Block
1,976
edits
Changes
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 18:17, January 17, 2008
, 18:17, January 17, 2008→Offensive Content
Has anyone considered that Conservapedia articles might actually be fairly graphic in nature? The words "inserted anally" come up fairly frequently. [[user:hmuckabee|Hmuckabee]]
Has anyone considered that Conservapedia articles might actually be fairly graphic in nature? The words "inserted anally" come up fairly frequently. [[user:hmuckabee|Hmuckabee]]
:That's nothing. You should see the pictures the exhibitionist editors add to the sex-related articles. Well, no, you actually ''shouldn't'' see them, and neither should kids. Sadly, Wikipedia makes no attempt to shield children from these images. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:12, 16 January 2008 (EST)
:That's nothing. You should see the pictures the exhibitionist editors add to the sex-related articles. Well, no, you actually ''shouldn't'' see them, and neither should kids. Sadly, Wikipedia makes no attempt to shield children from these images. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:12, 16 January 2008 (EST)
::Actually, I'm wrong. WP does make an attempt to shield children. At the very bottom of every page (which would be after all the content in each page has been viewed by children) in small print is a link to their various disclaimers. These include "USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK" and "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE." Many of the images and information WP articles contain is as bad as any pornographic website, yet does WP care? Of course not. If your kids stumble upon offensive material on WP, well, that's YOUR fault, of course. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:17, 17 January 2008 (EST)
== Disruptive userboxes in wikipedia ==
== Disruptive userboxes in wikipedia ==