Search Engine - The Chosen One

Episode Date: August 21, 2026

A listener asks: whose penis gets the top spot on the Wikipedia page for penis?Our quest for an answer takes us on a surprisingly philosophical journey — where we learn about the cutthroat fight to be number one and the extremely overthink-y debate that precedes the coronation.Wikipedia page for Lane Rasberry.Wikipedia page for penis.Wikipedia page for human penis.Become a premium member!

Hello, search engine listeners. We need your help. If you have visited Japan in the last few years as a tourist, we would like you to send us a 20-second voice memo explaining why you decided to go to Japan. Be specific if you can remember what you went for or what you wanted to see or what you saw or heard that made you interested in Japan.

Our address is PJVote85 at gmail.com. Thanks. And here's our show this week. Do you want to introduce yourself? Just say your name? Yes, I'm Leon. I live in San Francisco, originally from Amsterdam, moved here five years ago, and long-time listener of the show. Leon had sent in a question, a good one, about something that it had never occurred to me to wonder about. Can you just tell me what your question was?

My question basically distills down to who is the penis on Wikipedia? How did that picture get there? And who decides whether that picture gets up there? Because if you go to the Wikipedia page for penis, vagina, butthole, I mean, it's probably not butthole, it's probably anus. But the Wikipedia pages of various private parts have actual photographs of like somebody's version. Yeah. I think the thing that got me to this question is, like, growing up in the early 2000s, my sexual education came from Wikipedia. And I think what made Wikipedia really compelling as a teenager is that every anatomy page, had actual photos. You'd look at penis, you see a picture of penis, same for like, nipples, same for vulva. And I kind of always took up for granted, but like,

the thing I started wondering about recently is, like, how do those pictures get there? Like, who are the people that upload a photo of their penis to Wikipedia? And then, like, more importantly, who decides which penis becomes the Wikipedia penis? Like, is there a committee? Is there a rubric? Are there debates? And has that picture been the same for the last decade? Or are they still accepting new submissions? like PJ, could you and I upload a picture? Could I upload a picture of my penis today? And is there a chance that they'd be like, yeah, actually,

that is a more average penis than the one that we currently have on the site? You know, we're going to accept it. It's when my whole life is set up to not end up naked on the Internet. I can't imagine, not even for profit, but just for curiosity and experience and perhaps to contribute to the knowledge of, Global Commons, there's some party that's like, I kind of want to know how to slide my picture in the file. Exactly, yes. For a lot of people, you know, like especially kids like me growing up online,

these pictures become their baseline understanding of what bodies are supposed to look like. When my gay ass looked involved as a teenager, like that genuinely made from the first and last vagina I ever saw. So it's a question I really want answered. It's funny. You know, when I read your question in my inbox, I just enjoyed it because I enjoyed thinking about the people. Like, I I never wondered what type of person wants their penis to be seen in a non-pornographic reference material context, and I never thought about, well, who makes that decision. But the idea of, like, this being perhaps the most viewed penis in human history,

the most viewed vagina in human history, the most viewed anus in human history, the most viewed breasts in human history. Keep going. That's all the private parts I can think of. But, like, everyone has to decide how they feel. about their body, and part of the way you decide how you feel about your body is by looking at other bodies. Like, it is kind of an important penis. Right. Like, I kind of buy the theory of the question. I think what's more interesting, too, beyond the people, is the discussion

underneath it, because Wikipedia editors take their work very seriously, right? So I refuse to believe there haven't been intense arguments between Wikipedia editors about which penis is the correct penis. So I'd be very curious to understand the actual rubric and decision criteria as well. In my decades trying to answer questions and solve mysteries online, I've run into the Wikipedia gang a time or two. And I suspected Leon was right. In a world supported by the quiet work of conscientious overthinkers, these were some of the most overthinking. After a short break, the contest to become the world's most famous penis and how a high I counsel of internet librarians chooses a weener.

The following conversation is brought to you by LabCore on demand. I have a bad habit, which is that I get obsessed with work and relationships, and I just forget to check in about my own health. I'm working on it. But because of that, I asked search engine listeners to call in if they had stories about medical tests they'd taken where they'd actually found something surprising, which is how I ended up one afternoon talking to a listener named Kristen.

And what was the occasion for you getting testing done at all? I would switch to a new primary physician. She just gave a battery of tests, some of which are typical for kind of aging women. And often we have low iron, which makes us tired. And so she just put that test in, but mine came up really high. Kristen said that specifically her ferretin number was very elevated. Ferritin is a blood protein that stores iron. It turned out she'd something called hemochromatosis.

I have a disorder where instead of not having enough iron, I have an iron overload. Eventually, over time, that iron load would kind of destroy your organs, but there's no symptoms of it. So it's just a good thing that she ordered that test and found it. The last time we did one of these segments, we learned about the perils of too much copper, but it turns out iron can be perilous too, the dangers of elements. One way to treat a high iron load is with a phlebotomy, which is just removing large amounts of blood from your body. Removing the blood means you're removing excess iron, too. It's a very old-school-sounding medical technique that actually works in modern times.

