No. 730402
Several English-language Wikipedia articles have had major, inexcusable flaws for many years. Among other issues:
• The article about the human anus has an image of a human female's anus and perineum that probably were damaged by some kind of major trauma. Human females beyond developmental stages in the womb should lack an externally-visible perineal raphe, or seamlike union/ridge, in the anogenital region between the anus and the vagina; the bulbospongiosus muscle is separated in them and does not form a persistent, visible midline raphe as it may in males [References: Anatomy & Trauma]. Furthermore, the article about the perineal raphe claims otherwise with no support from any cited source.
• The article about simple columnar epithelium explains nothing about its fragility nor lack of somatic innervation (for pain sensitivity).
The article about anal sex …
• lacks a neutral point of view — an essential component of Wikipedia's presentational philosophy. It fails to present even one _scientific_ opposing perspective, giving readers without exposure to more balanced sources the impression that opposition is limited to irrational religious positions. One such scientific perspective: The human anorectum is very unsuited for many all-too-common receptive activities due to the region's anatomy and physiology. The single short-term benefit, _potential_ pleasure, is greatly outweighed by the many short-term and long-term health risks for the receptive person. [Rationale: Anorectal Risks 1-3]
• fails to mention the normalization of injurious anoreceptive violence in pornography featuring real people.
• does not point out that "hemorrhoid" is an ambiguous term, sometimes referring to pathology and other times to normal anatomy.
• contains a logically-fallacious appeal to nature: "natural" is not necessarily good or desirable, nor is "unnatural" necessarily the inverse.
Those flaws contribute to rampant anorectal abuse and misinformation facilitating it.(early night, huh?)