backtop

Print 107 comment(s) - last by jeff834.. on May 14 at 1:58 PM

  (Source: The Simpsons/Fox)

Some Wikipedia articles, like the masturbation column are still full of explicit images.
News agency contacted donors warning them of explicit content, prompting action

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.  Some of these companies -- such as Google, Yahoo, and Bing -- are no strangers to explicit content, but others like Best Buy likely were concerned about being associated with the less-than-family-friendly content.

In its reports, Fox News points out that "nude children" reveals pictures of naked children on Wikipedia -- essentially child pornography.  The news agency also took issue with the numerous explicit images of adults on the site engaging in sex acts like masturbation or intercourse.  Writes Fox News, "A child doing homework research on the educational website could easily stumble upon pornographic photos — including close-ups of genitalia and people having sex and masturbating."

Jimmy Wales, President of the Wikimedia Foundation and co-founder of Wikipedia, apologized for the mess in a post, writing, "We have had a problem with images being placed into inappropriate categories, so that viewers were exposed in unexpected ways to sexual content. Image categorization should be done in such a way that readers are not exposed unexpectedly to content that may be offensive."

He adds, "I expect the board to issue a statement within a few days offering a general philosophical support for the serious enforcement of policy on this issue.  The Board normally does not get involved with detailed content decisions; I don't expect that to change."

In a later note he adds:

Wikimedia Commons admins [administrators allowed to edit the site, including Wales himself] who wish to remove from the project all images that are of little or no educational value but which appeal solely to prurient interests have my full support. This includes immediate deletion of all pornographic images. We should keep educational images about sexuality -- mere nudity is not pornography -- but as with all our projects, editorial quality judgments must be made and will be made -- appropriately and in good taste....

I think our existing policies here on commons are sufficient to deal with the problem - with the minor exception that many things should just be speedy deleted and argued about later. If you want to be technical about it, please consider this a policy change in that regard. Try to relax. Anything which is deleted can be resorted if there's a good reason.

Following that note, Wikipedia admins began a wild purging, deleting pictures of nude children, bestiality, and a variety of traditional sex acts from the site.  Among the content cleaned was "Images of Stan Spanker" a collection from one user of women using children's toys in sex acts.  Wales himself personally flagged hundreds of images for deletion.

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.

The Wikimedia board states, "The Wikimedia projects are intended to be educational in nature, and there is no place in the projects for material that has no educational or informational value.  In saying this, we don't intend to create new policy, but rather to reaffirm and support policy that already exists. We encourage Wikimedia editors to scrutinize potentially offensive materials with the goal of assessing their educational or informational value, and to remove them from the projects if there is no such value."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
As long as it's not strict censorship.
By Spivonious on 5/10/2010 11:04:06 AM , Rating: 5
I'm okay with them removing explicit images that have nothing to do with the topic, or that aren't really necessary. But if someone is looking up information on genitalia, or reproduction, or any other topic like that, then the images are a nice addition, provided they are educational and not simply clips from a porno.




RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By MrBlastman on 5/10/2010 11:06:10 AM , Rating: 5
I concur.

The only exception is the kiddie pr0n (not to be confused with kittie pr0n). Kiddie pr0n has no business on there whatsoever, even if it is in a topic describing the practice. Pedobear has enough to keep him busy with in the world that he doesn't need to be scouring Wikipedia also.

I'd take it further and suggest that they turn the ip's over to authorities of those who uploaded the kiddie pr0n. Those sickos need to be dealt with.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By Spivonious on 5/10/2010 11:14:54 AM , Rating: 5
I guess it all comes down to whether the image is pornography or not. We have advertisements with naked children in the bathtub, but it's fine because it's not some perverse/sexual setting. Is an image of a 5 year-old with no clothes on automatically pornography? It's an interesting debate.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/10/2010 11:18:59 AM , Rating: 5
I was just watching Superman on AMC this past weekend (the original one), and you see young Kal-El emerging from the crater with his junk hanging down.

I've seen this movie many times over the years, and thought nothing of it -- but seeing it this time made me think that would never fly today.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By MrBlastman on 5/10/2010 12:06:09 PM , Rating: 2
Well, as Conker put it best when he was having a bad fur day, things have to be "context sensitive." You can't ban every image that you would deem a pedo could "get off on," as that would limit a wide variety of things.

Superman, for instance, was telling a story and in the context of the story the scene you are describing made perfect sense within the framework of the whole film. I think it was clear that they were not trying to promote promiscuity in that scene but more appropriately convey a sense of how naked Superman truly was to the world "Earth" upon his arrival.

On the other hand, Wikipedia supposedly was showing lavish acts of pedophilia in the column (or whatever) they had about it which is completely inappropriate. Images such as this have absolutely no place at all in a resource that is purported to be for educational purposes that can... be accessed by children as well.

So it is a sticky line--where do we draw it? I don't think we can draw it to the point where it blocks out everything, as that would be wrong. I think some form of discretion needs to be allowed with some of the burden of "is this ethical, or is it not" be placed on the shoulders of the Author/director/artist knowing full and well the responsibility they carry with depicting any situation.

We can't candy-coat everything in society, but, sometimes, deep down inside, we all should get a feeling telling us "this is wrong" and that is where the line should lie. I think this is one valuable lesson that both parents and schools are failing to teach our children these days; with zero tolerance policies in schools, it is no wonder why the lines have been blurred as of late.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By Danish1 on 5/10/2010 12:47:13 PM , Rating: 2
imo the line is exactly on the spot where it can be proven a picture was taken with sexual intentions.


By theapparition on 5/10/2010 1:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
I think the line is harder to draw than you think. There's quite a few pieces of famous artwork that are considered "erotic". I in no way believe we should ban them.

Many of the most iconic images in history have images of unclothed children (or cherubs). For example, who can forget the image of the young Vietnamese child running away in the war zone. Not sexual at all, yet undeniably historically important.

Was Brooke Shields victimized? A court ruled no.
What also is the implication of nudist camps, or of real documentary's on tribes (ala National Geographic).