When I go to the hematologist, they're just literally taking my blood. I can't even donate it. This huge bag of blood and they have to throw it away. That's so metal. I know. And this is interesting. I got this disorder from my mom hereditarily wise, but I have the veins of my dad, which are invisible.

And usually it takes some five or six pokes to because it's a much larger needle to do this blood draw, the phlebotomy. However, at Lab Corps, my people there know me now. They know they have to do it out of my hand. Those needles are a lot smaller. I have a whole system where, you know, they taught me to drink a ton of water for the 48 hours before. I take baby aspirin for a week before, which makes it much easier for them to draw my blood. So it's kind of a team effort there now.

Kristen said that with this treatment, she's gotten her iron levels back under control, though she still has to go get a routine phlebotomy about twice a year. I'm glad you're safe and healthy. Oh, thank you. It's important as a person to be proactive about your health, find out what's going on in your body, and not just wait for things to go wrong. And if you want more insight into what's happening, there's an easy way to get it. LabCore on demand.

For me, personally, one very real preoccupation in my mind as I entered the fun excitement of middle age is I'm just trying to think more about my own health. Testing with a doctor's guidance can be an important part of that. If you have questions about your overall health, lab core on demand is a trusted way to get insights that can power you forward, and you can do it from home. Just visit the website and choose from a suite of more than 100 lab tests, including micronutrient, cortisol, fitness, testosterone, and more. From there, visit the LabCore location closest to you to get tested.

It takes only days to receive reliable, easy to understand results from a lab doctor's trust. Ready to start knowing yourself? Visit labcord.com slash search engine and use code search to save up to 15% on select tests. That's labcourt.com slash search engine and use code search. Know yourself. Welcome back to the show. Wikipedia, just the fact of its existence and survival, has always astonished me. But I never really knew the story of how it came to be.

It turns out Wikipedia found its path, as many great things do, through trial and error. In 2000, a former options trader named Jimmy Wales wanted to start a kind of online encyclopedia. The idea to make sure the information was accurate was to only allow experts to write articles. Articles that would be vetted by an elaborate seven-step peer review process. A too elaborate peer review process. After 18 months, the website had about 20 articles. It wasn't really working. Wales and Larry Sanger, the person he'd hired to help run the site, went back to the drawing board.

What if they kept the review process, kept the experts, but let normal civilians submit articles too? Their board of experts was extremely offended by this. Absolutely not. And so a compromise was struck. The civilians got their own website. They were quarantined. The experts continued their work. A month later, the civilian site had produced more articles than the experts had been able to write in a year. The experts, not long after that, just gave it. up, the civilian site published at a faster and faster pace, which on its own is not that

surprising. What is surprising is that over time, those articles have proven reliable. Follable, contestable, like anything humans make, but good enough. In 2005, the journal Nature found that Wikipedia articles were about as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannicas. Britannica shut down its print edition seven years later. The question of why this all continues to work really deserves its own story. But this week, I spoke to a long-time veteran Wikipedia, who I experience is almost a human personification of the qualities I enjoy about the site, a person with a rigorous way of thinking, an openness to answering any question, and flashes of a sneaky sense of humor. Can you just say your name and what you do?

My name is Lane Raspberry. I edit Wikipedia. I'm also Wikimedia in Residence at the School of Data Science at the University of Virginia. You could also call me a data scientist. What does it mean to be a Wikimedia in residence? How does one become a Wikimedia in residence? You become a Wikimedia in residence by going to an organization and starting to move their content onto Wikipedia and having nobody stop you while you call yourself the staff Wikipedia. I can also pull content out of Wikipedia and give it to people at my university so that they can do research on it. Got it. So you're kind of of like your...

The Wikipedia person at the university. Got it. That's the right name for it. And so what else does that entail? How often are you interfacing with Wikipedia for the university? Like, how often are you a portal over the course of a given day?

Continuously, this is all that I do at the university. I've been at this university since 2018. I've been a professional Wikipedia since 2012. So I've done nothing but Wikipedia professionally since 2012, full time. And what was your very first experience with Wikipedia just as a user, before the site had sucked you in entirely? It's the same as anyone else.

I was an undergraduate in college. I went to Wikipedia and I started vandalizing it. What did you vandalize? I was taking a chemistry class, and I was vandalizing the Wikipedia article for the Swedish chemist Orinius, and I was making fun of an equation that this particular chemist wrote.

What was so funny about the equation? There was nothing funny about it. There's nothing funny about vandalism. It's like drawing a picture of a penis on a wall with spray paint. It's that level of humor. Immediately, Wikimedia's, patrolers came and told me, please don't do that. That's another common Wikipedia experience.

