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(a)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-ima…
"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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l