Proposal talk:Pornopedia

From Strategic Planning

Another proposal I don't personal consider to be wise… But we created many of the projects to get inappropriate material out of Wikipedia. Wikiquote was created to get the quotes out of Wikipedia, Wikinews to get the news out, Wiktionary to get the dictdefs out, Wikiversity to take the shapeshifting tutorials. Pornopedia seems to be the natural next step in this progression. --Gmaxwell 23:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First off, is this a serious proposal? Ò_ó
Assuming that it is: I don't feel pornography is bad (I like it:P), and I think that a project to gather up all (legal) non-copyrighted porn is a great idea, but I think that it is outside of the purview of the WMF. In addition it would create serious legal problems, what with porn being banned in a great many countries (most of Asia and Africa). Gopher65talk 23:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's quite well phrased and perfectly reasonable. 00:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also think a free/libre pornography project (Free-as-in-Porn, maybe?) would be good for the free culture movement and the broad "Wikimedia movement", especially if it actively discouraged the kind of atmosphere of sexism that pervades mainstream pornography. (The brilliant Onion News Network piece [NSFW] is apropos.) But it's pretty obvious that the costs in editor and reader goodwill for other projects would be too high for the WMF to consider running such a project.--ragesoss 00:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First off, I think the purpose of "Pornopedia" would be invalidated by all the free porn already on the Web and on so many people's harddrives. Second, whatever the name, the usual suffixes of WMF projects (-pedia, -media) would provide much sexual rhyming fodder for comedians. Finally, seriously, as if the WMF doesn't already have enough problems with credibility and respectability.GMJ 02:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • is there really that much 'really free' erotica out there? (*plong* did you know: the word pornography originates from the greek word pornographos which stems from the word porne which in turn means prostitute - and that is not the ideal term when it comes to _free_ erotica - which doesn't have to written, get with the times man.) isn't very much of it: lo-q, preview, teasing, ad-funded tube-sites? and then p2p/file-sharing (mostly illegal - without proprietary consent).
  • the comment about comedians i find rather irrelevant; either you want the attention or you just don't take part in such a project --Vike2000 04:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I shouldn't propose my awesome idea for Pedophiliapedia? 08:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
aw, you tooke the thought out of my head (pedophilipedia) ;p --Vike2000 04:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

not only is this a bad idea its already been done. 03:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i think the proposal is about a "database" of actual erotic content but, hey look low below and behold, there it is! (keep reading) --Vike2000 04:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We've started this project at Our content is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License. We use content from Wikipedia properly attributed. In order to pay hosting expenses we include affiliate links. Our dream is to create a free and open wiki. We still have a lot of work to do as the current version is beta. We would be happy to collaborate with WMF. Please check Pornopedia's article in Wikipedia and give us feedback. Many thanks. --Biris 11:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not another "modest proposal"

Greg, Greg, perhaps we can set up an "Antiproposals:" namespace for you.--Pharos 14:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alienating conservatives even more

As it is, quite a few Wikipedia articles have liberal biases. If it becomes a porn service, I will probably delete my account along with many other conservatives, and avoid Wikipedia in favor of conventional dictionaries that do not contain what I consider to be utterly evil content.

that's just the way the world seems to be headed - right down to hell of freedom - isn't it, mr/s anon? (no offense) --Vike2000 04:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Liberal != Freedom. :p At least not American liberalism. 20:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are not proposing the conversion of Wikipedia into a porn provider. It's totally the opposite! Wikipedia contains lots of porn references right now. Our dream is to see Wikipedia dissociate herself from porn. I think that many conservatives would like that a lot and that people interested in porn would have the possibility to find "not censored" info and media in a separate Pornopedia project.--Biris 08:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposals for new projects

For those in support, please have a look at m:proposals for new projects, for current policy, produre, and organization of processing proposals for new projects. Dedalus 14:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who as too much time to think about that rubbish?

Wikipedia as a free, easy-accesibble source of Pornography? Cant you use Google? -- 20:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Left-over material

Perhaps Jimbo can contribute some material left over from Bomis Premium.  --Lambiam 19:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This Will Help Humanity

Most of us can logically deduce that sex holds more value to the average person than random bits of information. If you don't read my "justification". If you do continue on to the benefits section


A lot of people these days view sex as a taboo subject. So it's rarely talked about. Because of this many problems arise. Kids aren't told what they need to know about sex to have a safe and pleasurable experience.

First of all, many schools still teach abstinence only education. And most other sex classes only cover contraceptives, diseases, etc. and NOT the emotional/practical side of it.