Did you feel chastened at the time? Do you remember? I came back later and did it again. That's not too jazen. I didn't. Yes, I was immediately chastened, but the chastening wore down after about a month. I came back and did it again.

So I vandalized Wikipedia multiple times. Wikipedia's encyclopedia that anyone can edit. And people say, well, doesn't that make it unreliable? But there's enough moderation on Wikipedia that the vandalism or the misconduct, it gets caught immediately. And as soon as you get caught, you're connected with another human who wants to talk to you about Wikipedia and pitch you on its finer points

and convert you into a constructive editor. And I'm telling you this, because this is a recruitment technique by Wikipedia, because guess what? the kind of person who would think to vandalize Wikipedia is actually a bookish sort of person. It's not, there's a certain sort of thug that will do another kind of vandalism, but the sort of person who even thinks to vandalize Wikipedia is actually the kind of person who might be recruited to constructively edit Wikipedia. I find that to be very beautiful.

There's so few parts of the Internet that have a story that goes, people show up to be antisocially here. And, in fact, what they don't know is they're joining our nerdy pro-social community. It's nice to know there's somewhere where the pipeline seems to work sometimes. It works in Wikipedia, yes. So I'm coming to you with a specific question that we got from a listener to our show. Well, they have a series of questions all around the same topic. The sort of overarching question is this.

Who are the people whose private parts show up when you go to the Wikipedia pages for penis, vagina, testicles, breasts, etc. How do they, meaning the Wikipedians, determine which picture shows up there? Is the report of editors who votes which penis is the most representative penis? Or is it just that whoever got there first called dibs? The question is gone. But like, let's sort of start at the top. If I go to the Wikipedia page for penis, I will see a human penis. Who's the person who's penis I'm seeing?

You are seeing the penis of somebody who took a picture of their penis and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, which is the media repository, which complements Wikipedia. So Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's prose text. There's a Wikimedia ecosystem of other projects. So the text is managed in Wikipedia. The images are managed in something called Wikimedia Commons. So there was a person from the internet, and they created a Wikimedia account, and they had a picture of their penis on their phone or their computer. They uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons from their account. And then they proposed it. that the picture of their penis

be the illustration for the Wikipedia article. When that happens, so behind the scenes of every Wikipedia article, there is a talk page. This is where editorial discussions happen. And anyone can join this talk page, so anyone can edit Wikipedia, anyone can upload pictures to Wikimedia

comments, anyone can participate in the editorial process, and after an editorial discussion, the people who participated in that decided that this particular penis was the one among all the other options, which should be in the Wikipedia article. So, okay.

The talk page is... I'm glad we feel the same way about this. But the talk page is like the Democratic Council underneath each of these pages. And like all Wikipedia, anybody could be a member of a talk page. But like someone was a member of this talk page. Like I am on right now, wikipedia.org slash wiki slash penis.

Scrolling down the page, I see first an Asian elephant's penis, then I see a mallard of ducks penis, which is very funny-looking. Then I see the penis of a dog, which I could see at home. Then I see a bunch of penises of minky wells. It takes a while before you get to a person,

but eventually I see a person's penis. And you're saying, this penis that I'm looking at, somebody uploaded it to Wikimedia and then a bunch of Wikipedia editors conferred amongst themselves, and they chose this penis. Is it possible to look at the talk page then? And to, like, is that discussion preserved?

Can we know the logic that chose the penis that I'm looking at? It's permanently publicly accessible. Behind every Wikipedia article, again, there's this talk page. There's also a history button associated with every Wikipedia article where you can see that edit log. Every single edit made to every single Wikipedia article is preserved. and anybody can look at the Wikipedia article at any point in time.

You could say this is track changes, like what changes did anyone propose? So there was a Wikipedia article on Pinas. It was made in 2001. That's the same year that Wikipedia was established, so one of the first articles that were made. And there's an editorial history of all the discussions, all the edits ever made and all the discussions ever made,

about what kind of content, meaning both text and multimedia, the article should contain, and the editorial decisions behind it. So anyone can surface these. So an anthropologist could study the editorial history. Someone new could dig into that and say, I see these past arguments. I have something new to say,

let's make some changes according to my new theory of how things should go. And it's ponderous. It's not easy to come to terms with these things. I would say it's interesting reading. I enjoy reading these kind of things. Wikipedia would enjoy reading these kind of things. But let me start with a ponderous fact or a ponderous observation. Please.

