Highy topical at the moment with AnotherSolipsist being banned for 'pedophilia-related disruption'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AnotherSolipsist

AS was one of a group of editors who do such things as look for (deceased) artists and writers who may just possibly have had paedophile tendencies and then put this supposed fact into the article, and create categories for such people, e.g. pederastic English philosophers or whatever. A good example is Jules Verne, who on the strength of merely having had only one son, plus the lack of women in his novels has 1/3 of his article devoted to his supposed paedophilia. E.g. here he is putting it back here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=221954267

The net result of this is to 'normalise' this behaviour, also to put it on a pedestal given our adulation of great artists and writers and great people generally. All highly dubious in my view. A lot of this is based on far less evidence than would be required for making the same accusation e.g. of a Wikipedia editor. And it violates WP:WEIGHT. Of the hundreds of academics and biographers who have written about Verne, why pick on the odd one who has commented on possible paedophilia?

It also creates an inherent paedo bias. As we know, ''bona fide'' academics do not edit Wikipedia, regarding it as some hideous diversion of the masses (not unreasonably). And they have no incentive to do this. A paedophile agenda pusher has every incentive to normalise this behaviour, and thus is prepared to do the necessary (highly selective) research. Anyone who wishes to challenge this, as here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...asty.22_section

is faced with a barrage of apparently impeccable research justifying the section. Thus our friend Haiduc replies



How belittling! Please do a little reading before challenging the view held by all respectable academics that Jules Verne was in the habit of buggering young boys.



And then round off with more condescending insults, all OK by WP:CIVIL of course



What can one do? I will probably weigh in at some point and get banned again, but needs must.

That's probably a rhetorical question, but just for the moment — just this once — I'll pretend it's not.

Would anyone care if this stuff were written in some UseNut Chat Site (UCS)?

No.

Well, it IS written on the moral equivalent of a UseNut Chat Site — and the only real problem is that the Public is presently too wiki-φlim-φlammed by all the hyped-up Wiki-Prestidigitation to see that yet.

So what you should do, if you had any sense, would be to stop wasting your life and time increasing the value of Jimbo's unreal e-state by fighting over it like it was some kind of valuable billboard space — a self-fool-filling profligacy that — and start finding ways to educate the Public about Whatitis.

Jon

And how would I go about educating the general public? The problem is that if you Google "Jules Verne" this highly-skewed article comes up #1. It is practically the only article in all Google that mentions pederasty, but is #1. How does one educate the general public, in fact? Logically, go to the #1 hit and edit it back yourself.

If that's your "logic", then maybe you should be banned from philosophy articles.

Jon

I can't see another way. Do you have a suggestion?

There are no instant fixes.

The e-lusion of the instant fix is the tin-can that Jimbo has tied to every Wiki-Pup's tail, and they just keep chasing it till they drop dead or wise up.

If you want to write a decent article about anything, you can do that at any number of places, say, Wikipedia Review. You can even GFDL-import the decent parts of any article that you've been wiki-pissing away your time on at Wikipedia and go from there. No, it won't make the Google Hit Parade today or tomorrow, but it will make the first page sooner than you think. Someday, maybe, Google will wake up, if they start getting an all-around bad rap that diminishes their own reputation, but we can't wait for that. If you have to be King O' Th' Hill, then I feel sorry for you, Sisyphus. But right know you're just another $ucker helping Jimbo make the web $uck the big bucks into his pocketses.

Jon

I believe that any effort to address the problem with processes internal to the Wikipedia "community" are doomed, or at best face only "here today gone tomorrow" transitory victories. Look at the communities inability to address Erik Mueller's outlandish views on pedophilia. Also you set yourself up to be whip-sawed between the creepy adults and the very children you seek to protect.

Any hope of reform resides in outside pressure directed not at "community" but at WMF policy. The most likely form that this pressure will ultimately take is the form of a law enforcement "sting" operation that would demonstrate that these creepy adults seek not to merely express unpopular views but to exploit children. Between the exposure of Mueller's public statements, Perverted Justice's expressed displeasure with the site and the FBI's inquiry concerning pornographic material there is a good possibility that something like this is taking shape.