Hard to draw the line.


By cdwilliams1 on 5/11/2010 9:16:21 AM , Rating: 2
Wasn't there a Scorpions album or something as well, like this? I sort of remember that the courts ruled on it. I'll have to go google for the link.


By delphinus100 on 5/11/2010 3:40:37 AM , Rating: 2
Try Brook Shields' 'Pretty Baby.'

A mainstream film that would have no chance, today...


By rocky12345 on 5/12/2010 2:31:40 AM , Rating: 2
it is sad but in this day & age things like that are even worse. How many times do you see tv ads with little kids naked or a reality show with a naked baby or 2 or 3 year old. I feel sorry for these kids because at some point they are going to be old enough to see this & know 50 million people seen them with their junk exposed. That is the crap they need to get of the air.


By Aloonatic on 5/12/2010 6:51:46 AM , Rating: 2
It's sad the way that we have been led down the path to think that this sort of thing is so wrong, making you feel bad or dirty just for seeing something that you would previously not have been bothered about.

I walked into my living room the other day, where I had left the TV on, and the film "Three Men and a Little Lady" was starting. Right near the beginning was a little montage bit and it has the little girl walking around naked from the waist down for a second or too, potty training or something I guess. Immediately I was kinda shocked and amazed at what was being shown.

I'm sure that when I saw it in the past I would not have been bothered as it was back in the 80s, when paedophilia was still in beta and hadn't had a full release yet, but now it's ridiculous that you start to question yourself just for having caught a glimpse of something like this.


By xler8r on 5/10/2010 11:21:39 AM , Rating: 3
Additionally, I think if there was such a great need to include such images, do what search engines do, and have a filter on content. I really hope it would never come to that though, Wiki needs to stay as streamlined and simplistic as possible.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By AnnihilatorX on 5/10/2010 11:40:52 AM , Rating: 4
I think this is all bullshit.
How many pedophiles are there in this world?

If someone is sick enough to be sexually aroused to photos of any naked children. Ridding the Internet of all such photos will cure him?

Likewise, spreading such photos all over Internet will turn someone into pedophile? I don't think so.

There is justice in contempting the commericial sale of child porn specifically to protect children who are involved. But that's another matter.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By Inkjammer on 5/10/2010 11:46:39 AM , Rating: 2
According to Fox News, pretty much everybody on the Internet is a pedophile, and your children are always within 15 minutes of being kidnapped by a man in a while van.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By MadMan007 on 5/10/2010 12:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
Fox News slogan - 'Fear and Biased'


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By callmeroy on 5/10/2010 2:42:33 PM , Rating: 1
So you mean like all of them then....

Fox stands out because:

A) the others are mostly Liberal biased
B) Fox is the only openly Conservative biased *major* network (with any hint of success)
C) The large portion of the media is Liberal (Waves "Hi" to the big three -- ABC, NBC, CBS)...look at the holdings of those three companies and the subsidiaries they own...hmmm...wonder why Hollywood parrots in their favor?

Add it all up its no surprise the beating Fox gets ...I'm actually a bit amazed they are still around to tell you the truth.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By MadMan007 on 5/10/2010 3:03:10 PM , Rating: 1
1) Learn to take a joke...it took me a few minutes to come up with a good option for the second word too.

2) Your point B) and your concluding sentence are contradictory. Unless, of course, you think 'truth' is subjective.


By callmeroy on 5/11/2010 9:23:09 AM , Rating: 1
Oh I got the "joke" ...the whole play on the Fox slogan of "Fair and Balanced"....and I'm definitely all for laughing and joking at various things -- I think humor is actually UNDER-RATED by most people in regards to how important it is in our lives for not only the ability to enjoy things more but to keep us grounded...I laugh at myself on a near daily basis that's for damn sure.

However on the "Learn to take a joke" bit -- Its just so darn tiring to hear the overwhelming masses tout the popular "Fox is stupid and so are its viewers" mantra. Then (like the posters elsewhere in this thread) do the standard "Well Fox is a joke because of their moral high ground....and yap yap yap....".....Which I be fine with -- if people had their OWN thoughts and provided some proof of...

Look I'm a registered Independent, been so my whole adult life actually...come elections I vote with my mind and my heart as they align on the issues....If the person happens to be a Dem or Rep so be it. I've never EVER voted down a party line on any ballot. Lastly, if for some reason come an election I haven't had time to research what is going on and the issues the candidates stand for...I simply won't vote. That usually doesn't happen though.

Some liberal points of view I hear or see on TV I agree with, but I also think some of the Fox points of views make a lot of sense too.

What I think is absolute nonsense and no one can convince me otherwise is how the conversative voice is ridiculed or voted as "rubbish" by a huge majority of the populace (because after all in the media the majority support is the libs and the minority is the cons -- in our society its better to be "popular" or running with the popular crowd)...

Then all these excuses are made as to why......lol...and how are you proving these execuses....by what the other three are reporting? LOL

Its kind of funny when you think about it.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By JediJeb on 5/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By wiz220 on 5/10/2010 6:11:06 PM , Rating: 2
Meh, Fox is a joke. I'll grant you that MSNBC's prime time lineup is undeniably liberal. But saying that "90% of cable news channels are liberal" is ridiculous. Like many Fox viewers, your view on reality is horribly skewed. Anything that doesn't reinforce your view is seen as "liberal".


By JediJeb on 5/11/2010 10:24:24 AM , Rating: 2
It's funny how pointing out facts automatically gets me labeled as a Fox viewer or conservative. I happen to watch all the networks to get a well rounded view of things. The link I posted was something I looked up to verify what I had heard regarding overall ratings. Seems the report was accurate so I passed it along.

I guess anything that doesn't reinforce your view is seen as "a joke". Honestly it is the closed minded people who wouldn't look at all the sources of information before making a decision on how to position their point of view.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By DominionSeraph on 5/10/2010 7:54:21 PM , Rating: 5
Fox News stands out because they make no attempt at intellectual honesty whatsoever and actively try to manipulate their viewers. They believe that they know what is right for America, and believe that that gives them the moral authority to do anything -- including outright lying -- to push America in that direction.

