Have your say! Comments are open on this article - add yours
While school children used to look up dirty words in dictionaries, searching for the same phrases on Wikipedia can result in images and videos of masturbation, "hardcore" sex and orgies.
On one entry, an 18-second video of a man ejaculating appears on the page - without any warnings or age verification.
On another page, various photos from the sets of both a heterosexual and homosexual "hardcore" pornography films are featured. Several images of masturbation appear on another page.
The online encyclopaedia, which relies on users to produce articles and maintain accuracy, has replaced many traditional information sources for millions around the world - but the accuracy and appropriateness of its content has long been criticised.
A Wikipedia editor who has been trying to get the ejaculation video removed says the clip is "overkill".
"A video of a woman giving herself a breast exam would be educational and ... a video of a man giving himself a testicle exam would be educational" in relevant articles, the user says.
"Images alone are not enough for those processes, but a video of a man ejaculating - when there is an image that shows it stage by stage - is not needed."
Childwise head Bernadette McMenamin says sex education is "a good thing", but displaying sexualised images in an online encyclopaedia "crosses the line".
"Does that mean that when you type in 'murder', you should actually see someone murdering someone else?" she says. "Do we really need to see a woman masturbating on Wikipedia? Do we really need to see so many seconds of ejaculation?"
Protests from many Wikipedia users have caused many "obscene" images to be removed, on the basis that they did not contribute to people's understanding of topics, but many more are still being disputed.
On a discussion page, one user complains that a photograph of female genitalia is shown for titillation, not education. "I don't think that (Wikipedia) is the place for this ... even in medical school, you deal mostly with diagrams - not French manicured nails."
On another discussion page, a user complains about the use of a photograph of a man performing a sexual act on another man. "How is this NOT pornographic in nature?" the user asks.
According to Wikipedia’s policies, there "is no censorship" in the online encyclopaedia.
"Obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism) is usually removed quickly," the site says.
"However, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links where they are relevant to the content - such as the articles about the penis or pornography."
Internet Industry Association boss Peter Coroneos says there is no need for "moral hysteria" over graphic images if they are used in context.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) says it can only begin investigating the images and videos if a complaint is received.