In the meantime "copying" WP admins with information you have about these concerns via off wiki channels will at least put them on notice and give them a duty to act with reasonable care. At least the admins, if not WMF, might be held accountable.

I think that is a very good summary of the best that can be hoped for. Although WP admins are naturally going to resist being approached by 'off wiki' means as that places an onus of responsibility that they well not may want.

Witness my frequent attempts to contact Arbcom. No reply, not even acknowledgment of reply - for even acknowledgment this would have indicated an awareness of the growing problem that they well might have been held accountable for later.

Note however the concerns raised in this thread are (a) not for living people but for dead ones ( of covert promotion of paedophile propaganda via a free international medium.

[edit] Note that any discussion whatever of the AS ban is being deleted (although not, so far, oversighted). More airbrushing

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222036273
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222036694
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222035563

Normally a stranger has no particular legal duty to act to protect the well being of others including children. But there is a concept in the law of negligence often referred to as the Do Do Rule. A person might not have a duty to do something but if s/he does do it s/he has to do it with reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm. Admin and ArbCom members might not have a duty to start with to take action in such matters. But by holding themselves out as the cult of the amateur's police force they take on the responsibility. Someday an admin is going to find his/herself in deep do-do.

And I agree, in the main, with what you're saying here. Again! (I really need to stop that! )

If people have such concerns, and want to let someone know, I'd like to hear about it. Not sure if I like the "personally accountable" bit in lieu of the WMF not taking action, but it certainly beats the alternative of doing nothing about it. If there are issues around safety / anonymity of minors, etc, I want to know.

I am flattered that Wikipedia Review is offered as a good spot to promote important views (especially if you juice the content with semantic tags -- attributes and relations and generous interwiki links)...

But, I would also recommend traditional media like the New York Times or Chronicle of Higher Education, as well as to "notify" the appropriate Jules Verne related communities online.

Get the people who care about Jules Verne to care about his desecration on Wikipedia, and then they'll also wake up to how this happens on Wikipedia. Garner allies outside Wikipedia, Peter Damian, and your work will become that much easier. Don't try to be a one-man protector of any given page. If that's your ambition, there's a better site for you to learn that folly. Seriously. Try that site for ten minutes, to publish "Jules Verne was not a boy-lover." Let us know your results, and whether this exercise was instructive of the true nature of Wikipedia.

I hope I've helped.

Count me in for that one too.

Me three. I expect I could name off many many other editors who feel the same way.

Article says "Verne also met Honorine de Viane Morel, a widow with two daughters. They were married on January 10, 1857. With her encouragement, he continued to write and actively looked for a publisher. On August 3, 1861, their son, Michel Jean Verne, was born. A classic enfant terrible, Michel was sent to Mettray Penal Colony in 1876 and later married an actress (in spite of Verne's objections), had two children by his 16-year-old mistress, and buried himself in debts. The relationship between father and son did improve as Michel grew older."

So Verne married some old woman who had two kids by another man. That doesn't sound pedo.

And then his son got a 16 year old mistress teen pregnant twice and the son isn't called pedo.

Then Verne had some relationship with a 15 year old male and is called pedo.

Hi Alison

Here is my concern and I believe there is no present solution, due to the reluctance of WP admins to name obvious pro-pedophile, pro-crank POV, or do anything about it.

My concern is that there are pedophiles all over related articles on WP, who are being allowed to add cognitive distortions (psychology) to articles as if they are fact. I've seen this on all relevant pages, and on zoo pages. It is still happening.

Those editors who are turn up and try to keep articles in order seem to have a very hard time. They are subjected to the most unjust insults from the perpetrators. They know they are being insulted by those who promote criminal and abhorent activities. I know for sure that I would never be able to withstand such a situation for long without being uncivil. I know most normal people would be the same. There may be a few antiped activists (they seem to be in the minority).

