Erik Möller, No. 2 at Wikipedia, a defender of pedophilia

I would be surprised if WMF did not sue because of this....

Let me argue on the other side for once. Moeller's comments were taken absurdly out of context. Read his article in full, or at least the stuff around the quoted material. I don't see anything particularly damning in anything there, and indeed he makes some thoughtful and good comments (with which I don't agree, but there's nothing inherently disturbing in his remarks).

I haven't linked to the Boyline one for obvious reasons, but I'm interested in what they say.

There is another thread on this, which I commented on (the comment being that Moeller's remarks could be charitably construed as 'taken out of context'. To be fair, I suggest reading everything he says.

[edit] the comments make interesting reading. Someone has correctly pointed out what I have just said (namely that M's remarks have been taken out of context). That person has then been accused of supporting pedophilia....

The problem is that M's remarks are of the close-to-the-wire-but-not-quite-over remark that look like smoke, even if there is no fire.

The procedures [...] which punishes those who try to out people perceived as pushing the pedophile agenda as severely as those who are caught pushing said agenda.

One wonders if trustees of the Sloan Foundation, which recently donated millions to Wikipedia after Möller pitched them, share his views on pedophilia. BoyLinks finds his pro-pedophilia arguments agreeable, as does Martijn, a Dutch counterpart to the North American Man-Boy Love Association.

Thank you, that's a very clear way of stating the fundamental problem with the way WP deals with this. I suspect the cause is that it's [quite obviously] wrong to make a false accusation - which got translated somewhere along the way to it being "wrong" to make an incorrect accusation, leading to a paranoid environment where since every accusation results in either the accused or the accuser being banned, so everyone's afraid to say anything.

Actually I'm beginning to think that this was more about embarrassing the Sloan foundation than anything else...Look at the number two result on this Google search....

Let me argue on the other side for once. Moeller's comments were taken absurdly out of context. Read his article in full, or at least the stuff around the quoted material. I don't see anything particularly damning in anything there, and indeed he makes some thoughtful and good comments (with which I don't agree, but there's nothing inherently disturbing in his remarks).

I haven't linked to the Boyline one for obvious reasons, but I'm interested in what they say.

...What is of greater concern is the underlying abandonment of respect for wider community norms or the positions of scholars, professionals and activists seeking to protect children. In the world of the wisdom of crowds, what is good for children depends on whoever shows up on any given day in that crowd. This is certainly no way to run a website that engages thousands of child to collaborate in a project with thousands of adults.

What is of greater concern is the underlying abandonment of respect for wider community norms or the positions of scholars, professionals and activists seeking to protect children. In the world of the wisdom of crowds, what is good for children depends on whoever shows up on any given day in that crowd. This is certainly no way to run a website that engages thousands of child to collaborate in a project with thousands of adults.

More on Eric Moeller and paedophilia.

http://valleywag.com/387735/wikipedia-lead...are-pornography

Apparently he wrote a paper back in 2000 asserting that "nonviolent child pornography does no harm".

Regarding Moeller's nasty views against BLP victims on this site, as Eloquence, and now these idiotic and plain creepy revelations, he's proving to be possibly the most sinister figure in the cult. No wonder Angela gave him the shrug.

Danny Wool rightly asks why the WMF didn't background check Moeller and find this stuff out before they employed him. I mean, it was after the Carolyn Doran scandal, and after their claims that the WMF were getting tighter on these kind of things.

Re: [PEACELIST:] UK sex laws-new


James,

> Do these seem unreasonable to you?

I can't answer for Jim, but several things strike me about these
changes:

1) Pedophiles are the new vampires. They are the ever looming threat
that justifies virtually every law change. Pedophilia is used as the
collective term for actions ranging from sexually fondling a child to
raping and mudering it. That is not to say that the lighter of these
actions are acceptable, but their equation points to a significant
degree of hysteria, which has already led to a mob persecuting a
pediatrician because that word sounds so similar to "pedophile".