So we have a Wikipedia article called, penis, and that's where you are. And might I suggest you also check out the Wikipedia article for human penis? So everybody wants to see the elephant penis. That's the lead in the Wikipedia article for penis. We have animals and humans there and invertebrates, these kinds of things. But human penis, all human penises. You said that you're also interested in the Wikipedia article for vagina. Here's something ponderous. Yes. Okay, so we have a wiki-a-a-a-article for penis and human penis, two separate articles, two separate editorial histories, two separate photographic choices. For vagina, we just have a Wikipedia article for vagina. So there is editorial demand

for pictures of animal penises, okay, and human penises, but there is only informational and editorial demand for vaginas in general. You're saying that what I should make of the fact that there's, that I can more easily access images of animal penises on Wikipedia. That's a function of the people coming to Wikipedia, this is what they're clamoring for. They're clamoring to see the penis of an elephant, but they're not clamoring to see the vagina of an elephant. That's exactly what I'm saying. And I'm not telling you why that is.

I'm just saying that that's an observation and that's the way things have played out. Editorially in Wikipedia, I would say, as a Wikipedia researcher, that that's a reflection of interest on the internet. and a proxy for interest at large in the population. Hmm. Okay, so wait, but before we, I have a follow question about that, but before we get to that, this is such a treasure trope for curiosity.

What? So I'm on the human penis page. The sort of the star penis, the first penis I see, is also the star penis that I saw on the general penis page. Right. And I guess I'm curious about the history of this image, the owner of this image. What can we know about this penis that I'm looking at? It's a few things to say about this penis.

We can deconstruct this. So I'll give you some information, and you can make what you want of it. It's all ponderous. I'm not going to draw your conclusions. You draw your own conclusions. So there was a Wikipedia article on penis 2001. That was one of the first ones. Some years later, it was decided there should be an article in human penis, separate from animal penises in general.

And there was always discussion about which penis should be used as an illustration. And the picture that you're talking about, so at the top of human penis, there's a particular penis. This is considered the lead image, and it's the most valuable real estate in any Wikipedia article. What is the first picture people see? Because there's a lot of people that come to a Wikipedia article, they get quick answers, they see the thing, and then they leave. So this is the penis that represents humanity's penis. It's very high traffic article. This is one of the most popular

We Could Beatty Articles. It's always been one of the most popular We Could Beed The Articles. This is the most popular penis in the world. More people have seen this penis than any other penis in the world. This penis. The penis I'm looking at this. This particular penis.

This might be the most important penis ever in terms of how it's influenced the way people think about penises. Sorry, and is it possible to know how many people have seen this penis? Let's see. I'd have to do the calculation, but say like three million times, every year since

since 2012. So, you know, 30, 40 million times. So this penis has been viewed something like 30 or 40 million times. Yeah. It's a lot of times. Yeah.

So you'd be hard-pressed to find like another single penis viewed that many times by such a large segment of humanity around the world. So the listener who had emailed us, part of what they were asking is they said they were becoming

sexually educated in the early 2000s with, you know, the launch of Wikipedia. And they said they got their information about sex from Wikipedia. This was, I think, a formative penis for them. And for them, they're like, oh, their sense of the range of a normal, of what a normal penis might look like came from looking at images on Wikipedia. Like, Wikipedia anatomy pages had made up just his baseline understanding of the human body. Like, this had been his sex ed. Or at least, I mean, I'm sure he got sexual education in other places, but this is this sort of primary source. Okay, so Wikipedia is a very popular information source

for education and general informative purposes on gender and sexuality. So it's been long discussed and long recognized since mid-2000s in the scholarly literature and really, really since the start of Wikipedia, that people come to Wikipedia and they look up articles on anatomy and sex and sex positions, sexual orientations, and sexually transmitted infections, sexual health, dating, marriage, relationships, and kink.

So all of these are definitely in the top most popular Wikipedia articles. This is true globally, and this has always been the case. So all of these are very popular. and what we've been talking about with penis, these things are contested in every single one of those articles in the same way. And how does Wikipedia as a culture think about the responsibility

of being a primary sex ed resource for humanity? It's a mixed response, so I'll tell you some of the stakeholders. So it happens that I organize with Weak Media LGBT, which is the community of weak comedians who are interested in, LGBT content. And it's not that LGBT people have a monopoly over sex or sexuality. However, there's something inherently sexual about an LGBT status, and people ask LGBT people about

sexuality anyway. And the LGBT community, it tends to be more involved in articles on anatomy or sexual health, gender, relationships, these kinds of things. I'm also involved with another Weak Media community. It's called Weak Media Medicine. So these are a lot of people who participate in particularly public health communication, the kind of health issues that if a person who's not medically trained has information, then they can use that to inform their decisions about their sexual health. And by having that information, they have better health outcomes. Yeah. So sexual health, it's not just something that a person goes to the doctor and the doctor fixes. Actually, there's certain behaviors about sexual health, that if you have information, you're going to be a healthier

person, and if you don't have information, you're more likely to get a sexually transmitted infection. So there's a lot of medical people who edit these things from a medical perspective. Bring those in. Some other groups, the WikiWomen's groups, for different reasons, they're more involved in sexual health just in the course of advocating for protection of women and Wikipedia. So those are three groups that I would identify that's particularly interested. Is there another Wikipedia page like the penis one in terms of popularity, attention? Like, is there another Wikipedia page that, like, pulses with this energy? Yes.

