I wish we would stop calling drawings of small girls with boobs "child pornography". Not you thing? Sure. "Obscene" under the Miller Test? Possibly. Graphical depiction of the abuse of actual children? Nope. Drawn by people who abuse children? Nope. Enjoyed by people who abuse children? No more so than Fox News is.
In order to approach the problem of obscenity on Wikipedia rationally, we need to call a spade a spade. This has nothing to do with child pornography; that expression is only being used because it stirs up so much automatic hate. When all we can think about is hate and protecting our children, we can't think about the actual problem.
Criticizing Jimmy Wales until he deletes some pictures from Wikipedia is not going to prevent a single child from being abused. So if we really care about child abuse, we should think about focusing our attention on something other than Wikipedia. Perhaps child abusers...
(I guess this is a little off-topic, but having done a bit of research into this, I haven't seen anything on Wikipedia that remotely resembles pornography with children. But the media, even tech-savvy sources without a religious agenda, keep using that term, and it's not helping the discussion at all.)
There's no point applying ordinary reason to a witch hunt. You're right, of course, but no one cares about the finer distinctions. (Compare the ongoing depiction of Iraqi and Afghan guerrillas as "terrorists" even if they solely attack military targets.)
Especially considering that FOX News called wikipedia's corporate donors and told them they were funding the distribution of child porn, I'd put the odds at 75% that this was a deliberate media hit by someone with a vested interest in wikipedia's demise.
In order to approach the problem of obscenity on Wikipedia rationally, we need to call a spade a spade. This has nothing to do with child pornography; that expression is only being used because it stirs up so much automatic hate. When all we can think about is hate and protecting our children, we can't think about the actual problem.
Criticizing Jimmy Wales until he deletes some pictures from Wikipedia is not going to prevent a single child from being abused. So if we really care about child abuse, we should think about focusing our attention on something other than Wikipedia. Perhaps child abusers...
(I guess this is a little off-topic, but having done a bit of research into this, I haven't seen anything on Wikipedia that remotely resembles pornography with children. But the media, even tech-savvy sources without a religious agenda, keep using that term, and it's not helping the discussion at all.)