They seem to be especially fond of using a variation of the Creationist, "Teach the controversy," manipulation technique: "Report on the speculation."
"Obama is a secret Muslim," and the "Obamacare death panels," were particularly blatant versions. Fox News endlessly repeats these claims, which ends up giving the perception that there's something to them. (The casual viewer will assume that if there was nothing to the speculation, Fox News wouldn't be reporting on it. The possibility that Fox News leapfrogged ahead and is now using that assumption against them to have at their disposal a very effective propaganda technique is never seriously considered, as such a HUGE breach of trust just isn't done. But Fox News DOES do it. And it will continue to be effective until people start having moments of awakening and realize that their base assumption that Fox News would not abuse their trust is completely false.)

The mainstream liberal media does have a bias, but it doesn't push an agenda. They still have some journalistic integrity left. (Intellectualism doesn't lend itself to really effective propaganda anyway. Overthinking deviousness just doesn't give a natural-looking result -- it tends to be too narrow with noticeable delays as mental cross-checks are done.)

You can have conservative news without it being propaganda. But it needs to be based on the precepts of journalistic integrity; and Fox News has thrown that right out the window.


By tmouse on 5/11/2010 8:58:50 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
The mainstream liberal media does have a bias, but it doesn't push an agenda. They still have some journalistic integrity left


I have to strongly disagree with you there, ever since the fairness doctrine was scrapped "journalistic integrity " went out the door to ratings for ALL of the mass media outlets. Fox is just a bit more obvious. The "news" is more entertainment and self justification than education today. Journalistic integrity involves fact checking and avoids rumor mongering something the "news" seems to avoid since that is dry (ie: not entertaining). There was a time when a news story from one source was pretty much the same as it was from any other source since there was balance. REAL investigative reporting would result in being the first, but facts were checked before publishing by and large. Now investigative reporting is asking someone "when did you stop beating your wife?" Let's face it when you do second by second "reporting" of an event there are simply no real facts to fill the hours of dross until something happens so there is no fact checking (IF it EVER happens) until AFTER the rumors have been told, to "keep them tuned in".


By callmeroy on 5/11/2010 9:28:25 AM , Rating: 3
You see your whole synopsis is exactly what drives me nuts with the whole Fox news thing....

THEY ALL DO THE SAME DAMN THING!

Granted I'll bow to your points at the depth of absurdity Fox goes ....but they all do it.

Both sides tout their own lines and say the other side is the stupid moron (aka "enemy").


By Reclaimer77 on 5/11/2010 10:21:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The mainstream liberal media does have a bias, but it doesn't push an agenda.


How you can sit there with a straight face and say this, I
have no idea.

quote:
They still have some journalistic integrity left.


No. Journalist's are supposed to be the watchguards of our Government and society. Have they REALLY been doing that on the other networks? Were the people informed on what REALLY happened with the "stimulus"? Were they honestly warned about the con's of socialized health care reform? How about the GM takeover?

When you say they aren't pushing an agenda, then how can you explain that, at BEST, they only tell half of any important issue?

Anyway based on your post, you appear to be yet another idiot who confuses the Fox opinion shows with the Fox NEWS shows.


By MadMan007 on 5/11/2010 3:33:48 AM , Rating: 3
I see the humorless conservatives found my post and downrated it to oblivoin...funny that at one point it was 5'd not long after being posted :) More volatility than the stock market here folks! You guys really need to lighten up and learn to take a joke.

(repost - "Fox News slogan - 'Fear and Biased'") :D


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By MrBlastman on 5/10/2010 11:47:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If someone is sick enough to be sexually aroused to photos of any naked children. Ridding the Internet of all such photos will cure him?


You can't cure a pedophile, but you can cure the world of pedophilia.

Think about it for a moment. :)


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By Breathless on 5/10/2010 12:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
The perfect cure for pedophilia is castration.

One attempt = instant castration. Pedophilia solved!


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By MrBlastman on 5/10/2010 12:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is, even if you chop their balls off they still have a pair of hands that they can molest a child with.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By heffeque on 5/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By MrBlastman on 5/10/2010 2:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
No, pediphilia is a bad thing, period. You have to be pretty messed up to have sexual longings for a child when you are an adult. It is wrong, there is no "but" about it.

You are right though about the sex of them--it can be a man or a woman, just look at all the teachers.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By callmeroy on 5/10/2010 2:52:16 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed.

100%....

If you are an adult and you have any sexual desires for any young child --- a) get help FAST.....or b) wear a bullet proof vest...because if you come around my nieces/nephews with that mindset...of taking some live fire are extremely high....


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By xmichaelx on 5/10/2010 4:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
Where might a pedo get help, again? Without someone wanting to cut their balls off, that is??

The comments here are the perfect example of why they DON'T get help. Congrats on making the world less safe.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By MrBlastman on 5/10/2010 4:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where might a pedo get help, again? Without someone wanting to cut their balls off, that is??


Right here:

http://cjhallman44.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/061...

The point is: They can't be helped. There is no way to rehabilitate a pedo. Once they go pedo, they never go back.

Do you seriously think a pedo will seek help? I doubt it. If they DO want to seek help, the best place I can suggest is perhaps their local Church(and NOT a Catholic one!). I really don't see any other way they can change their ways.

Except... Chop their nuts off. :) (Or cement the crevice)... or maybe a post hole digger... or a back-door cattle prod... or a hand-held potato blender (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&q=han... or a cheese grater... or well, you get the idea. ;)


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By Xaussie on 5/10/2010 4:44:28 PM , Rating: 2
If you are the average man who finds women most attractive in their mid teens (why the average age of a female model is 15), do you think you could be rehabilitated to find 60 year old women attractive and feel nothing for 18 year olds? Didn't they try this in the 50's with gay men.