So, as a transition, let me mention a kind of penis that's requested in the human penis article that's not there that is also a hot topic. So what penises are missing? And if you talk to a Wikipedia, and they could give you lots of critique. Like, if we had 10 hours, we could talk for 10 hours about this stuff. I understand the nature of this. And if anybody wants to, you can contact other Wikipedians and get other opinions.

Every Wikipedia is prepared to do an interview like this. But if you go into the talk page archives, one requested penis is people say, can I see a transgender girl penis? And what they mean by that is they want to see a full-body, nude transgender girl that has breast and has a penis. That's the kind of penis that is being requested.

And why is that penis not on the Wikipedia? Pedia P-Penus page? Because it's a minority penis. Because it's not representative enough. So even though it's a hot topic politically, Transgender Rights is a hot topic politically, it's actually not such a common anatomical situation. Things could change or it could become more prominent. Wikipedia lags a bit behind because it's informationally conservative. So we look at the sources, we look at the academic literature, we look at the textbooks, we ask experts, what information do people need? And also, it's not exactly folks. focused on a penis. You can describe this kind of thing without showing a penis and breasts in the same pictures.

Like, there's, that's getting to the point of sexualizing or eroticizing, and that's not what we want for this article. But how do you decide, like, so I understand the first part of the view, which is to say, we have to discriminate in terms of which penises we're going to show. And so the, not discrimination in the prejudicial sense, but like our sort of cut here will be how statistically in the real world represented are these penises and that's going to be the bouquet of penises that you see

and while there are trans women with penises in the world, certainly statistically speaking, in America there's not as many and so we're not going to show it. That's part of the argument. Am I understanding it right? Everything is correct there

except the in the America part. So remember that Wikipedia is global. It's not just very popular in the United States, it's also popular globally. And many people speak English as a second language. So even if there's another language Wikipedia version that they could be using, their local language,

many people prefer to use English Wikipedia just because it's more developed. But it's global. People from all over the world are seeing this. So it's not about just trans representation in the United States. It's global. This is about international trans representation.

Yeah. But wouldn't there also, and I'm not, I have no dog in this fight, but it surprises me only because I would think that part of what it would also be driven by is just curiosity. It seems like some of the decision-making behind the penis page is driven by curiosity. So part of me is surprised that if this is something people are curious about, that that wouldn't be a reason to display it.

So about the curiosity. You've heard of this phenomenon, the Wikipedia rabbit hole. People start at one article, they click through, and they set us by their curiosity jumping Wikipedia article to Wikipedia article through the hyperlinks, and they find the content that they want. I've spent some time in them. Right. Guess what?

if somebody wants to see a transgender girl's penis, it is possible for them to click enough times and find one of those in the Wikimedia ecosystem. I see. This is just literally whether it's on the page for human penis. Right. And you were asking, are there comparable philosophical discussions elsewhere? And could I direct you to any Wikipedia article about transgender issues? Right. That's a place where you see.

also a very lively talk page. Right. Remember, the reason we were here at all talking about any of this is because of a question asked by our listener, Leon. Leon, who many years ago had gotten his sexual education from Wikipedia, as a young gay kid,

and who suspected as an adult that he wasn't alone in that experience. Leon had wanted to peek into the minds of the many authors who'd first explained sex to him. He'd also wanted to know about this one specific penis and its owner, a topic I promise we'll return to, But for a moment, here's what had snagged my attention. How seriously Lane and his fellow Wikipedtians took their jobs as de facto sex ed teachers to the world.

Not just to people like young Leon, to people everywhere, who approach the site sometimes from very different cultural starting points. So I know from Wikimedia Medicine that we've had people go to different public health agencies in different countries around the world and say, you could use Wikipedia to improve outcomes in your population, share Wikipedia content, instead of writing it from fresh, or reinventing the general reference information that Wikipedia's. Why don't you reuse Wikipedia's information? And in doing this, we've heard from public health professionals in different countries, we meaning more westernized, it just happens that way.

So Western people tend to have a first mover advantage in Wikipedia in many ways. Some other countries have said, we'd like to share your health information. Could you please remove information on family planning or contraceptives? Oh, interesting. And that's been kind of abrasive to, say, editors in the United States that had this conversation in the context of the women's rights movement some decades ago, but not every country and culture has had a conversation about birth control pills or family planning

or the woman's place in deciding these things in the way that, say, the United States has had these things. And it's not that we want to be colonial or force anybody. The different language versions present a version of Wikipedia that's appropriate for their culture. But at the same time, we do want people to have access to information if the editors of that local language version choose to include it. It's so strange to think, like, 25 years ago, somebody just thought, I can put an encyclopedia on the Internet. And then the level of cultural sensitivity and thoughtfulness,

you end up needing to arrive at a quarter of a century later is just, like, surprisingly dense. There's a lot of things to discover, and it's still difficult in every country. In every culture, it's still difficult to talk about sexuality, sexual education. So people have said, can you turn off the images of penises in the Wikipedia article?