If I was to let somebody out into the baseball field and told him to play baseball without any instructions or pointers, do you expect him to get the most out of the game? Or better yet, if you let a scientist out into the lab with 0 background knowledge of science, do you expect him to discover something?

Sex is no different from baseball and science. Both activities need some background in order to get the most out of the experience. Why should we build on others' knowledge of pathogens and not others' knowledge of sex positions? Why should we build on knowledge of electricity and not masturbation?'

What makes sex so different? Nothing more than some 5000 year old delusion that sex is "nasty", our bodies are "nasty", and we are born with "sin". None of these myths are logically justifiable. As far as logic is concerned a gallery of baseball players designs holds no more value that a gallery of girl-on-girl porn.

Are we building wikis in order to appease some creationist idiots (no offense) or to make a wealth of information easily available to the public? Why should an article on some random comedian be more beneficial to society that a photo of a hot naked chick.


Wikimedia represents all of the people who edit it. It is not easily manipulated by bribes, threats, and so on like other companies are since targeting Wikimedia would mean targeting the entire population of editors. Even though there might be a loss of funding, I believe enough people are logical enough to see the value of this idea and will fund it themselves.

I was always taught to question whatever I encounter, whether it's teachers, ideas, customs, administrators, government, etc. I know for a fact that many people are still too afraid and embarassed to do so. They rather agree with a nonsensical idea than challenge the "crowd". This is holding back many scientific discoveries, lots of technological advancements, but probably most importantly the ability to enjoy life to it's fullest. After all that's why we enjoy life...One way or another (but that's a whole other topic). To this point I haven't heard of 1 valid reason to refrain from indulging in pornography. It is healthy, relieves stress, relieves boredom, and makes me happy. Kind of like watching a movie makes me happy (except...watching a movie is not really healthy). I explained a bit more in Justification. But the point is there really is no logical reason against pornography that even comes CLOSE to outweighing it's advantages (as far as I know...if not please correct me).

However Pornopedia isn't all about the porn, it's about the idea. If we can show the world that we are willing to support such a taboo idea as sex, eventually people will start seeing it's not bad to question customs. This will inspire many folks to start questioning more. To start logically examining things instead of relying on age-old customs and myths.

Right now we're pretty desperate. Students aren't being taught at the optimal pace. Most students see school as boring, useless, etc. That's just sad. We aren't getting anywhere unless we start looking at what matters and what doesn't.

And silly restrictions on how much body a woman shows are just plain ridiculous.

For Pornopedia! For progress! Adz 01:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Disagree. If, increased fertility of humankind would contrafactually be a good idea, there are already other media available for these kind of topics: the topic in question is outside the Wikipedia philosophy, since Wikipedia is politically and religiously neutral. Rursus 09:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagree. You have come up with some reasonably convincing reasons why a pornopedia project might work, including the fact that it already exists. What you haven't demonstrated is how the Wikimedia foundation could benefit in any way from being associated with such an enterprise. When it comes to that aspect of it, all I see is downside - most of the downsides well documented above, but also consider - are the people whose images such a site would distribute, being exploited? In some cases they clearly are (not all, but how could anyone tell?) and distributing their image compounds that exploitation, and why would an entity like WMF that is only as good as its reputation choose to do that??.--Travelplanner 10:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are many media available that handle human knowledge. But Wikimedia is organizing that information from a neutral point of view using the wiki way. Pornopedia pretends to do the same. The pornography resources out there are (99%) initiatives of companies that want to promote proper interests. I strongly believe that a project to create a reliable encyclopedia of pornography is both necessary and useful. Do we really think that pornography is outside the Wikipedia philosophy? Definitely not. As we all know it is the biggest part of the internet. What is outside the Wikipedia philosophy is the hypocrisy with whom people approach the topic.
Wikipedia, Wikinews and other Wikimedia projects are full of biographies of people that have suffered and been exploited. The legal providers (with whom Pornopedia pretends to collaborate) of adult content are forced to keep records of every photo or video shooting. This way the producers can control that all performers are over 18 years old and that they've agreed to participate to the movie. Why Wikipedia is listing so many Courtesans and prostitutes? Why Wikipedia is listing over 1.000 pornographic film actors?
The benefit for Wikimedia Foundation would be it's participation to the "normalization" of the pornography business via the creation of Pornopedia The Adult Encyclopedia.--Biris 10:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe, but like f.ex. the project of Mars Society have very little in common to a local ornithologist club, I think Wikimedia Foundation's central idea is about creating fact and knowledge bases and provide means to distribute it. Pornography is kind of "entertainment", and is outside scope of Wikimedia Foundation as I perceive it. I still disagree. You might be correct in the details, but it is still outside what I want Wikimedia Foundation to do. Try a wikia! Rursus 17:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Normalization of porn business is wrong...why? Porn business is no different from the news business. News IS entertainment. We read the news because we enjoy it, not because we care. List some good reasons AGAINST pornography. Just in a bulleted list. Let's make a little chart. Who wants to start: 19:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For and Against Pornopedia