Bottom line is that it's a sexual preference, most likely something people are born with or develop at a very young age (< 5) and have no ability to change.

No-one should be seeking help for having a particular sexual preference. If they are abusing children in their care or family circle (most common cases), then they should seek help so that it stops. The point was that all the rednecks with pitch-forks make that nearly impossible because you'd be lynching them all before they got to their first counseling session.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By MrBlastman on 5/10/2010 4:54:42 PM , Rating: 2
Look, I can understand the argument of people being gay or straight based on their genetic makeup of X and Y chromosomes--that much makes complete sense. However, arguing that someone just "likes" little kids as their sexual preference is wrong in all sorts of ways. You can't possibly casually say "well, they just prefer kids" and not get the willies. What would you do if you caught a pedo playing with your child (and not with legos)?

Would you just take your child home and say to the pedo: "I'm sorry you had to do this, but I understand it is your sexual preference," or, would you beat the snot out of them and then report them to the cops (or perhaps the other way around to avoid being charged with assault)?

Kids can't reproduce yet! (at least until they are around 12 or 13), this can not possibly be acceptable to you? The human body was not designed for a big fat salami to penetrate a hermit-crab hole. How can you condone this?

It is a "problem" that should not be acceptable.


By Xaussie on 5/10/2010 5:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
You're still confusing sexual preference with sexual activity. Of course I would have someone arrested if I found them acting inappropriately with my children. Of course if they told me they're like to do those things I would not leave them alone with my children, any more than I'd let my fifteen year old daughter spend the night at her boyfriends house.

If people do nothing wrong though, what right do you have to 'beat the snot out of them'?

The argument about reproduction and size of holes is irrelevant too because (a) the youngest age recorded for a pregnancy was 5 (b) some guys have really little dicks and most importantly (c) it's illegal so (a) and (b) don't matter. I think the best argument for keeping it illegal is that children are too immature to be making life changing decisions and having sex with someone can most certainly be a life changing event in so many ways.


By Spivonious on 5/10/2010 8:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, most girls go through puberty around age 9 or 10.

I think part of us is hard-wired to find teenage girls attractive because that's when they are most fertile. Back when humans only lived to be 30 or 40 years-old, marrying and having kids with a 13 year-old was completely normal and accepted by society. You can't expect our primal instincts to just turn off because it's no longer morally correct.

As far as sexually abusing kids, that's completely different. Rape is rape, no matter the age.


By intelpatriot on 5/11/2010 9:21:53 AM , Rating: 2
Or maybe you're projecting your own preferences onto your idea of the "average man"? It sounds like you're protesting just a little... too much.

Where did you get the idea that models are selected to appeal to men? Unless you're talking about porn?


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By JediJeb on 5/11/2010 10:35:15 AM , Rating: 2
Wow I must not be average, I would prefer women to have a little maturity and be able to hold an adult(intellectual not sexual)conversation than some teen who is more interested in texting all her friends while she talks to you. To think that the average man wants a 15 year old girl I believe is a little off the mark. It may be what is pushed at us by the advertising agencies but really those young models are used more to appeal to women who want to look youthful than to the men.


By Xaussie on 5/11/2010 2:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't suggesting we want to marry or date them, but that is what we are most physically attracted to. As someone pointed out society has outpaced evolution and a lot of our instincts are still very primal. Nature suggests that when a woman is fully developed she is ready to have children and there's no evolutionary benefit to waiting beyond that (and lots of negatives in the days when you needed to have lots of children to ensure enough survived and the mothers often died in their thirties).

The women want to look more youthful because that's what is more appealing to their partners. Pretty much every beauty product out their is designed to make them appear younger.

You're right though, I can't imagine too many middle aged men who could stand being around a bunch of fifteen year olds for long :-) Many years ago they had a newspaper article on this Latino hottie who was modeling in Oz. She looked like someone you would see on the beaches of the Carribean, very sultry and a fantastic body (in a bikini). Then they showed a regular picture of her ... she was a typical 13 year old schoolgirl. Should I have felt guilty for thinking she was hot ... ? Tough question. At the time I caught the bus with a whole bunch of schoolgirls every morning, and man they were loud, crass and obnoxious and I had no delusion of ever wanting to spend any quality time with any of them.


By corduroygt on 5/12/2010 7:15:08 AM , Rating: 2
Pedos are mentally sick and they need to be institutionalized like all other people with severe mental problems. Sending them to a place like a church that's even crazier than a mental institution won't help :)


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By Xaussie on 5/10/2010 3:15:10 PM , Rating: 1
All teachers are automatically pedophiles? Sounds like you're a bit messed up yourself. Being sexually attracted to children doesn't make you any more a child abuser than being sexually attracted to women makes you a rapist.

Whether someone is straight, gay, bisexual, prefers fat women, thin women, young men, older men, older women, younger women or children you can't persecute them for their sexual preferences, only what they do and if any or all of those acts break any laws.

I'd love to drive a Ferrari and I'll never be able to afford one so are you going to stone me for being a potential car thief?


By MrBlastman on 5/10/2010 3:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
No, if you are an adult and you prefer children sexually, you are fucked up in the head. Period.

quote:
All teachers are automatically pedophiles


No, I did not say that at all. Please do not put words in my mouth. What I did say was "just look at all the teachers." This does not equate to ALL teachers. Instead, it was an inference towards the teachers who have sex with their students; obviously, not many teachers do have sex with their students, but, to us the public, we do see examples of them doing so in the news.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By Breathless on 5/10/2010 3:19:46 PM , Rating: 3
"pedophilia per se isn't a bad thing".

Its "enabling" people like you that make swift and just punishment a great difficulty. Always trying to rationalize evil minded people and giving them the benefit of the doubt even when they clearly shouldn't have it. There is NO WAY, shape or form that pedophilia is a good thing. If it "isn't bad", than it can be good... can't it?


