Hard core porn on Wikipedia
In the name of education hard core porn is now allowed by Wikipedia for anyone including your children to observe. I do not even want to mention what this article says that Wikipedia is displaying. In the name of free speech we are allowing criminally insane predators to run free. I say it is time for the remaining sane people on earth to send out the dog catchers.
A photo of two nude men having anal sex on a bed, and a “fluffer” handing them a towel, is shown to the right of the entry.
Matt Barber, a constitutional law attorney who serves as Concerned Women for America’s policy director for cultural issues, expressed outrage at Wikipedia’s decision to allow sexually explicit images.
“Children use Wikipedia all of the time for reports for school, and this stuff is not just pornography, this is hard-core pornography,” he said. “Much of it may even be in violation of our nation’s obscenity laws.”
Barber said many of the filtering devices people have in their homes and schools are not geared to protect against Wikipedia’s material.
Mark Pelligrini, regional representative for Wikipedia, told WND, “Wikipedia’s goal is to provide an encyclopedia that contains the sum of all human knowledge. To that end, Wikipedia does not censor objectionable material.
Date posted: Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 9:53 am | Under category: Mental illness, amoral society, demented, looney, perverts
RSS 2.0 | Comment | Trackback
In keeping with the subject: screw Wikipedia and that rotten “21st Century mentality.”
What this article states is true. I have commented on certain Wikipedia entries myself and “vandalized” certain pages to provoke them but they never took anything seriously. Rather than removing the obscenity from their website, they threaten to ban your IP address for a period of time if you voice your protest against the outrageous content found on their website. It’s no use arguing with these people, they’re unprincipled “tolerant” airheads. And it’s not just on Wikipedia though. Just check out their sister project Wikicommons, for instance.
And then we haven’t even touched the subject of factual accuracy and the bias in their articles. Some articles are good, thorough and well written. Others are very biased and obviously the work of social liberal activists, pinko commie moonbats. Or basically anything BUT professional writers. This is especially the case in the English language version of Wikipedia, but it’s also true to some degree of material written in other languages.
Some material on Wikipedia is useable and well done. But for certain topics there’s so much bias and drivel that you’re better off doing your own research.
What “encyclopedia” has entries on all that crap people can buy in sex shops, for God’s sake? Is that normal? As if it weren’t enough that more than half of the damn Internet is made up of porn sites. What’s next? Hey, what does pedophilea look like? Let’s put up some images of nude kids while we’re at it! I thought people used encylopedias to find facts and relevant information about relevant topics, not to find out all about the latest gay pride events, orgasms, porn movies or whatever. That should be reserved to x-rated magazines.. or websites that are anything BUT encyclopedias.
Decadent fools.