2) As a result of the pedophilia hysteria, child sexuality, which was
perceived as natural and healthy in the 1970s, is increasingly being
treated as a disease again. But instead of treating the children for
"self-abuse" (masturbation) like in the 19th and first half of the 20th
century we are now making sure that no adults talk to them about
sexuality. Talk to a child about something sexual on the Net, and you're
"grooming" them for later abuse -> 5 years in prison. Make nude
photographs of a child, and you are "inducing" them -> 10 years in
prison, even without any physical contact. I wonder how this will affect
parents.

Sex education is essential in *early* childhood, that's why the
Netherlands (who do have such early programs) have the lowest teen
pregnancies in Europe and the Britons have the highest. Teen pregnancy
in the US is an order of magnitude higher than in the Netherlands. But
in the current climate, it is probably better not to sexually "educate"
children at all, because all they are going to learn in the programs
these people come up with is what venereal diseases look like and why
you need to stay "pure" until marriage.

3) "Rape" fulfills the same function as "sexual abuse", it is
increasingly becoming an umbrella term for a wide range of behaviors,
from those where consent is questionable to those where physical force
is excessively used, often including murder. In a sexually restrictive
society, bars and clubs are the most popular spaces where sexual contact
is made. Now these last spaces can be cleansed by using the "rape"
moniker. Bartenders and other employees will increasingly be wary of
contacts among their guests to avoid being held responsible for a crime.

4) The criminal system, in the US and in the UK, is based on the false
principles of "punishment" and "sin". These Christian principles are
enforced to satisfy the lust for revenge, not to re-integrate the
offenders into society. Accordingly, sentences are raised highest for
the crimes that are the most emotionally offensive. Prisons become
"psycho factories" which are often more abusive than the crimes which
they punish (which are, especially in the US, often drug-related).
Justice becomes synonymous with revenge.


The fact that child sex abuse is such a big topic whereas child non-sex
abuse is largely tolerated (and the right to physically abuse, i.e.
"discipline", children often vocally demanded) reveals that this is not
about abuse, it's about sex, and child sexuality in particular. Also
see:

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~under006/Library/Antisexuality.html
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/7/175457/5447

Regards,

Erik
--
Scientific Reviewer, Freelancer, Humanist -- Berlin / Germany
Phone: +49 (0)30 45491008 -- Web: http://www.humanist.de/erik
Editor of: http://www.violence.de, http://www.infoanarchy.org

Patriotism is an ephemeral motive that scarcely ever outlasts
the particular threat to society that aroused it.
-- Denis Diderot

4) The criminal system, in the US and in the UK, is based on the false principles of "punishment" and "sin". These Christian principles are enforced to satisfy the lust for revenge, not to re-integrate the offenders into society. Accordingly, sentences are raised highest for the crimes that are the most emotionally offensive. Prisons become "psycho factories" which are often more abusive than the crimes which they punish (which are, especially in the US, often drug-related). Justice becomes synonymous with revenge.

4) The Wikimedia system, in the US, the UK, and elsewhere, is based on the false principles of "punishment" and "ban." These online-community principles are enforced to satisfy the lust for revenge, not to re-integrate amateur know-nothings into society. Accordingly, retribution schemes are raised highest for the topic areas that are the most emotionally offensive. Wikis become "psycho factories" which are often more abusive than the article subjects which they punish (which are, especially on Wikipedia, often living people). Justice becomes synonymous with revenge.

With traditional media being heavily regulated by the FCC, pixelized breasts and beeped out swearwords, perhaps the last bastion of freedom that has survived all conservative onslaughts is the Internet. Not that they haven't tried -- but laws like the Communications Decency Act are routinely repealed by the Supreme Court. There are now primarily three strategies used for heavier Internet regulation:

• Copyright. Laws like the DMCA have been abused for censorship (specifically its "Notice and Takedown" provision, which exempts ISPs from liability if they shut down controversial sites immediately), and the content industry will continue to lobby for stronger laws until piracy is eradicated, i.e. indefinitely. So far, anti-sex conservatives have not realized that this is their opportunity to combat smut and sex ed as well, with much backing from industry lobbyists. Wait for it.
  
• State-level action. State-level Super-DMCAs are much more restrictive than their federal equivalent. Establishing such laws is easier since less money and less media exposure is involved. We will probably see more state level censorship laws in the future.
  
