Comments:Wikimedia Foundation addresses controversial content conflict
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Oh boy, Jimbo again | 1 | 17:08, 4 July 2010 |
| Comments from feedback form - "could an example of a deleted ..." | 1 | 12:30, 30 June 2010 |
Another frustrated middle class, middle aged american who has to use any means available to get to date a woman (see his adventures on other sites) yet he feels offended by nudity in any form. Is it possible to fire all personel from US and move the project to another continent?
could an example of a deleted image(s) be included so that the reader could make an opinion between porn/art/info
I like your idea. However, since Wikinews uses Wikimedia and Commons servers, contributors here have a conflict of interest in selecting examples, which as I understand, run the gamut of shocking, prurient, artistic and suggestive. A mixture of photographs, engravings, and paintings seem to have been under discussion. It is a shame that the interviewees did not describe specific examples. There were many that remain deleted and so are hard even to verifiably describe, and many that were deleted then restored during the conflict, so I wouldn't trust myself or any Wikinews user to make a representative selection. For that you will have to consult other sites.