I wouldn’t take them seriously, especially considering the source. It’s worth noting also that Wikimedia has published a response to the allegations.
The “Pages that link here” entry fro exhibitionism seems to be a pretty good list of pages on Wikipedia featuring nudity. Still no explicit porn though.
Yes, right now there is. It’s apparently the site of yet another Wikipedia editor battle. The entire gallery was ripped out in March (due to one Wiki editor’s dislike of galleries) and then restored later that day by a different editor. The painting was removed on March 20, restored later that day and then removed again on April 22. It has yet to be restored.
There are pictures on Wikipedia that aren’t in Wikimedia Commons, just as there are pictures on Wikimedia Commons that aren’t in Wikipedia, so there is some distinction. If the OP wants to go searching for dirty pictures, there are some on Wikipedia, but there will be a lot more on Wikimedia Commons.
That seems so dumb.