• Kiddie porn. Europeans and Americans alike have realized that child pornography is the right hook to get the public to accept almost any censorship measure. As soon as child porn laws are successfully implemented, they can be used as leverage to build more restrictive censorship indices. The state of Pennsylvania already has a law in place which forces ISPs to block child porn sites, and refuses to disclose the list.

Meanwhile, as traditional media are mostly supportive of the Bush administration and give little airtime to critical views, the Internet is also the best chance to stop the cultural decline of the US into a theocratic, feudal state. Preserving this freedom should therefore be our highest priority. If we fail, our children will ask us what we have done.

My personal contributions to this struggle are my websites, infoAnarchy one of the leading sites on the issue of IP-related censorship, and violence.de, the above mentioned archive of suppressed scientific data that is crucial for the survival of our species...

4) The criminal system, in the US and in the UK, is based on the false principles of "punishment" and "sin". These Christian principles are enforced to satisfy the lust for revenge, not to re-integrate the offenders into society. Accordingly, sentences are raised highest for the crimes that are the most emotionally offensive. Prisons become "psycho factories" which are often more abusive than the crimes which they punish (which are, especially in the US, often drug-related). Justice becomes synonymous with revenge.

Is he even living on the same planet as the rest of us?

Yaaay! another 21yr old passing his infinitely superior judgment on the morality, ethics and legal system of America.

Yaaay! another 21yr old passing his infinitely superior judgment on the morality, ethics and legal system of America.

Yeah, maybe, but as somebody more than twice his age and living in America, he got a lot right. The wiki on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sexual_abuse_hysteria

Is not some pedophile send-up. I followed the McMartin case in realtime, first hand, and it happened just like that.

Another Wiki I recommend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_The_Children_(politics)

Did you know that some of Thomas Paine's works, particularly The Age of Reason was suppressed at the time by people claiming that pages of it were being used to wrap candy, so that children unwrapping them would become interested in the philosophical arguments, and thence into the clutches of Satan? Really, this happened. We laugh today, but in Paine's time it wasn't so funny.

So, let's see here... this could easily be interpreted by someone not-so-charitable as him saying that the future of civilization really depends on people's ability to download movies and albums for free, so as to not give so much as an inch to the bad, bad censors, doesn't it? And that these "censors" are using child porn as the "hook" to get stricter laws passed.

Is he even living on the same planet as the rest of us?

So please forgive me if I take a dim view pedophiles editing Wikipedia, or people who seem to have sympathy for those views. Many cultures, even in the industrialized world, turn a blind eye to this stuff or 'keep it quiet'. It's not an 'American' problem. And I disagree with you that ''he got a lot right''.

The issue for us, I'd say, isn't so much whether or not these fears are justifiable - rather, whether or not Erik Moeller has been crassly exploiting such fears to promote the dismantling of current systems that protect intellectual property, in favor of "free content" schemes like Wikipedia that degrade traditional (and much more responsible) approaches to education, culture, and information dissemination.

Yes that is absolutely the issue. I’ve said before that I don’t believe in conspiracies generally. But it is looking like there is, if not a conspiracy, at least an agenda.

Also I’m now wondering about my own case. Why was there something like a 100% U-turn a few days ago? I am unblocked, no questions asked, no apology required. I tested this with a few prods and probes (such as a few rude remarks to you-know-who). No reaction, nothing. Like nothing happened. Except, er, I am not allowed to discuss my case in public. Is it that they knew this Valleywag piece was up and coming, and have unblocked a few people to limit collateral damage? Or it might be a coincidence. We’ll see.

The issue for us, I'd say, isn't so much whether or not these fears are justifiable - rather, whether or not Erik Moeller has been crassly exploiting such fears to promote the dismantling of current systems that protect intellectual property, in favor of "free content" schemes like Wikipedia that degrade traditional (and much more responsible) approaches to education, culture, and information dissemination.

Right now, I'd have to say that's exactly what he's been doing. His real agenda - indeed, his life's work - has always been the near-elimination of intellectual property laws by whatever means necessary, including the promotion of this idea that laws against "kiddie porn" are themselves a form of hysteria-exploitation.

