Forum - View topicNEWS: Wikipedia Co-Founder Reports 'Child Porn' in Wikimedia
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
ikillchicken
 Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||
You might want to avoid talking to ANN readers in person then...or at least put down a tarp. 
|
||||
|
||||
Hon'ya-chan
 Posts: 973 |
|
|||
And if your female, there is a dignified way to commit suicide. |
||||
|
||||
Ojamajo LimePie
 Posts: 766 |
|
|||
Arrogant enough that less than 150 articles have been approved to go on his Wikipedia alternative. Not much of an alternative, is it? 
|
||||
|
||||
Tempest
 I Run this place.ANN Publisher  Posts: 10420 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
|||
Worth noting that some of images contain more than panty shots. Either of the pictures of the collections feature images of the covers of lolicon material with explicit nudity or more. -t |
||||
|
||||
|
Tempest
I Run this place. ANN Publisher Posts: 10420 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
|||
All this discussion of UK laws is pretty irrelevant. That material is also illegal in Canada, the USA, Australia and various other English speaking nations. Your freedom of expression (more specifically your right to experience other people's expression) is being silenced by your government. Deal with it at your end. -t |
||||
|
||||
chicogrande
 Posts: 190 Location: Huntsville, Alabama |
|
|||
Sorry but, it's still nothing near what "child porn" in real life is. |
||||
|
||||
|
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor
 Posts: 9902 Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC |
|
|||
Well I do remember what was on Wikipedia's lolicon entry; not sure if it's okay to write it down here, though. 
|
||||
|
||||
|
jsyxx
|
|
|||
The images shown haven't been deemed as illegal by a judge yet (they won't be) in the US. You're acting completely pretentious as usual. |
||||
|
Monster in a box
Posts: 671 |
|
|||
|
Haha, I can't believe the image with those spines is still up. That's been there forever.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Tempest
I Run this place. ANN Publisher Posts: 10420 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
|||
You need to learn the definition of the world pretentious. Calling something illegal, regardless of whether I'm right or wrong, isn't pretentious. If you think the images only become illegal after a judge deems them so, your understanding of the legal system is somewhat misinformed. On the otherhand, if you're trying to say that the images are borderline, I'm pretty positive that they would meet the criteria for obscenity, which is the key factor. The images in question include multiple illustrations of elementary school girls' entire naked bodies, focusing on their exposed genitalia. I've made a point of saying many times that I don't feel this material should be illegal, but that doesn't change the fact that it is. [edit: actually, the image I was referring to is on Wikipedia, so I removed that part] -t Last edited by Tempest on Tue Apr 13, 2010 5:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||
|
||||
|
The_Q
Posts: 57 |
|
|||
|
Obscene images are what's problematic. I think that's what the first guy was trying to say.,
Anywho, this is just top tier attention whoring. You say the magic CP word, which negates the reasoning portion of your brain (a recent study actually proves this). You then condemn your rival for hosting such content while plugging in your own website. Opportunistic scoundrel would be an understatement. |
||||
|
||||
|
Ganryu
Posts: 106 |
|
|||
Can you provide a source to that study? |
||||
|
||||
tyciol
 Posts: 134 Location: Canada |
|
|||
|
I doubt there's actually a study like that, there might be general studies regarding emotional responses to buzzwords, but I've never heard of one dealing with that specifically.
|
||||
|
||||
|
luisedgarf
Posts: 656 Location: Guadalajara, Mexico |
|
|||
Maybe because all those countries are (in)famous due to their puritanistic viewpoint of how they can control the way people watch foreign material? |
||||
|
||||
keikanki
 Posts: 107 |
|
|||
|
There's been a new twist in this story (for people like myself who haven't been keeping up since last month): Wikimedia has decided to go ahead and start removing content, although by some twist of logic they insist that the new practice still embodies the old policy.
Board of Trustees Statement Discussion page |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group