What if a child comes, or a minor, comes to Wikipedia? Should you age-restrict Wikipedia? And this is a major political development around the world. Should access to websites be, age-restricted. The major social media platforms are putting age restrictions. There's different kinds of regulations on this. And the Wikimedia community's perspective is that we want everyone in the world to be able to access Wikipedia. We want everyone in the world to be able to read Wikipedia. There's nothing obscene in Wikipedia. And we don't want to have barriers or log-ins for people

to access this information. So Wikipedia's perspective for now is the site would prefer not to age-gate because it goes against the ethos of what this open reference material is supposed to be. Yes, and also there's discussions about what should be age-gated. So there's some interest that would say you need to age-gate family planning and contraceptive information. That's obscenity. And there's some people who say you need to age-gap any information about being queer or sexual orientation, because some sexual orientations are prohibited in a country or culture. Very common.

Actually, I think that there's just my read of the situation, and I'm doing my best to like read the spirit of the world. But I think there's actually more cultures that would be interested in Wikimedia, educating the article on queer than the article on penis. Censorship is a recurring topic when Wikidians get together. It's not just censorship about sexuality. It's about every single war in the world. So Wikipedians are persecuted in every single country and all kinds of topics, some of the kinds of persecution. If you edit Wikipedia articles on sexuality,

people will harass you. I've experienced harassment for this. Many people in Wikimedia, LGBTI and Weekin Media Medicine, they can talk about this. Any Wikipedia who edits a Wikipedia article about a politician, particularly a politician scandal, whatever the country in the world, there's going to be a certain amount of danger associated with that.

There's Wikimedians in prison right now for editing Wikipedia articles. Where? I've got a colleague. His name is Asama Khalid. He is, in Saudi Arabia. You can read about him on Wikipedia. So he came to our conferences. He is a physician. He translated Wikipedia articles from English into Arabic language. He came to WikiLGB.

And he said, what can I do to help you? And we said, can you help translate the article on HIV and AIDS? And it's not that he had a particular involvement with Wikimedia LGBT, but he was a physician going to help where he could. He was a medical student at the time. He finished medical school. He got married. He had a kid. He is arrested, and there's public information about this. There's other examples.

So you can look at the Wikipedia article on a Wikiped imprisoned or arrested or harassed for editing Wikipedia. There's a lot of stories of this, because a lot of people who do this, they don't realize the danger that they're getting into. These people are not activists or trying to stand out or trying to make a point. They're just sharing general reference information. and citing reliable sources, not trying to be edgy. And this happens to them.

I know this is a somewhat grim place to find ourselves in a story about the Internet's most famous penis. But I will say, as someone who's marveled from far away about Wikipedia's continued existence, talking to someone inside of it, thinking about how hard people there work to keep it running, even sometimes at the cost of their own freedom, it makes me feel this is weird,

almost patriotic for the Internet, or for what it can sometimes be. So much of what I see online just feels like an absolute feast of evidence for nihilists and yet here's one place where anonymous strangers volunteer their time where many ponderous conversations lead to a free infinite library.

A minor miracle. I digress. We're going to take a short break. When we return, we will leave the wonder and anguish of the internet's information workers and go find out what we can about the emperor who wears no clothes. Welcome back to the show.

Enough with all the learning about stuff. Let's talk about the penis that brought us to Lane's door. And so what can we know about the owner of this image, who I'm assuming, but I'm not certain is the owner of this penis? Sure. So you're not the first person to ask this question. There's other journalists that have asked a question and got answers in other kinds of ways.

But I'll give you the perspective from what we know about the Wikipedia metadata and our editorial process. So every time someone makes an edit to Wikipedia or uploads an image to Wikimedia comments, They have a Wikimedia account. We can examine that account. So it's public information. You don't need to be logged in.

Anyone can examine these things. So the person who uploaded this picture of their penis, or a penis, presume it's the uploader. Yeah. This penis is the only thing that they've ever uploaded. So somebody created a Wikipedia account. They uploaded a picture, and this is not normal behavior.

Most people who come to Wikipedia, if they're going to upload pictures, they upload a few pictures. Or if they're going to make edits, they do a few edits. So this person in 2012, they rocked up, they said, here's my penis, I'm out of here. Wow. Yes. There are one contribution, at least under this account,

to the entire corpus of Wikimedia, was a picture of probably their penis. You could go beyond Wikipedia. Like, I really doubt this person has ever done anything with such a societal impact bigger than this. It's not just the biggest thing they've done in Wikipedia. Who does something with greater impact than this? It's not common.