More on Eric Moeller and paedophilia.

http://valleywag.com/387735/wikipedia-lead...are-pornography

Whatever Erik's views are (and perhaps the whole thing was simply an immature troll on his part)

I think you'll need to come up with a better excuse for him than that. I've found numerous postings over at least a 4 year period that are all in a similar vein. He argues that children aged 12 can have positive sexual relations with adults. Paedophiles will use writings such as his (and they have as I showed above) to feel empowered to go and seek out children for abuse. Should someone who wrote what he wrote be in charge of a website WHERE 1000s of un-identified adults interact with 1000s of children? I don't think so.

But your argument is full of logic jumps. Erik's argument is certainly both silly and reckless. Doubtless it /could/ be use by pedophiles, although, seriously, quoting the Deputy-Director of the Wikimedia Foundation is hardly a clincher in their campaigns. Whilst Erik is a big-noise for WMF geeks, he's still a no-one in the wider world and certainly not a quotable authority in child-psychology. How much intellectual credibility does some silly German teenager lend this? The arguments are dangerous, Erik is not.

Should someone who wrote what he wrote be in charge of a website WHERE 1000s of un-identified adults interact with 1000s of children? I don't think so.

We know there is a large underground of pro-paedos editing on Wikipedia.

People like Erik have created a certain climate in Wikipedia that is friendly to this. Whether or not he deliberately intended this is beside the point. Undoubtedly his actions, possibly well-meaning actions, have brought this about. That’s all.

Do we? {{fact}}. I'm aware of pov-pushing on this certainly, but "large underground"?? I suspect an amount of what I saw of was trolling pure and simple.

Fact? Please explain how Erik did this?

Underlying wikipedia is an extreme libertarian ethos, that wants to take the hippy-revolution to the Californian max, and break all boundaries and authorities. But I think were people ideologically try to apply this to child abuse issues, they just show how silly it all actually is. It is one massive reduction ad absurdum. But really, the paranoia does not help here.

Child and youth sexuality is a highly controversial subject in western society. Not only are parents worried about sexual predators, sexual acts among children and/or juveniles are sometimes interpreted as child sexual abuse and answered with therapy or detention. Researchers agree that there is a fundamental lack of knowledge about children's sexual behavior and what is culturally defined as normal. Due to the taboo surrounding youth sexuality and to legal and political constraints, little research has been conducted.

Do we? {{fact}}. I'm aware of pov-pushing on this certainly, but "large underground"?? I suspect an amount of what I saw of was trolling pure and simple.



Fact? Please explain how Erik did this?

Underlying wikipedia is an extreme libertarian ethos, that wants to take the hippy-revolution to the Californian max, and break all boundaries and authorities. But I think were people ideologically try to apply this to child abuse issues, they just show how silly it all actually is. It is one massive reduction ad absurdum. But really, the paranoia does not help here.

I think there are a few basics:

1) Being moral has been defined as being anti-libertarian, and therefore is subtly evil.
2) Being amoral is being defined as being right thinking. There is a strong link between NPOV and this being adopted as the "correct" viewpoint to hold on matters.
3) Concern for young people being vulnerable is defined as old hat, over-protective and foolish. Young people know they know best and therefore people suggesting otherwise are ageist.
4) Not having any specific evidence of an actual incidence of an event means that the risk is defined as "theoretical" rather than "real" (not that this makes sense). Being theoretical means in Shanklebone-speak that there is no need to bother yourself about it, rather than evaluating whether the risk is of a level that it is likely to come to fruition.
5) Wikipedia is so different, so novel, that real world or parallel systems like MySpace where issues are acknowledged to occur, cannot in any way be used to predict or suggest how Wikipedia might be abused.

I don't think it should be a major focus, I simply want someone to acknowledge that it is an issue that needs mature consideration (i.e. falls outside the remit of the community) and that there are some cultural changes that might need to be encouraged to minimise risk.

I do have a fairly clear conscience, for example sending my 16 year old daughter on a 3 day car journey to Romania to help with a youth camp with no parental supervision for 3 weeks is hardly nannying.