Editing Wikipedia (section)

=== Explicit content ===
{{see also|Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia|Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons}}
{{for|the government censorship of Wikipedia|Censorship of Wikipedia}}
{{self reference|For Wikipedia's policy concerning censorship, see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored]]}}
Wikipedia has been criticized for allowing information about graphic content. Articles depicting what some critics have called objectionable content (such as [[feces]], [[cadaver]], [[human penis]], [[vulva]], and [[nudity]]) contain graphic pictures and detailed information easily available to anyone with access to the internet, including children.

The site also includes [[sexual content]] such as images and videos of [[masturbation]] and [[ejaculation]], illustrations of [[zoophilia]], and photos from [[hardcore pornography|hardcore pornographic]] films in its articles. It also has non-sexual [[child nudity|photographs of nude children]].

The Wikipedia article about ''[[Virgin Killer]]—''a 1976 album from the [[music of Germany|German]] [[rock music|rock]] [[rock band|band]] [[Scorpions (band)|Scorpions]]—features a picture of the album's original cover, which depicts a naked [[preadolescence#Prepubescence, puberty, and age range|prepubescent]] girl. The original release cover caused controversy and was replaced in some countries. In December 2008, access to the Wikipedia article ''Virgin Killer'' was blocked for four days by most [[Internet service provider]]s in the United Kingdom after the [[Internet Watch Foundation]] (IWF) decided the album cover was a potentially illegal indecent image and added the article's URL to a "blacklist" it supplies to British internet service providers.<ref name="Register ISP censorship">{{cite news |title = Brit ISPs censor Wikipedia over 'child porn' album cover |first = Cade |last = Metz |work = [[The Register]] |date = December 7, 2008 |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07/brit_isps_censor_wikipedia |access-date = May 10, 2009}}</ref>

In April 2010, Sanger wrote a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, outlining his concerns that two categories of images on [[Wikimedia Commons]] contained child pornography, and were in violation of [[United States obscenity law|US federal obscenity law]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikipedia-rejects-child-porn-accusation-20100428-tsvh |title = Wikipedia rejects child porn accusation |date = April 29, 2010 |work = The Sydney Morning Herald |access-date = May 14, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170902180523/https://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikipedia-rejects-child-porn-accusation-20100428-tsvh |archive-date = September 2, 2017 |url-status=live |df = mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="Inquirer child abuse allegations">{{cite news |last = Farrell |first = Nick |title = Wikipedia denies child abuse allegations: Co-founder grassed the outfit to the FBI |newspaper = The Inquirer |date = April 29, 2010 |url=https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1603521/wikipedia-denies-child-abuse-allegations |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100501174521/https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1603521/wikipedia-denies-child-abuse-allegations |url-status = unfit |archive-date = May 1, 2010 |access-date = October 9, 2010}}</ref> Sanger later clarified that the images, which were related to [[pedophilia]] and one about [[lolicon]], were not of real children, but said that they constituted "obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children", under the [[child pornography laws in the United States#Section 1466A|PROTECT Act of 2003]].<ref name="The Register-April" /> That law bans photographic child pornography and cartoon images and drawings of children that are [[obscenity#United States obscenity law|obscene under American law]].<ref name="The Register-April" /> Sanger also expressed concerns about access to the images on Wikipedia in schools.<ref name="TET child porn accusations">{{cite news |title = Wikipedia blasts co-founder's accusations of child porn on website |date = April 29, 2010 |work = The Economic Times |location = India |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/infotech/internet/Wikipedia-blasts-co-founders-accusations-of-child-porn-on-website/articleshow/5871943.cms |access-date = April 29, 2010}}</ref> [[Wikimedia Foundation]] spokesman Jay Walsh strongly rejected Sanger's accusation,<ref name="AFP" /> saying that Wikipedia did not have "material we would deem to be illegal. If we did, we would remove it."<ref name="AFP" /> Following the complaint by Sanger, Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community. After some editors who volunteer to maintain the site argued that the decision to delete had been made hastily, Wales voluntarily gave up some of the powers he had held up to that time as part of his co-founder status. He wrote in a message to the Wikimedia Foundation mailing-list that this action was "in the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I acted".<ref name="BBC News Wales cedes rights">{{cite news |url=https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10104946.stm |title = Wikimedia pornography row deepens as Wales cedes rights |work = BBC News |date = May 10, 2010 |access-date = May 19, 2010}}</ref> Critics, including [[Wikipediocracy]], noticed that many of the pornographic images deleted from Wikipedia since 2010 have reappeared.<ref name="XBIZ">{{cite news |url = https://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=169017 |work = XBIZ.com |date = September 17, 2013 |first = Lila |last = Gray |title = Wikipedia Gives Porn a Break |access-date = November 10, 2013 |archive-date = June 16, 2017 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170616073432/http://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=169017 |url-status = dead }}</ref>