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By ekv on 5/10/2010 12:45:24 PM , Rating: 3
Ever worked with a pedophile? Bad crap, especially if they're prominent in the union, and believe me they will be prominent if only to garner support. Kind of like Barney Frank ... on steroids (or morphine, or both!).

One such experience ... and I side with anybody who wants to do something to stop those perverts. I try to be as pragmatic as possible, but the line has to be drawn. If you don't know why the line has to be drawn, then you've got a problem.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By adiposity on 5/10/2010 2:02:55 PM , Rating: 1
Working with a pedophile has very little to do with attempts to rid the internet of child nudity. Pedophiles require an actual, physical child to commit their crime. There's little relationship between that child, and a child that has been innocently photographed nude (as most parents have done with their children).


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By ekv on 5/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By Xaussie on 5/10/2010 3:20:20 PM , Rating: 1
Indeed! Ignorant bigots like yourself are obviously much better people.


By MrBlastman on 5/10/2010 3:46:46 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, so jamming your rod in some 5-year olds cha cha or polishing their baseball bat is much better? Get a life.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By ekv on 5/10/2010 4:11:00 PM , Rating: 1
Have you worked with or around a pedophile? do you know how they operate? No? and you're calling me ignorant?

Draw the f'ing line. Be a man, you spineless sycophant.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By Xaussie on 5/10/2010 4:33:44 PM , Rating: 2
Let me get this right, you worked alongside someone for several years who was actively engaged in child abuse or child pornography and did nothing about it (assuming you weren't sharing a cell with the person), and you're calling me spineless? I'd have drawn the line right there!


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By ekv on 5/10/2010 4:42:25 PM , Rating: 1
I contacted two cops, pal. I told them his modus operadi, so they could catch him In flagrante delicto . Was I working in the cell next to him? no. Across the office. I don't work there anymore. I hope the SOB is in jail ... getting some of what he dished out.

Who the hell are you taking his side? do you have a special affinity for pedophiles? you low-life maggot.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By Xaussie on 5/10/2010 4:57:45 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I just find your story somewhat inmplausible that someone was so public about their activities in an environment where there is clearly such hostility towards pedophiles.

Terminology is important. It's modus operandi (you should get it right if you're going to quote Latin to someone who studied it :-)). More importantly the person you are referring to is a "child abuser" not a pedophile. If you called the police and told them they could catch someone having sexual thoughts about young children they would still be laughing when the call disconnected.

I'm all for protecting young children, and I would protect my own with my life, but I object to people being persecuted for their religion, race or sexual preferences. That's what makes you a bigot.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By ekv on 5/10/2010 5:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly what I said. You do have an affinity for pedophiles. You weren't there yet you would've been on his side. You would've been one of the a$$holes to make trouble for me when I tried raising the issue. Thanks for nothing you miserable piece of excrement (POS).

Pedophile - "Definition:
adult with sexual desire for children: an adult who has sexual desire for children or who has committed the crime of sex with a child."

You are a spineless sycophant. Pedophiles perpetrate evil acts.

Speaking of laughing ... "I'm all for protecting young children" ... 'but first, you have to read my list of exceptions and indemnifications, and in certain special circumstances the aforementioned statement is in abeyance'.

You need professional help, you worm. Personally, you may call me Dr. potato blender.


By Xaussie on 5/10/2010 5:32:17 PM , Rating: 2
Let me put it another way ...

I'm all for protecting America but I don't think we should persecute people as terrorists just because they are from the middle east or of Islamic faith.

Or would you just be like ... "Kill 'em all"

Maybe Der Fuhrer would suit you better as a title?


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By JediJeb on 5/10/2010 6:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
So you are saying if someone's religious beliefs/sexual preference included human sacrifice and I said I did not condone that I would be a bigot?

When someone's beliefs violate statutory laws, then for someone to not condone that is not bigotry.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By Xaussie on 5/10/2010 6:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
Where did I say that. If someone's religous beliefs involve blowing up people with bombs I don't want them anywhere near here. Bigotry is assuming that all people who are of Islam faith or from the middle east belong to that small subset who carry out acts of terrorism. It's assuming that that all heterosexual males are rapists, and all pedophiles are child abusers.

Remember temporal logic ... if it rains the grass will be wet ... doesn't guarantee that if the grass is wet it rained. If a child abuser is acting inappropriately with children, chances are pretty good they are a pedophile. Does that mean that if they are a pedophile chances are pretty good they are abusing children ?


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By ekv on 5/10/2010 7:04:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I don't want them anywhere near here.
But it's ok if they bomb elsewhere, just not in your backyard. So that's where you draw the line?

Get professional help. Pedophile.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By Xaussie on 5/10/2010 7:19:29 PM , Rating: 2
Next lesson in logic ... if I don't say something doesn't mean I agree or disagree with it.

If you don't stop behaving like an idiot I will ignore you. Nowhere in that previous statement is there any guarantee that I will not ignore you even if you do stop behaving like an idiot.


By ekv on 5/10/2010 7:20:10 PM , Rating: 1
Pedophile. I hope you get busted. Then you can get a lesson in what the other end of the broomstick does.

Bigot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_quarter


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By Xaussie on 5/10/2010 7:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
And if you really want my opinion, I'd rather they didn't but some people (US included) believe there sometimes isn't any other alternative. I'm sure they have their reasons for thinking that, at the end of the day I don't want them bringing that war to innocent civilians in the US or any other country.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By ekv on 5/10/2010 7:28:44 PM , Rating: 2
You're not very understanding of my point of view.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By Xaussie on 5/10/2010 8:07:15 PM , Rating: 2
I think I understand it, I just don't agree with it. Is your point of view that people who are sexually attracted to children are inherently evil and should be castrated or dealt some other form of punishment, even if they never act on those desires? If it is I don't agree with it, if not then you should explain how your opinion differs.

