  Wikipedia and Fox, working together at last |
Who could imagine that a site that allows users to post content might have some that’s ‘inappropriate’ or ‘obscene’ as conservatives define such? Or that Fox News would be in favor of censorship? Or that Jimmy Wales could ever be involved in anything controversial?
In the war over internet censorship and online morality, it was not the government, but rather Fox News that struck the latest blow. The news agency has triggered a purging of pornographic content from the world’s most popular online encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
The parent company of Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, silently conducted the removal of thousands of images. It is reportedly also is preparing a new policy concerning sexually explicit content.
Fox News claims responsibility, writing:
The move came as FoxNews.com was in the process of asking dozens of companies that have donated to Wikimedia Foundation — the umbrella group behind Wikimedia Commons and its Wiki projects, including Wikipedia — if they were aware of the extent of graphic and sexually explicit content on the sites.
Wikimedia’s donors which were contacted include Google, Microsoft’s Bing, Yahoo!, Open Society Institute, Ford Foundation, Best Buy, USA Networks and Craigslist Foundation.
[…]
Fox News reports that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger contacted the FBI about the nude pictures of children on the site, accusing the site of mass distribution of child pornography. According to the news organization, the FBI has declined comment about whether they will investigate the mess.
Sounds like a tit-for-tat for pointing out Beck’s insanity to his advertisers.
Google has also been “cleaning” up its image search results lately. With its SafeSearch filter set to off, you used to intermittently get pornographic images mixed in with the results for a seeming non-sexual search term. Now if you do an image search for the term “BJ” you get pictures from the TV series “BJ and the Bear” or the character “B.J. Hunnicutt” from MASH instead of.. well.. the other thing that BJ usually stands for.
@2
But isn’t that correct? IF you turn “safe search” off and search for BJ, you SHOULD get porn or sex related results. That’s correct. If you search on a sex related term, or don’t want to ACCIDENTALLY return a sex related result (if you innocently were looking up ‘tea bagger’ for example thinking you would get politics)…then turn SAFE SEARCH ON. That’s explicitly what it’s for, to protect children, Republicans and overly sensitive Democrats from accidentally seeing “evil” naked body parts.
I love of f**ked up country. We can buy 20 bottles of vodka and a carton of cigarettes, but a single joint is illegal. I can turn on TV and my 6 year old can see 40 people stabbed or shot in one hour of TV surfing, not including endless fist fights and general violence, but don’t let my kid see a naked breast or ass…THAT would be damaging and corrupting. Welcome to America, violence and murder is ok, but sex is evil. What’s WRONG with us?
It’s for the “good of the children”. Doesn’t saying that make everything OK?
So now Fox is the one supporting censorship, and not the people who want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?
Don’t you love it when fascists use the “For the children” excuse to shove their POVs?
Stephen Colbert is going to have fun with this one.
I think a lot of the graphic images on Wiki were superfluous, just a way for geeks to have porn and claim “It’s not porn, it’s an encyclopedia.” No, it’s porn.
We can buy 20 bottles of vodka and a carton of cigarettes, but a single joint is illegal.
And an AK-47, and a ton of Ammonium Nitrate, and 500 gallons of diesel fuel, and a subscription to Modern Militias and Counterinsurgency..
You can also allow physicians fill you full of cancer fighting drugs and send you to jail for using marijuana to help combat the nausea.
It would be nice if it was possible for children to use the internet and not see adult content by accident (without stopping adults).
It would also be nice if television that is available to children freely during the day did not include corporate brainwashing propaganda and age inappropriate sexual content like on FOX for example.
I guess breeding couples (or post-breeding singles) will still have to parent themselves (and lock, block and censor as they see fit).
The Internet is for porn.
Next they’ll probably remove all of the images of Mohammed.
Somebody should complain on why this channel is even classified as a news channel. What news? All they have is 24/7/365 worth of propaganda designed to get any Republican elected. How the hell is that news?
Guess I’ve been looking in the wrong places on Wikipedia.
I seem to remember naked women and children in my old print version of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Only they called it anthropology not pornography.
Someone should introduce FoxNewts to National Geographic. Oh, the horror, oh the humanity.
But, where are the links to all this porn ??? Inquiring minds want to know !!!
The issue was they had topics labeled things that are illegal and were showing examples.
That shows a marked level of detachment from reality.
“… the sneaking suspicion that someone, somewhere is having a good time.”
What’s worse:
A news organization that intentionally and continuously releases false information to advance its agenda?
OR
Porn?
All this concern from a network that now features a lesbian talk show host, on its American Idol program. When did she become such a great judge of talent? After her own standup comedy career took a nose-dive? Or after her only Tv series and movie career, crashed and burned? How does 3% of the total US population being gay, make her a must on Idol? And don’t get be started on some of Fox’s other past disastrous “reality shows”, that screamed of indecency. Between Fox’s entertainment division, and its new division, is a chasm of immorality the size of the Grand Canyon. But they’ve got all the self-righteous fooled into believing their pretense.
Oh well it doesn’t matter anymore. With the advent of the camera phone, children have found out they can make their own pornography.