# Wikipedia - what porn? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 16, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658 "2010-05-16T17:37:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2010, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658/21 "2010-05-16T19:39:47Z")
awhile back we had a thread on masturbation with a wiki link that would qualify ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2010, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658/22 "2010-05-16T19:43:11Z")
Broken link[NSFW!]: http :// [en.wikipedia.org/](http://en.wikipedia.org/) wiki/ Ejaculation This article has a short video of a guy masturbating and shooting off. Is this on-topic? ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2010, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658/23 "2010-05-16T19:48:53Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > http :// [en.wikipedia.org/](http://en.wikipedia.org/) wiki/ Ejaculation > > This article has a short video of a guy masturbating and shooting off. Is this on-topic? Did you have to add all the extra spaces? That’s just annoying. But damn, somebody filmed themselves ejaculating and then uploaded to Wikipedia. That’s hardcore! In the nerdy sense. Well, I guess in the pornographic sense too. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2010, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658/24 "2010-05-16T22:07:03Z")
The spaces are a courtesy to anyone who is browsing from work (which for most Dopers is probably tomorrow, but you never know). For this one I figured I’d be extra safe. ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2010, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658/25 "2010-05-16T23:39:45Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > The spaces are a courtesy to anyone who is browsing from work (which for most Dopers is probably tomorrow, but you never know). For this one I figured I’d be extra safe. Unnecessary. All you have to do is unclick the “Automatically parse links in text” box before submitting your post, like so: > **[thingsthataredoingit.com](http://thingsthataredoingit.com/2010/04/29/inanimate-hawtness-jesus-christ-put-it-away/)** > > This domain may be for sale! ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658/26 "2010-05-17T00:04:27Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > Broken link[NSFW!]: > > http :// [en.wikipedia.org/](http://en.wikipedia.org/) wiki/ Ejaculation > > This article has a short video of a guy masturbating and shooting off. Is this on-topic? Ew. This time they should have gone with an actual porn clip. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658/27 "2010-05-17T02:09:56Z")
> [@Stealth\_Potato](#): > > It’s worth noting that [Wikipedia is not censored](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#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. It’s equally worth nothing that the mindless chanting of “Wikipedia is not censored” as a thought-terminating cliche is exactly why Wikipedia has become a haven for thousands of exhibition fetishists who get off on uploading pictures of their dicks. ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658/28 "2010-05-17T02:43:08Z")
The key words there are “relevant” and “informative.” Gratuitous dick-posting can and should be removed under Wikipedia’s policies. Who’s chanting? ---
**Author:** ![Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eyebrows_0f_doom/32/3119_2.png) [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eyebrows_0f_Doom)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658/29 "2010-05-17T03:27:05Z")
> [@Kyla](#): > > I just checked [Antinous’ wiki page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinous). The picture is gone. > > It’s really not SFW, but the artist’s name is Édouard-Henri Avril and it’s an easy google to find it if you want to see what I’m talking about. I don’t know if the one you were looking at is among them, but there are 5 NSFW images on the wikipedia page for the artist. > **[Édouard-Henri Avril](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edouard-Henri_Avril)** > > Édouard-Henri Avril (.mw-parser-output .IPA-label-small{font-size:85%}.mw-parser-output .references .IPA-label-small,.mw-parser-output .infobox .IPA-label-small,.mw-parser-output .navbox .IPA-label-small{font-size:100%}French: \[avʁil\]; 21 May 1849 – 28 July 1928) was a French painter and commercial artist. Under the pseudonym Paul Avril, he was an illustrator of erotic literature. > Avril was a soldier before starting his career in art; he was awarded with the Legion of Honour for his actions in... ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658/30 "2010-05-17T03:56:30Z")
I am just completely shocked that Wikipedia is the only website not making money off porn. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658/31 "2010-05-17T08:48:25Z")
Eh, I agree with the relevant proviso. If it’d relevant to the particular article it should be included. NSFW isn’t really applicable if you are clicking on an article titled something like “penis”. That said, I’ve seen appropriately included images for sexually related titles, and I don’t consider it inappropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Rrose\_Selavy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bcef8e/32.png) [@Rrose\_Selavy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rrose_Selavy)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658/32 "2010-05-17T11:54:28Z")