I certainly don't condone inappropriate behaviour against children, and I can speak from personal experience in that I was molested by a hospital worker as a six year old (let's just call him Mr Suppository Specialist). He should have at least been fired for what he did, and probably was eventually. I want my children to be better protected than I was, but the way to do that is educate them better and keep a watchful eye on them, not round up all the pedophiles and shoot them.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By ekv on 5/10/2010 8:33:58 PM , Rating: 2
Right. You don't know my point of view, after yeah many posts, but you still don't agree with it.

A kid steals a bolt. He's sent to prison. He's educated there. When he gets out he's a whole lot smarter, so he steals a railroad. There's a lot of education out there. Doesn't appear to be the answer. Perhaps there is something else that ought to be tried.

I wish I could apologize re: "Mr Suppository Specialist". It is a terrible injustice that nobody ought ever have to experience. But apparently you are condoning that behaviour against children. Why vilify me? For taking a stand against the very behaviour you say you were a victim of? I would like to see such persons taken out behind the woodshed and dealt with, however, that is not my prescription policy-wise. Never said so.

For pedophiles, no quarter.

I urge you to seek professional help.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By xsilver on 5/11/2010 12:07:18 AM , Rating: 2
hmm a lot of back and forth with not much understanding.

xaussie is saying that is it possible that there is such thing as a docile pedo? and if so, should they be castrated even if they never decide to act out on anything for their entire lives besides maybe looking at pictures on the internet?


By ekv on 5/11/2010 1:13:36 AM , Rating: 2
<cough>bull**it<cough>

Get professional help.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By Xaussie on 5/10/2010 3:36:51 PM , Rating: 3
Duh ... pedophiles. Haven't you been reading the story ... :-) You know, like why do men look at Playboy or didn't your mum explain that one to you ?

To be fair though just because a small group of people find something erotic seems like a strange reason to ban it. I mean that woman married the Eiffel tower the other day ... so should we be striking images of it from the internet and reclassifying them as pornography?

It seems a bit pointless anyway, there are hundreds of videos on youtube of naked children posted by their parents who think nothing of it. As a parent of young kids myself I have to admit you get pretty desensitized to nudity (coz you deal with it all day every day), but I wouldn't post naked pictures of my kids - simply because there might be some bad egg out there who would take the time to track them down.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2010 4:01:17 PM , Rating: 2
A naked child is cute to parents or a small group of family/friend. A naked child on the internet is creepy and just too...too.. I don't know. Too public??


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By zxern on 5/10/2010 4:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
You shouldn't put up nude pics of your kid, or anything embarrassing really, because once you put it out there it's there forever. Anyone can use it against him/her later in life.

Kids have it hard enough why provide ammunition?


By Xaussie on 5/10/2010 5:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. If there were naked photos of Obama as a child they would have definitely surfaced by now. What's going to happen when one of those kids on the potty on youtube runs for office :-) Why I'd never do that to my own kids, sure we have photos of them (typical, non-sexual family photos) but I'd never let them out on the internet in any way shape or form.


By eddieroolz on 5/10/2010 5:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
I believe there was a debate a while back, over a particular album art of a certain band from the 70's which featured a nude female that (depending on who you ask) resembled a 14-year old girl OR a not-very-endowed adult female.

Of course some groups wanted it gone from Wikipedia, but others countered that it was a product of the 70's and therefore more strict modern rules do not apply.

I think that's a great example of where to draw the line on child pornography.


By RivuxGamma on 5/11/2010 10:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
"essentially child porn?" Give me a freakin' break. They just used that terminology to get what they want because it sounds more evil than "nude pictures of children."

It smacks of Glenn Beck's style of lunacy with Bill O'Reilly's baseless, self-appointed authority.

Why don't we call Fox News "essentially raping us to death with tazers and tossing our lifeless corpses into an acid bath of lies and hate?" when what they're really doing is selling us hype and nonsense presented in bold colors by people using the same techniques that televangelists use.

That said, I, myself, haven't seen any child porn on Wikipedia, but if I did, I would certainly be opposed to it being there. I am pretty confident in saying that most of what Fox News is calling "essentially child pornography" on Wikipedia is actually not.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By Iaiken on 5/10/2010 11:22:12 AM , Rating: 3
Let's not forget about actual explicit art!

Who defines which point it ceases to be objectionable?

This?
http://www.euroartmagazine.com/artUps/1184658496.j...

This?
http://www.southbank.net/blogs/subjects/westminste...

This?
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/arch...

Every time someone pulls this sort of emotional appeal bullshit someone else should simply pull out Diax's Rake.

quote:
"Diax said something that is still very important to us, which is that you should not believe a thing only because you like to believe it. We call that 'Diax's Rake' and sometimes we repeat it to ourselves as a reminder not to let subjective emotions cloud our judgment"


To go even further and to force these beliefs and tastes on others is, in itself, obscene.


RE: As long as it's not strict censorship.
By Spivonious on 5/10/2010 1:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'm scared to click on these links since I'm at work.

Another example though is a painting I saw in Paris at the Musee d'Orsay. It was a very realistic painting of a vagina and was called "Origin of the World". Pornography or art?


By Iaiken on 5/10/2010 1:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
All are potentially NSFW.

My apologies for not stating so in the original post.

They are a range of celebrated art pieces ranging from graphic to abstract.


By tmouse on 5/11/2010 8:30:51 AM , Rating: 3
You bring up interesting point. In many CG art forums there was a lot of debate when one of the "decency laws" was awaiting its demise in the courts that ANYTHING that depicted an underage person would be considered child pornography (It used vague terms like any depiction real or simulated). Some banned any images with naked cherubs and there was debates on breast size and age (keep in mind this was 3d computer generated, since no picture takes 18 years to render, it could be argued it was all under age). Even today some have taken the safer route. There was debate on depictions of images like Jupiter's seduction of Leda as to whether it constituted bestiality. On the other side I have a friend who works in law enforcement and he says that in almost every child molester search you find the usual sick stuff and video of local children and cheerleaders taken at public events. People will get off on many things. Now I do not think there is ANY justification for the existence of photographs of children engaged in sex acts since by its nature a child has to be abused, but nudity is in and of itself not necessarily evil and care must be taken to avoid common sense self regulation from turning into mob based Nazi book burning.


