Ah, my first exposure to porn.

Holy crap, that takes me back! I remember looking at those at the public library, because we were too poor to own fancy books and whatnot.

The problem with Wiki is when the trolls get a hold of it.

EVERYONE has a personal vendetta, and Wiki is their personal blog.

Wiki needs its own transparent human body! And the first layer needs to be clothes

/will never get past the second layer

Wiki is where you settle your bar bets and where you go to read crap when you're bored and activity on TF is slow. I wouldn't use it as an authoritative source on a subject, though.

Since no once else has said it so far, incredible golf clap to submitter.

Eat More Possum:

Encyclopedia Brittanica should be used in the same manner as wikipedia. Its great for an overview of a subject, but as a primary source it sucks.

tarrant84
EVERYONE has a personal vendetta, and Wiki is their personal blog.

The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity....

Those transparencies were the shiat

Encyclopedia Brittanica < Wikipedia

If we all had transparent skulls it would be much easier to spot Conservatives in a crowd.

In particular, prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler attacked an entry that incorrectly named him as a suspect in the assassinations of president John F Kennedy and his brother, Robert.

The false information was the work of Tennessean Brian Chase, who said he was trying to trick a co-worker.



BAHAHAHAHA! This guy is AWESOME.

I imagine they're upset at being compared to a website that promotes and protects pedophilia and contains images of child pornography and bestiality:

http://www.theposc.com/blog/?p=7

(link SFW; links from it to Wikipedia aren't)

2006-03-24 11:47:15 AM Adman12

drredhook: Ah, my first exposure to porn.

I used to sneak peeks at the anatomical boobies and hoo-haa from about age five.

Vin Diesel: Wiki needs its own transparent human body!

Wikipedia does much better than that. (NSFW)

That pic would scare off any 5 year old into molesting the family cat instead.

Surely you meant Britannica... right?

Wikipedia is great for fast information, but if you want to look like a real hotshot on the internet thread you're no doubt participating in, you'd better cite the source Wikipedia cites rather than the Wiki article itself.

Quick, someone post that "Wikipedia: Information you can trust" pic!

NewHere...yes, yes you are.

i loved the transparencies...although mine were in The World Book encyclopedia. I'm sure they were much the same.

Clap clap clap

Excellent headline submitter!!!

Got a god laugh from that one.

Whoa!!! I forgot all about those layered, transparent pages of the human body. I thought those things were so damn cool. Over and over again would I flip them and pore over them.

/Thanks...for the memories...

Researchers: 'Britannica and Wikipedia are about the same in their validity'
Britannica Folks: 'WTF? Wikipedia is horribly innacurate!'
Researchers: 'You're absolutely right. ...'

...long pause...
Britannica Folks: 'Aw, son of a biatch!'

2006-03-24 11:56:18 AM Rev. Skarekroe

NewHere: I imagine they're upset at being compared to a website that promotes and protects pedophilia and contains images of child pornography and bestiality:

http://www.theposc.com/blog/?p=7

(link SFW; links from it to Wikipedia aren't)

Who (besides this site) ever said Wikipedia was a "children's encyclopedia"?

Troll. Oooooh noes! They show a WOOD CARVING picture of a homosexual act between two men!

The majority of the links that were provided in that article to "questionable" Wiki articles are still only statements of fact about what has already existed before a Wiki article was made.

You know. Statements of fact.
Unlike most religious writings...

This is an example of "bestiality" on Wiki. Surprisingly (not), the image is SFW. I will be linking to it instead, however. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/67/Leda.jpg/300px-Leda.jpg (No Pops)

If Parents for the Online Safty of Children really gave a crap about making the intarweb safe for kids, they would execute PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, not trying to ban everything they remotely suspect of offending their prudish and puritanical "sensibilities."

In short: If it's censorship, fark off. This stuff has existed long before Wikipedia ever has. Instead of going "Oh lordy! Ban it! Burn it! Make it disappear! Why won't someone PLEASE think of the children!", try READING it so you can understand and COMPREHEND.

Wikipedia is just a good starting place, when you have no idea what to look for it can give you good ideas. Same with all encyclopedias though, just not as reliable.

Wikipedia is great for looking up items of pop-culture:
Shocker
Santorum
Emo
sXe
733t
etc. etc.

BTW, forgot to add. that "bestiality" painting example? Is painting by Michelangelo. Yes. THE Michelangelo. The horrible guy that made a giant statue of a naked guy with an anatomically smaller-than-average penis.

But if it was up to the POSC, it'd all be banned, destroyed, burned and spat upon afterwards.

Read the comments on the blog that Rev. Skarekroe linked. The people from all over laugh the article off because it is a troll of religious fanatical hype. Absolutely no logic involved, here.

WayneKerr: If we all had transparent skulls it would be much easier to spot Conservatives in a crowd.

:%s/Conservatives/Trolls/g

Fixed.

Hmmm... I always wondered where my medula oblongata was.

From


"Pornographic images arent restricted towards cartoon child pornography. One page in particular, called Frot, shows actual pornographic images of two adult males having homosexual sexual intercourse, with images of both men being in the ejaculation phase of intercourse. Shockingly, this image can be found by children accidentally without any effort or knowledge beforehand of the so-called frot phenomenon; the page for Bonobos contains a link to the frot page. A child could easily search his favorite encyclopedia while doing a report on Bonobos and be subject to ungodly pornographic images just by clicking on a link.

Busted! Your agenda is showing...

Wikipedias 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!

Okay, these people basically just see pedophiles everywhere.

To the disgust of the Parents for the Online Safety of Children (POSC), we have found bestiality in the form of a women fornicating with a goose on the respective page.

The image in question?



Yep, a painting by Michaelangelo. And it's a swan, dumbasses.

Hmm, sorry if that might be NSFW. If so, mods work your magic...

From wikipedia article... Some styles retain a "racing stripe" (on either side of the labia) or "landing strip" (directly above and in line with the vulva).

Did Eric Cartman write this thing? It's singularly the best written thing I've ever read.

Also from Wiki. And pretty amusing at that.

/not available for comment

Wikipedia's article on Britannica is actually reasonably good.

Wikipedia's article on CRITICISMS OF WIKIPEDIA is excellent.

Britannica sucks on both. :P

Adman12: Man. Oh. MAN! Did that make me laugh. You really can't make up that kind of comedy gold. You just strike it rich by accident.

I STRONGLY suspect that POSC is in fact a single individual, with a personal grudge against Wikipedia. That's all it is, a website devoted to trashing Wikipedia and nothing else.

No such Agency

You don't think there's such an agency?

"However Nature also claimed to have found other factual errors: 162 in Wikipedia and 123 in Britannica. "

Who finds these errors? In xx number of Britannica revisions someone missed 123 errors. That's pathetics.

With Wikipedia you at least have the ability to fix said errors immediately. It is your duty as a free user of Wikipedia to help correct these errors. If you dont contribute, you should have 0 public opinion on the matter.

I believe there was one other transparency series, for maps of the US as it developed over time.

You gotta admit that them transparencies are purdy kewl.

Adman12: They have a whole gallery of them somewhere on the site. And, while many are labelled for educational purposes, they've clearly been cropped out of porn.

Nope. That would be copyright violation, which is very very against the rules. They're all submitted by editors or taken from "the corpse project", which I am not going to look up at work, but I think it's just people volunteering pics of themselves, too.

birdboy2000: Wikipedia's article on CRITICISMS OF WIKIPEDIA is excellent.

Exactly.

Criticism of Wikipedia - from Wikipedia

77Fury

Mr. Tumnus ?!??!?



UGH! SICK!