To say "... the images, which legal analysts say may violate pornography and obscenity laws" is border-line FUDish. Even something like "there is no agreement among legal analysts whether or not some of the images violate pornography and obscenity laws" would be better. It would be nice if they would get some experts to go on record and explain their reasoning, but I'm truly not expecting that much.
To say "images ... that could be considered child pornography" is a smear. If they want to call it CP, or get an expert to go on record as calling it CP, go for it -- but don't hide behind the "could" while invoking a moral panic.
Not in any particularly relevant to this situation.
I suppose you could apply those words in this context but the article sets off my BS detector in a huge way, reminds me of my old hometown paper when their editor was insulted at some dinner the previous week.
EXCLUSIVE: Shakeup at Wikipedia in Wake of Porn Purge
... oh wait it turns out that the huge shakeup was some privelege change that was done a long time ago, and some extremely mild quotes from a "source"
Then we have these gems: Those images have been the subject of heated discussion within the community since their existence was revealed exclusively by FoxNews.com on April 27.
...
On May 7, FoxNews.com reported exclusively that Wales had personally deleted many of the images from Wikimedia's servers
...
The debate heated up when FoxNews.com began contacting high profile corporations and foundations that have donated to the Wikimedia Foundation for comment — including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Best Buy, USA Networks, Craigslist, Ford Foundation and Open Society Institute.
What the fuck is Fox News' problem with Wikipedia?
The article also seems to be accurate and exhaustive, maybe even fair and balanced ^_^.