And can we know anything about their intentions? Did they leave any trace on the talk page? They say anything about what they meant by doing this? What is the meaning of this? Yeah. So them alone, we don't have other information about the person. They uploaded their penis. They left.

They haven't been back. And they haven't engaged in Wikipedia. They haven't engaged them in Wikimedia comments. They just haven't done anything since. But something else that I could tell you is that they're not the only person who's done this. Actually, there's quite a lot of people who've come to Wikipedia, uploaded a picture of a penis, and then left. What do you mean?

Like, have they been competitors to be the hero shot on the page? Or have they just said, I would like to add this image of this penis to Wikipedia? Like I said, I'm a data scientist, and I'd like, I wish that I had the computational power to look at this in general. Like, how many people come to Wikipedia and go to the zoo and they upload a picture? of an elephant, and that's the only thing they do and they leave. Yeah. Like, what are the trends of when somebody comes to Wikipedia does one thing and then leaves forever? It's actually, I don't think it's so common, but with penis, it's a thing that people do.

Like, people will do this with penis. They won't do it with, say, historical buildings in their community, wherever they live in the world. I went back after we spoke to the talk section of the Wikipedia page for the human penis, just to see this battle for supremacy myself. It's less like looking at a long discussion, more like mainlining 900 seasons of Game of Thrones, as different powers rise and fall over the years, each attempting to climb the Iron Throne.

I wasn't the first journalist to survey this contest. A writer named Ryan Van Hooker had written the definitive chronology of the battle for a short-lived online magazine called Mel a few years before. The Wikipedia Penis page itself is born on November 8, 2001, two months after the worst domestic terror attack in American history. A moment of aching national grief in which, nevertheless, the quotidian parts of life continued, including one day that fall, when a user added a penis page to Wikipedia.

Perhaps in a nod to the mood of solemnity, they did not include on that page an actual image of a penis. For the first couple years, that spirit of prudishness reigned. When images were added, they were removed, sometimes within minutes. Then, in the summer of 2003, the wall was for the first time ever breached. A user uploaded a set of simple, black and white, medical-looking penis photos. And for whatever reason, the moderators let them stay. But those beauses lived further down the page in the detail section, competing for attention in a collage.

The top of the page, the headline spot, stayed empty until 2004 when it was claimed not by a man but by a drawing. A simple encyclopedic medical diagram. For years, actual humans competed for that spot. Penises were submitted for consideration as a lead image, and the moderators patrolling the page rejected them, one after another. Bouncers at the world's most popular library. Not tonight. The penises submitted were often labeled with the worst insult Wikipedia can offer.

The penises were called unencyclopedic. Ben Hooker, the writer, recounts the story of a user named Bob, who kept insisting, kept trying the door. not apparently with just his own penis, but with a kind of coterie of different penis images. Bob believed in his heart that the lead image on the penis page should be of an actual penis, not a diagram. So he'd upload and be rejected.

Upload and be rejected. For every year, Bob fought. Summer 2008, he fights the other mods to a draw. The diagram comes down, a photograph goes up, but the moderators churlishly refuse to use any of Bob's penises. Instead, it's this blurry black and white photo with labels. It looks like the rushed photo someone would have snapped of Bigfoot's penis. Bob won the battle, but surveying the result, it's hard to say it's worth it.

February 2010, a new claimant arrives. A user posts a photo from someone named Polar Stern, apparently from Germany, whose penis image, possibly his own, is of a white person's penis with a shock of unkempt blonde pubic hair, a Targaryen. His full-color photograph unseats the blackest of. and white one, and now Polar Stern sits the throne. Later that year, the kingdom actually faces a schism. The penis page splits into a general penis entry, which is handed over to the animals,

whale penises and jars and elephant, as well as a new human penis page, where Polar Stern carries his crown across the border and reigns for about two years. But there's a problem, and the moderators know it. The most famous, most viewed image of a human penis on earth is Caucasian. White people, internationally, are a minority. Why should a white man's penis represent everyone? In April 2012, an answer arrives. The user uploads a new image.

Uncumcised, darker skin tone, racially ambiguous. A penis, the argument goes, that could belong to almost any race. And we're past successions had taken months of warfare. This one takes a single day. The moderators reach consensus almost immediately, which is how the reign of a user named Coastwide. begins. The epoch we still live in. Coast One's penis mounts the Iron Throne on April 30th, 2012, where it has stayed ever since. Pretenders have a beard over the years, the throneing

him for a few hours here, a few minutes there, but every usurper is swiftly removed. The king restored. His reign is now well into its second decade, although if you look at what's happened in the world since the relative tranquility of April 2012, I would posit that we ought to have some questions for our monarch. However, he's anonymous. We can't ask him anything. I has a lane to tell me what a veteran Wikipedia notices when contemplating this chosen penis. Okay. First, let's consider the technical quality of the photograph. So when someone uploads images to Wikimedia Commons, we evaluate these from a photographic perspective. What is the subject matter? What does it focus on? What is the

resolution of the image? What's the native size of it? Is this good photography? Is this good modeling? Is this good lighting? Is the picture clear? And this is not a good photo. This is not somebody in a modeling studio. So the lighting is bad.

