Gadgetopia

Parents For The Online Safety of Children: This site is very much against Wikipedia, calling it a pornographic Web site. They have a press release that points to many Wikipedia articles that display images that may or may not be pornographic, but are related to the topics being discussed.

The entry on the penis, for example, contains an image of an erect penis.

Wikipedia’s penis website borders between pornography and academia; it attempts to show what an erect and flaccid penis look like. However, when one considers that wikipedia editors are only allowed to upload images in the public domain, one realizes that perhaps the only way to find an image in the public domain would be for a wikipedia admin to actually take a picture and declare it in the public domain.

We at the Parents for the Online Safety of Children suspect that perhaps the penis picture is an attempt to expose oneself to children — with the picture being the genitals of an actual wikipedia editor! This could be a subtle attempt to expose oneself to kids online […]

They raise some interesting questions: should you only discuss a pornographic subject without any images? Can you show what you’re talking about?”

Some cases are clear-cut — actual child pornography for instance. But, even then, the page links to many articles about cartoon pornography with some drawings which would be clearly sick if actual photographs. (The irony: this page has linked to perhaps all of the posts it finds so disgusting, putting them all one location.)

This “organization” seems to be a Web-only entity, and — the the looks of their site — it seems very new. In fact, it could be nothing more than a Wikipedia attack group. But they do raise some interesting points.

(I’m also cognizant of the fact that this could be nothing more than an elaborate joke.)

Found via this Something Awful post, which links to my prior post about the Wikipedia lawsuit. Someone in that thread claims these things are one and the same.