I’m usually pretty au fait with internet terms but I had to google a word used in jest on a forum a few weeks ago. This brought me to the relevant wiki page. I won’t add much more or google it again for details but it starts with a Goatxxx or similar and refers , I found then, to a site with a grossly explicit photograph of a man exposing his er…anal passage. Anyway my point is that on the Wiki Talk page talk page in describing this internet “shock site” there had been some debate about whether, assuming the article was noteworthy enough to be included, it required a relevant image as an illustration , or as a thumbnail , or not at all. - ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658/33 "2010-05-18T02:36:13Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > Eh, I agree with the relevant proviso. If it’d relevant to the particular article it should be included. NSFW isn’t really applicable if you are clicking on an article titled something like “penis”. That said, I’ve seen appropriately included images for sexually related titles, and I don’t consider it inappropriate. The question is not why Wikipedia might have a picture from an anatomy textbook in an article on the penis. The question is why Wikipedia has four thousand homemade pictures of ejaculating penises, an equal number of lavishly illustrated articles on every sex act that there’s a slang term for, and other nonsense that serves absolutely no purpose besides the sexual gratification of the people providing the content. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658/34 "2010-05-18T07:04:46Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > The question is not why Wikipedia might have a picture from an anatomy textbook in an article on the penis. The question is why Wikipedia has four thousand homemade pictures of ejaculating penises, an equal number of lavishly illustrated articles on every sex act that there’s a slang term for, and other nonsense that serves absolutely no purpose besides the sexual gratification of the people providing the content. I don’t think wikipedia per se actually does, rather it’s the wikimedia commons, a place for public domain files. Wikipedia itself has sexuality related articles with a similar level of illustrations as most of their other articles. With regards to the commons, the easy answer is, sexually related topics are popular and therefore more users are willing to provide public domain material. And I’ve gone to both wikipedia and wikicommons every now and then with prurient curiosity and have always come away mostly disappointed. Wiki porn is at a level comparable to Nat Geo. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658/35 "2010-05-18T08:13:36Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > The question is not why Wikipedia might have a picture from an anatomy textbook in an article on the penis. The question is why Wikipedia has four thousand homemade pictures of ejaculating penises, an equal number of lavishly illustrated articles on every sex act that there’s a slang term for, and other nonsense that serves absolutely no purpose besides the sexual gratification of the people providing the content. How about because porn is not illegal? The whole project is against censorship. If people want to see those pictures, and want to release them into Wikimedia commons, why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so? ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658/36 "2010-05-18T09:11:56Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > How about because porn is not illegal? The whole project is against censorship. If people want to see those pictures, and want to release them into Wikimedia commons, why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so? This has nothing to do with legality or “censorship.” No government action is going on. It has everything to do with Wikipedia’s failings as an encyclopedia. If it wants to be a free amateur porn site, it has every right to do so, but that disqualifies it from being a reliable compendium of articles about general academic topics. It cannot be both. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658/37 "2010-05-18T12:17:19Z")
Once again: Don’t confuse Wiki-M-edia Commons with Wiki-P-edia. ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2010, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658/38 "2010-05-18T12:23:12Z")
Child porn eh? Maybe they ought to change the name to Pedowikia. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658/39 "2010-05-19T00:57:35Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > It has everything to do with Wikipedia’s failings as an encyclopedia. If it wants to be a free amateur porn site, it has every right to do so, but that disqualifies it from being a reliable compendium of articles about general academic topics. It cannot be both. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Wikipedia is in no way an amateur porn site. It covers sexual topics because it covers all topics. To specifically disinclude those articles would give them undue focus. It has user submitted media because the whole project is open source. That users submit sexually related media to the wikicommons, some of which get used in sexuality articles, is in no way more noteworthy than all the users who submit their creative commons photos relevant to all the other articles. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658/40 "2010-05-19T03:20:27Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > Wikipedia is in no way an amateur porn site. Except for the fact that it includes thousands of instances of amateur porn, and that porn is not put there in any earnest attempt to educate anyone or encyclopedify anything, but solely because the people putting it there get off on exhibition. Other than in that way, it is not an amateur porn site. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-what-porn/539658.md?page=3)