Forum - View topicNEWS: Wikipedia Co-Founder Reports 'Child Porn' in Wikimedia
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Jaymie
Posts: 915 |
|
|||
|
Ummm what? It's panties. I'm pretty strongly against Lolicon, but those pictures are pretty tame. A lot Anime and Manga feature pantie shots of underage girls. Is he trying to say that they should be reported to the F.B.I. as well?
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ganryu
Posts: 106 |
|
|||
|
Most slashdot posters seem to agree that the point of doing this is to bring attention to his own website. So avoid his website.
|
||||
|
||||
Daemonblue
 Posts: 701 |
|
|||
|
Same for the Sankaku posters. This just screams "look at my site, it doesn't house paedophiles, so it must be better!" and it takes the "quality" over "quantity" approach, which means low page views and little information that was probably ripped from somewhere else anyway.
This just goes to show how some idiots that don't even know the law try to use it to bring down competition... |
||||
|
||||
Zin5ki
 Posts: 6680 Location: London, UK |
|
|||
One hopes this notification will help to quell unnecessary doubt about the legality of drawn content online. Ridding a website of dubious material need not require informing the authorities; testing their level of acceptance would not have a positive effect on hitherto well-meaning domains. |
||||
|
||||
chicogrande
 Posts: 190 Location: Huntsville, Alabama |
|
|||
|
Huh?
Some badly drawn panties is child porn? It's an insult to the struggle against the sexual abuse of flesh and blood victims. |
||||
|
||||
Mushi-Man
 Posts: 1537 Location: KCMO |
|
|||
|
I have to agree with what others have said so far, this just seems like Sanger trying to get attention and knock down his competition. I imagine he thought people would see him as a protector of the internet but instead he just comes off as a self centered jerk.
|
||||
|
||||
|
gorbal
Posts: 114 |
|
|||
Meanwhile "Strike Witches" is still on the front pages of ANN. |
||||
|
||||
Mohawk52
 Posts: 8202 Location: England, UK |
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
jsyxx
|
|
|||
|
Uh oh, better throw away your copies of the JC Penny Catalog, because images of panties are CP now!!! Can they maybe sue this jackass for libel?
|
||||
|
jsyxx
|
|
|||
So wait, I'm confused, it's not obscenity if it's online???? Since when has that been the case? |
||||
|
Zin5ki
Posts: 6680 Location: London, UK |
|
|||
|
It was not my intention for the utterance of "online" to suggest that I considered obscenity laws not to apply to such a domain. I merely had in mind the consideration that, due to the presence of "questionable" images on a variety of websites, the rigorous policing of online domains could presumably be to the detriment of many people, regardless of whether they actively attempt to view obscene material.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Shiroi Hane
Encyclopedia Editor
 Posts: 7580 Location: Wales |
|
|||
|
Given the current situation here in the UK I'm not going to temp fate by looking, but Kasuga is the creator of "wikipetan" and, although he created some hentai illustrations, none of them are used on Wikipedia. He did, IIRC, create a tame illustration to be used on the Lolicon page since there was a lot of fighting over what image to use and whether they had permission to use it etc.
|
||||
|
||||
RestLessone
 Posts: 1426 Location: New York |
|
|||
|
...Y'know, having watched some of the Wiki debates about whether certain images were appropriate or not, I can say that there were much worse ones than girls in panties. Hell, just go to the lolicon Wikipedia page and look at the image with the books. There's some rather...disturbing images on the bindings. I know there was some debate about whether to keep it, but I'm not sure how far it went
None of them showed real children, of course. I just avoid the lolicon and shotacon pages so I don't have to see it. 
In any case, it does seem like he reported it to get people interested in his competing site. I'm not opposed to removing the explicit images from the article, but only because there are much less risque images, and the sexual ones aren't vital to the article. But why get the law involved when there are much more important things to be done? EDIT: Ah, forgot about the UK law. In that case, I say remove from Wiki just so that those laws aren't violated. I'd hate to have someone stumbling upon in by accident...Although, I doubt there'd be much trouble; it's a Wikipedia page, where a person will visit once and then zoom away once they see the image content. English Wiki is for all countries, particularly those in English-speaking countries. The US, UK, Canada, and Australia seem to be the home of most users. |
||||
|
||||
|
utumo
Posts: 10 |
|
|||
|
This law is getting more and more ridiculous. More waste of taxpayers' money for a meaningless lawsuit.
|
||||
|
||||
|
jsyxx
|
|
|||
You're post was changed and so was the quote in my post after you. Whoever edited these, can we maybe just add a later post explaining things without doing something like this that will just create a lot of confusion? |
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group