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 <[email protected]> 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-imagery-from-site/ >> >> "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 >> [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