So, time to beat up FoxNews, eh?
By Dorkyman on 5/10/2010 11:57:07 AM , Rating: 1
I fail to grasp the horror of what FoxNews has done here. Of course, to a Lefty, Fox represents all that is evil in the universe. To the rest of us (as numerous surveys have pointed out) it's just a pretty decent news source that is regarded as LESS biased than the other sources out there such as CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and so on. You can look it up.




RE: So, time to beat up FoxNews, eh?
By Wy White Wolf on 5/10/2010 12:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree. How many other businesses have decided to clean up there act after contacted about a possible news story?

Isn't Wiki a privately owned site? Don't they have the right to censor whatever they wish?


By MrBlastman on 5/10/2010 2:07:40 PM , Rating: 2
You can murder someone in the privacy of your own home but it is still illegal. It doesn't matter if Wikipedia is privately owned or not--showing images of naked children, especially when connoted with sexuality in a pedophilic way, this is very illegal.


RE: So, time to beat up FoxNews, eh?
By jebo on 5/10/2010 12:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
Haha. Yep. Classic sensationalism.

He writes that Fox News "claimed responsibility", by saying:

quote:
FoxNews.com was in the process of asking dozens of companies that have donated...if they were aware of the extent of graphic and sexually explicit content on the sites.


Soo....Fox news was asking questions about a hot button topic.....sounds more like.....journalism.....to me.

In fact, Jimmy Wales himself was apparently the initial whistle blower. FTA:

quote:
Last week, FoxNews.com revealed that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger had sent a letter to the FBI expressing his concerns that Wikimedia was distributing child pornography.


By aftlizard on 5/10/2010 12:39:16 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. Jason Mick thinks people are going to be too lazy and stupid to check his sourcing. Mick should be damned ashamed at the lack of journalistic integrity he just showed in this article.


By jeff834 on 5/10/2010 11:46:21 PM , Rating: 2
I stand corrected, I apologize for what I said about FOX news keeping to the business of reporting as it seems that was the case this time around.


By OccamsAftershave on 5/10/2010 8:13:20 PM , Rating: 4
Where are these "numerous studies"? You're full of it.
http://people-press.org/report/543/
July 2009 Pew poll, Public rating of Media
1506 adults, representative sample

Don't Know/No Opinion
Wall St. Jrnl 55%
NY Times 54%
NPR 44%
MSNBC 33%
CNN 21%
FoxNews 20%
Network News (ABC,NBC,CBS) 12%

Favorable Opinion
Network News (ABC,NBC,CBS) 64%
CNN 60%
FoxNews 55%
MSNBC 48%
NPR 44%
Wall St. Jrnl 32%
NY Times 29%

Unfavorable Opinion
FoxNews 25%
Network News (ABC,NBC,CBS) 24%
CNN 19%
MSNBC 19%
NY Times 17%
Wall St. Jrnl 13%
NPR 12%


RE: So, time to beat up FoxNews, eh?
By bety on 5/10/2010 10:35:26 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed. It's sad that even among academic PHD circles, many think nothing of lambasting Fox news with mockery; yet some academic studies have suggested that it is indeed LESS biased than the other outlets.

At the least, it provides some desperately-needed balance. I have no problem with taking any organization to task for bias, but blanket, uninformed statements about Fox are the ultimate in close-minded bias!

I am pleased to see that most of the thoughtful people here, at least in this case, are not jumping on thoughtless Fox bashing.


By jeff834 on 5/10/2010 11:40:41 PM , Rating: 3
What does being a lefty have to do with it? I'm right handed and I think FOX news was created by Satan himself specifically for the purpose of bringing about the end of days. Anyway, I don't care if CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and so on invite Obama, Pelosi, the Kennedys, Al Gore, and PETA to an orgy at a climate change convention it doesn't make FOX news any less biased. They could not get any more ridiculous. They have Geraldo Rivera for pete's sake! That's like if MSNBC suddenly hired Jerry Springer as a host/commentator. And Sarah Palin? My god there is not a single person on this planet who has done less and has more crap coming out of her mouth than that woman. Fortunately for the sane people of the US, the tea party doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell with that cretin representing them in any fashion. When the closest thing to a voice of reason on your station is Bill O'Reilly you should just give up and drop the news part of the name and go with something like "FOX believe it or not we're actually serious".

I'm all for wikipedia taking child pornography off their site (if it's actually pornography) but FOX news should not have anything to do with it. If they report a breaking news story and things change as a result, kudos to them, but it's not the business of reporters to push for changes as they see fit it's their job to REPORT NEWS. I've never run across anything that could be called pornography on wikipedia, but I do recall the fiasco FN brought about by condemning the "sex simulator" that was Mass Effect. If no one remembers that's the one where they brought on an "expert" to talk about this extremely graphic and interactive sex game which, had she bothered to play for 5 seconds or even read the back cover, she would have learned was actually an epic space RPG with plenty of violence but only one barely PG13 sex scene that was actually difficult to bring about. That's "fair and balanced" right there. They could have fact checked that one by asking a teenager on the street on their way into the office, but who are they to let "facts" get in the way of their civic duty.

Before I get crushed by the right wingers on this one, I'll just say I'm not left or right I'm smack dab in the middle. This country is polarized for sure, but it's less lefties vs righties than it is the rational vs the complete idiocy.


What's next?
By frobizzle on 5/10/2010 12:00:55 PM , Rating: 3
Soon they will be calling National Geographic's articles on native tribes pornographic because they depict semi nude woman and usually, the children are running around au natural.

Pathetic!




No CP
By timetogo on 5/11/2010 1:57:50 PM , Rating: 3
The nude children category is a red herring, first off nude children is not child porn, and images there are mostly old paintings or photos of partially nude children, or from societies where nudity is normal, there's nothing in it that could be remotely considered child porn.

Images of child porn and anything known to be illegal are deleted when found. Also almost no image that were used in Wikipedia articles were deleted in that purge at commons.