The resolution is low. This is not a technically good photograph and not the kind of thing that Wikipedia would normally want at the lead of an article, especially one to get so much traffic as this one. Regarding the subject matter, so this person is racially ambiguous,

which is fine, and it's not determinate. So we only have the penis in this picture. This is not a crop of a larger photo where the model showed their full nude body or their face. They just uploaded their penis, and that's all the information we have. It's a flaccid penis, it is not erect. It's not a penis in action.

It's not peeing. It's not ejaculating. It's not doing anything. It's not wearing any jewelry. It happens to be shaven, which is a matter of controversy, because some people say you should show a natural penis. There's a lot of talk,

editorial talk on the talk page of this article about the extent to which the penises in the article are representative of humanity in general. You mean there are people on the talk page who would say that if we have a, say, large, like, longitudinal survey that says that 72% of men have unshaven genitals,

than the penis that people see when they go to the Wikipedia page should be an unshaven penis. That sort of is the idea? The criteria is uncertain, but you're thinking in the correct way, somehow or another, people want the platonic ideal of a penis. Huh. Hmm.

So it should be a... And the platonic ideal of a penis, like, none of us can... We're all looking at shadows of penises on walls of caves, but, like, the idea that it should be unglamorous, sort of average-sized, like, not bejeweled. Like, it should be like,

like, in my mind, sometimes I go to saunas, like, and I'll see penis as it's sonas. Yes. And this looks like a sauna penis. Like, it just looks like a regular part of a regular body. So generally, we want high technical performance with the photography,

but maybe that's not the way people usually see pictures of penises. Maybe, like, the typical picture of a penis is really something that someone just, pulls out their phone and takes a picture of, and that's the penis. A grainy, furtive shot of a grainy, furtive body part. Yes. Huh. Yes, you're thinking like a Wikipedia editor.

It's all very philosophical. Yes. Lane Raspberry, wikimedian in residence at the University of Virginia. He has been editing the site, which survives on reader donations since 2004. Thank you for talking about all of this. And so thoughtfully, thank you. Thanks for having me, PJ. Before we end this episode, one important fact-checking note

in the spirit of virtuous ponderousness. Hyper Dumont, who fact-checked our show this week, raised an issue. Are we sure that the Wikipedia penis is the most viewed actual penis in all of human history? It's certainly one in the top two, but the other contender would have to be the penis of the singer Ray Jai, co-star of Kim Kardashian sex tape, most viewed sex tape in all of human history.

It gets tricky. the penis Wikipedia page we know has been viewed many, many millions of times. But we know the current penis was not there for all of those views. Our best estimate is that this specific penis has probably been viewed tens of millions of times, possibly more.

Kim Kardashian's video has supposedly been viewed hundreds of millions of times, but that number comes from the company that sells it. It's pirated on lots of different streaming sites, and obviously not every person watches the whole thing. So it's confounding. Of course, there's also images of the Statue David, but we're not counting that because it's a marble statue, not an image of a

real human penis. None of this undermines the spirit of the question. This is an extraordinarily important penis image for all the reasons we discussed today. But search engine is committed to honesty about what can be known and which facts we have to hold with requisite uncertainty. Search Engine is a presentation of Odyssey. It was created by me, PJ Vote, and Truthy Pinnaminani. Garrett Graham is our senior producer.

Emily Maltaire is our associate producer. Our production intern is Piper Dumont, who also fact-checked this week's episode. Theme, original composition, and mixing by Armand Bizarrian. Also, some special thanks this week. Thanks to Meg's Wacha and Robin Canter for helping us find Lane. And Robin, congratulations on your bottom surgery. She said to feel free to mention that

because the timing seemed appropriately funny. Also, special thanks to Sam Krieger, who graced us with an office visit. Our executive producer is Leah Reese Dennis. Thanks to the rest of the team at Odyssey, Rob Morandi, Craig Cox, Eric Donnelly, Colin Gaynor Moore, and Josephina Francis Kirk Courtney, Vanessa Tinkati, and Hillary Schuff. If you have a business and would like to advertise on search engine, please send us an email.

PJVote85 at gmail.com subject line advertising. If you have a question for the show, that is also the place to send in your questions. We are always looking for more questions. If you're a listener and would like to never hear an ad on the show, you can sign up for incognito mode. It's our paid feed. It is what funds the show and keeps us going along with ads. You also get bonus episodes. you can find information about incognito mode at search engine.

Thank you, as always for listening. We will see you very soon.