For Against
Not needed! Just rate the proposal and you can take a look at the current numbers. The "vote" — or more correctly rating — is ongoing on the proposal page since long. If you've done it far ago, I can tell you how it stands now, because I discovered that I had forgotten to rate it. Current figures:
Priority average: 1.5, 25 votes for P1, 6 for P2, 0 for P3, 3 votes for P4 and 1 vote for P5;
Impact average: 2.6, 17 votes for I1, 1 for I2, 3 for I3, 5 votes for I4 and 8 vote for I5;
Feasibility average: 2.1: 17 votes for F1, 4 for F2, 6 for F3, 5 for F4 and 2 for F5.
Rursus 19:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please reformulate

Could the formulator of the proposal please reformulate "the Don't be a dick pillar" to something less sexistic? Otherwise something is fundamentally wrong. Rursus 18:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This expresion is an essay from Meta. I don't like it either.--Biris 09:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would propose renaming it to "Don't be a duck pillar". The alternative "Don't be a dick, or a hmhmhmm" would fail for other cultural reasons, while the duck don't have a culture, we eat them, and they're otherwise exploited without any violent opposition, so I propose duck instead of dick in order to minimize the change effort. Rursus 11:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply] 19:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC) I am in favor of "Sexopedia", but against "Pornopedia". Po rnopedia will destroy the whole building of Wikipedia. Human sexuality is embedded in our culture -- in our literature, in our films, in our music, in our art. Therefore, it is our duty to present facts and issues in human sexuality in an accessible, objective, and descent way. Sexuality issues must be covered very extensively. People, particularly young people, want to understand the origins of their sexuality as well as its influence on their relationships. The goal of Sexopedia should be to enlighten young persons about important aspects of sexual development, including issues faced with in adolescence, the topics of marriage, divorce and popstmarital adjustment, and reationship-related issues affecting the sexual interaction. Some articles suggested are:Reply[reply]

  • Sexuality in different cultures.
  • Cultural influences of sexuality in USA, in Europe, etc.
  • Sex education
  • Ethical standards
  • Male and female sexual anatomy
  • Sexual differentiation
  • The sexual response cycle
  • Sex hormones
  • Multiple orgasms.
  • Theories and stages of sexual development
  • Theories of Gender role development
  • Androgyny
  • Birth control
  • Sterilization
  • Alternatives to sexual intercourse as a birth control.
  • Birth control methods
  • Abortion
  • Pregnancy
  • Childbirth
  • Venereal and sexual deseases.
  • Sexual fantasy
  • Masturbation
  • Sexual relations
  • Sexual problems
  • Sex therapy
  • Dating, love
  • Premarital sexual behavior
  • Lifestyle alternatives to monogamous marriage (single status, cohabitation without marriage, extramarital sex, open marriage, group marriage, etc)
  • Sexual variations (homosexuality, homsexual orientation, bisexuality, etc)
  • Normal versus atypical sexual behavior
  • Gender identity disurbance-Transsexualism
  • Female and male prostitution
  • Massage parlors
  • The rise of sexual commerce
  • Pornography and obscenity


"The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people [...] to collect and develop educational content [...]." [1]

How would "Pornopedia" fit with this? There are some people who consider pornography enjoyable, and others who consider it offensive, but who would consider it educational? --B. Wolterding 13:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia's end-user base will increase and the impact on the existent users will also be considerable. Pornopedia will attract adult friendly users. But the most important benefit will be the implication of all major companies into the project. This will increase the quantity of editors. It would be wrong to close our eyes in front of one of the biggest industries of the internet and not try to find the way to integrate this "world" in the Foundation.--Biris 17:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

on porn proposal 15:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Please don't , I love this site as being informative, helping me and my children to make better choices in life, and you can find porn everywhere, please keep this site as a positive influence75.95.87.161 15:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC) on life. Thank youReply[reply]

You're kidding me

I mean, seriously, you're kidding me.

"I have an idea. It will never work. No-one at the WMF would ever allow such a thing in their right mind. In fact, I'll probably be mocked for my proposal. But I think it's such a good idea that I'm going to do it anyway!"

Good Lord. 06:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The German word Enthüllungsjournalismus refers to investigative journalism but could be mistranslated to "undressed/undressing journalism". --Fasten 09:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]