Discrepancy?
By aftlizard on 5/10/2010 12:36:32 PM , Rating: 2
Jason Mick says:

Fox News has 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.

The article says:

Last week, FoxNews.com revealed that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger had sent a letter to the FBI expressing his concerns that Wikimedia was distributing child pornography.

The FBI has not commented on whether it will pursue an investigation.

Mick, you made it very clear that FoxNews was the one contacting the FBI. While Fox makes it very clear that Larry Sanger was the one that self-reported the site. Mick you made it sound as if Fox was doing the accusing on this issue while according to the story you linked it was Sanger who first did the accusing. I think you should clarify.




No CP
By timetogo on 5/11/2010 1:57:51 PM , Rating: 2
The nude children category is a red herring, first off nude children is not child porn, and images there are mostly old paintings or photos of partially nude children, or from societies where nudity is normal, there's nothing in it that could be remotely considered child porn.

Images of child porn and anything known to be illegal are deleted when found. Also almost no image that were used in Wikipedia articles were deleted in that purge at commons.




By monkeyman1140 on 5/14/2010 10:27:02 AM , Rating: 2
What else is new. Let's be blunt, to explain certain topics, you need illustrations. Yes some are uncomfortable subjects but eventually you will need some sort of picture of a vagina or breasts or a penis. Fox thinks we all are still little kids who giggle when we see pee-pee parts, and are doing the digital equivalent to taking a sharpie to a book and blacking out the boobs for our own moral good.

Thanks Fox, for making this country like Iran.




Who should be the censor?
By drycrust3 on 5/10/2010 1:37:14 PM , Rating: 1
The difficulty I have with this article is it infers that FoxNews have decided they have the right to censor what people see, and not Wikipedia or the US Government. While FoxNews consider they have good reasons for doing this, what is it that sets them apart from any other business or lobby group or religious group or criminal group that allows them to do this?
Surely the responsibility for censoring is primarily the responsibilities of the writer, the owner and the government in which country the website resides. If a government doesn't do it, for whatever reason (e.g. citizen rights or financial ineptitude), does that make it right that someone else does it?




Err
By bill4 on 5/10/2010 6:09:35 PM , Rating: 1
Isn't Mick the biggest supporter of censorship around? He constantly supports censoring Microsoft (required browser ballot), anti Global Warming myth science (just read any of his articles) Fox News (ditto), The RIAA and MPAA, etc. Mick has never said a word aainst Canda's censoring "hate speech" laws for example.

Liberals opposing censorship only means they dont want what they like censored.




I think I am going to throwup!
By holymaniac on 5/10/10, Rating: -1
By aftlizard on 5/10/2010 12:42:37 PM , Rating: 3
I think you better start checking the links Mick posted within the article. You will find that it is Mick who has his story screwed up. But it's Mick.


RE: I think I am going to throwup!
By Breathless on 5/10/2010 12:50:39 PM , Rating: 2
shut your fox news hating word hole. If someone (or some organization) does a good thing, give them credit.

Liberals are never afraid to scream from rooftops about how they hate fox news, but they usually (in my observation) seem unable to refute the content as much as they would like to think that they can.... they'd rather just shoot the messenger while dancing to the flute of CNN.


RE: I think I am going to throwup!
By jimhsu on 5/10/2010 2:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
Disclaimer - I hate both political parties.

CNN has been accused of both conservative (Media Matters for America) and liberal bias (Accuracy in Media and the Media Research Center); thus, I say it's pretty close to moderate. If you think CNN is liberal, there are FAR crazier blogs out there. Similarly, if you think CNN is conservative, I'd happily direct you to Alex Jones and Co (but that guy is just crazy, period).


RE: I think I am going to throwup!
By jimhsu on 5/10/2010 2:41:36 PM , Rating: 2
As for the topic at hand, have you ever heard of something called "anatomy class"? That said, the pedophilic stuff needs to go.


RE: I think I am going to throwup!
By jeff834 on 5/10/2010 11:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
When did he say anything about being liberal or all for CNN? Just the fact that when someone bashes FOX news the retort is "typical liberal" speaks volumes about the enormous right leaning of a supposedly balanced network. Maybe he doesn't like any news network that pushes their agenda while lampooning others for pushing theirs. Maybe he's not liberal or conservative, but likes his news unbiased and unhypocritical. He'll have a tough time finding that in this country, but at least he's not in the FOX and friends loony bin.


RE: I think I am going to throwup!
By Chaser on 5/10/2010 2:02:43 PM , Rating: 1
I love Wikipedia. It's a superb online resource. But they market themselves and wear the badge as an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Which are generally regarded as "student safe" resources. If Wikipedia is going to market itself primarily in that way then they should strive to uphold equally ethical standards that Britanica and the other respected sources do.

Like them or not Fox News has more viewers than all the other TV "news" outlets combined by a substancial margin. The other networks, individually, don't even come close. Ratings are rating. Bitch to Neilsen.


RE: I think I am going to throwup!
By jeff834 on 5/11/2010 12:11:00 AM , Rating: 3
Well many people have to watch FN every day, otherwise they wouldn't know what to think or whom to hate. People who watch other news channels do so sparingly since they don't need as much reaffirmation of their craziness. My guess is if you compared ratings plus internet site hits you'd find things were a lot closer among all of the news networks. Plus in 10 years 50% of FN viewers will be dead of old age, or according to their bumper stickers, will have been taxed to death.


RE: I think I am going to throwup!
By Chaser on 5/11/2010 8:16:11 AM , Rating: 2
For the latter talk to Greece about running out of other people's money.

The dozen or so people that actually watch other news programs only do so when Dancing with the Stars or American Idol isn't on.


RE: I think I am going to throwup!
By jeff834 on 5/14/2010 1:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
Greece is screwed up in part because people didn't pay their taxes or weren't taxed enough and nothing was done about it. Plenty of countries near the top of the highest tax list have quite stable economies.


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki