I'm not one hundred percent sure that this is a problem. Context is important. Pornographic material in Wikipedia's "NPOV" and encyclopedic context is probably not unsettling to children.
If this is a real issue, and pedagogues or parents are offended, how has Wikipedia gotten away with it this long?
I wouldn't have thought so either, but apparently there are some folks out there who are enjoying pushing the limit of exactly how much pornography they can incorporate into wikipedia.
I mean, do we really need an article on the subject "Cock And Ball Torture"? I would have thought it was fairly self-explanatory. If so, does it really need to be illustrated with four photographs?
(You can look it up, I'm not gonna provide a link.)
I'm guessing, here, that the page exists less for the greater edification of mankind and more for the sexual jollies of that rather narrow section of humanity which happens to enjoy not only putting their genitals in "humblers", "testicle cuffs" and "parachutes", but also get off on exhibitionism.
I dunno if it's "unsettling to children", but that page is sure as hell unsettling to me.
>but apparently there are some folks out there who are enjoying pushing the limit of exactly how much pornography they can incorporate into wikipedia.
Bingo. I would even go as far as to say that wiki's have this way of attracting entire sub-cultures of contributors who enjoy sneaking such things in wherever they can shoe-horn them. (See: Tvtropes.) On the one hand I support wikipedia's position that they shouldn't censor the articles. But on the other hand I don't see limiting this subtle vandalism as censorship. It's more of quality control than anything else.
If this is a real issue, and pedagogues or parents are offended, how has Wikipedia gotten away with it this long?