Why is Wikipedia content unfit for Yahoo! Answers?

Question

Recently, I posted a helpful answer to another question, including resourceful images direct from Wikipedia (regarding a fairly innocuous little anal fissure, along with an ingrown toenail). I received this in reply from the Yahoo! authorities:

Violation Reason: Sexually Explicit & Obscene Content

In Yahoo! Answers you may not post, request or link to content or images that are sexually explicit or otherwise offensive.

How is it that the content published by a noble non-profit charity like the Wikimedia Foundation is a "violation" of standards here on Yahoo!?

Answer 1

The reason is that even though both are user-generated content and links, there is actually some accountability here on Yahoo! Someone makes sure that the content is appropriate for the audience it's intended for, and there is no hiding behind Section 230.



On Wikipedia, there is the slight possibility that the images you linked could be viewed by medical students. It is far more likely that they will be viewed by giggling teenagers yelling "That's nasty! I don't want to see that! Hey, put that back up!"

Answer 2

If someone was asking a question about anal fissures, then you could probably get away with a link to a Wikipedia article about it. Instead, you posted an out-of-context link that could only be described as shocking the user. What you did by posting those links is really no different than the kind of vandals who post a picture of someone doing autofellatio into an article on Siberian huskies. You know, the sort of vandalism you decry so much.



(Oh, and anyone who doesn't know what autofellatio is: Don't look it up. You're better off not knowing.)



It's all about the context. I even did a search for "anal fissure" right here on Yahoo!, and it even pulls up an image from Wikipedia. Gross medical pictures are appropriate in some contexts, but not in others.

Answer 3

I don't think there is a problem with using Wikipedia in your answers. In fact in the bottom right of Yahoo Answers there is a Yahoo/ Wikipedia search bar. The problem is exactly what they say it is. Your pictures were obscene. Even if you helped someone out with those pictures, Yahoo doesn't want people seeing that on their site because it could be a kid or someone who just doesn't want to see that. I think the ingrown toenail is probably alright but the other one is the reason.

Answer 4

There's a difference in *context*. Your image, which was an image of an anal fissure, was inappropriate and offensive on a question "I can't see any images on wikipedia?". It really wasn't relevant; you could have used the completely innocuous Example.png (< http://enwp.org/File:Example.png >) or any of thousands of other images to suggest a test case for the asker. There's a whole category of a couple of thousand rather nice images that you could have used: < http://enwp.org/Category:Featured_pictures >.



In the Wikipedia article about anal fissures (which is a legitimate medical subject, described on Wikipedia as "a natural crack or tear in the skin of the anal canal"), images of an anal fissure, where clinical, are entirely appropriate. This is the case; that image highlights an example of an anal fissure, illustrating the article well. The images do not contain any genitalia, and a red arrow points to the specific detail in question, making it evident what's being described. In other words, it's fit for that context.



As a side note, legally, the Wikimedia Foundation is not the publisher of information on Wikipedia as it is, legally, a provider of an "interactive computer service", as codified in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230 (< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act >; < http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html >). This has been used successfully in court, for example < http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/08/judge-puts-defamation-lawsuit-against-wikipedia-to-the-sword.ars >.

Answer 5

mistakes 999 has been round for years that is a BANN , A CENSORING device utilized with the aid of YAHOO and became first offered in to surrender bandwidth hogs. It has no longer stopped them, properly if you're pinging yahoo many times like the crackers / hackers do, convinced, yet this isn't the case with maximum persons. E999 on YA! is acceptable to non yahoo links printed, all of it starts there. Yahoo does in assessment to you utilising "outdoors" events / links. regardless of in case you position up a yahoo link and it has one comprehend the banned link interior the URL addy, it receives E999. remove the link and your positioned up will bypass by ability of. Yahoo resources this mistake 999 message and would not enable you to get entry to the provider. and convinced there's a reason, it isn't a glitch, it isn't a wide-spread mistakes, it isn't your computing gadget, and convinced yahoo are very attentive to it. that is a code enormous daddy yahoo has in position years in the past, a censoring code. A code to surrender regardless of you're surfing / posting , on solutions / 360 / video games / mail or everywhere on yahoo, being somewhat portion of yahoo YA! has inherited the mistakes. if a link isn't yahoo appropriate, and that is printed alot, it immediately is going on a bann record, yahoo have this record of URLS and if printed too a lot that record immediately banns those URLS., with mistakes 999 subsequently, Yahoo can remove the links from the record so as that they could't b banned yet i do no longer see them doing that interior the close to destiny. Yahoo desire their own links . the different determination is to reproduction and paste the files you want to assist human beings right away from the web page you're utilising as a source. Yahoo do in assessment to you utilising the different source different then themsleves. keep posting an similar links that are banned and yahoo bypass so a ideas as to bann your account the way round mistakes 999 is to bounce the servers.

Answer 6

Because Yahoo! Answers has a rule against that type of content, and Wikipedia doesn't. It's that simple. Nothing to do with WMF's "nobility" (which, btw, nobody is insinuating).

There wasn't a need to link to that in the particular case; I"m sure if someone was asking about it specifically in the Health or Sex categories (is there such a category?) then it'd be at least more acceptable, although linking to the article would be better.



Oh, and out of curiosity: Did you get a warning for the one where you posted a link to a pic of a penis piercing (naturally, also from Wikipedia)? Because, frankly, that's something my little brother would do.

Answer 7

Not sure of the violation reason as I don't know your reference. However, it is a violation to just post a link to Wikipedia as it is not exactly answering the question.



They want you to provide some detail and then you can use Wiki as your source.

Answer 8

Noble? Where do you get noble from a site that allows editing and change by anyone who desires? Anyone can go in there and change info and it may remain that way for days or weeks undetected. Wikipedia is a joke.