Honestly, there really isn't a whole lot of pornographic images. Most of the alleged "pornographic images" are really just bland images of genitalia. I think people are better off going to 4chan for their fix.
-- ~~yutsi Sent from my iPhone.
On Sep 10, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikipedian@gmail.com wrote:
I can't imagine a site more accessible and better organized than Wikipedia for someone seeking porn. They're quite correct.
Bob
On 9/10/2012 1:51 PM, Steve Summit wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/09/10/wikipedia-slow-to-filter-graphic-imag...
"Wikipedia has turned down a more or less free offer for software that would keep minors and unsuspecting web surfers from stumbling upon graphic images of sex organs, acts and emissions, FoxNews.com has learned -- sexually explicit images that remain far and away the most popular items on the company's servers."
Funny, I didn't realize we (or commons, which is what they're really talking about) were a porn site, but I guess they wouldn't print it if it wasn't true...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l