Organizations such as NAMBLA have been present in society, and most often nowadays on the Internet. Its obvious that pro-NAMBLA and similar arguments are being woven into articles.

There is real research on this from peer-reviewed sources. The internet is full of propedophile propaganda. That is what they do. In fact, the research shows that the sort of distortions they use on newsgroups come about as a self defense to their self esteem. Boylove, Childlove etc sounds nicer, right? The research shows that those distortions increase the likelihood of pedophiles (those with the urge) to become more active with children and with the production and purchase of child pornography.

WP blocks editors who name themselves as pedophiles on their own articles. However, there are clear and present pedophiles or related fringe elements on related articles who constantly state that their fringe hobby is perfectly legitimate.

Naming one's self as a pederast or pedophile is one thing. But stating that pederasty or pedophilia or related is legitimate on talkpages, or persistently pushing that view on articles, is far worse.

Admin will simply not help anywhere near enough, and they seem to refuse to do themselves a favour. If they just pull their finger out and apply a sensible presence to those related articles then their reputation as wikipedophile protecters will be dispelled.

I don't see it happening.

Dock

Thanks for the JV links Greg. See also the note that Thatcher has left on my talk page, requesting help! That's a great step forward. Previously I had viewed the admins as the main problem. Perhaps things are changing.

Many people are unaware of any problems, or are too busy to investigate. Yet others are overwhelmed by it all and really don't know where to start. Banhammering potential pro-paedo editors will cause mayhem and lead to calls of 'zOMG ADNIM ABUZ' and overturned bad blocks, mistakes, etc will turn the whole thing into a farce.

I happen to know that one particular pro-paedo editor got particularly nasty and after they were banned, made numerous threats of legal actions, etc. It's a minefield and I guess few have the stomach for it.

I think the advice against being a one man protector is very good... involving other editors is goodness. Just don't swing so far as to turn into a cabal or clique and do the very things the "other side" does. Easy advice, hard to avoid.

Just for grins, I did put up that JV phrase on wannaspell, and left it while working on some other stuff. It lasted well over 10 minutes but by the end there were a fair few people busily writing all sorts of epithets elsewhere in the shared space... it is not a bad analogy to trying to be a "lone defender" on-wiki. I took a screencap which maybe I'll post somewhere.

It seems to me that this case should be addressed under [[WP:UNDUE]]. It may often be the case that a particular point of view is complete and utter horse manure, but nonetheless has credentialled adherents (take for example Sigmund Freud's theory that Leonardo da Vinci's creative output was the result of repressed homosexuality.) The appropriate way to handle this would be to make a very cursory mention of this POV, and crack down on any attempts to make it dominate the article.

If you take a look you will see that it is gone for now anyway. There is also an assault going on at the pederasty article, to the consternation

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

of some.

Something like this?

Lar, Alison and Viridae are concerned and caring people. There willingness to throw themselves into the this problem in an atomized volunteer effort is worthy of praise. But remember this entire problem is yet another artifact of anonymous editing and corporate irresponsibility. The true solution, which would require only minimal effort, looks something like this:

• Disallow anon/pseudonym editing. This would make adult editors accountable for their words and actions. This would also permit vetting against sex offender registries when appropriate. It may not deter the lunatic rants of "freedom fighter" like Erik Mueller, but it would take care of most concerns. Of course this would also solve many other of Wikipedias problems too.
  
• Require parental consent for users of an age subject to victimization along the lines required by COPPA. The age requiring parental consent might need to be increased to beyond the 13 years set by COPPA.
  
• Disable user email for all users permitted to edit subject to parental approval unless email use is also specifically consented to by the parent.
  
• Disallow disclosures of any personal identify information beyond the name of any user editing under parental permission. No information about age, location, school, interests, etc. should be permitted.

That's a little extreme - but there must be some way of identifying a user privately to the enyclopedia (on the lines of 'know your customer' that banks use) and which would allow the checks you describe.

"Sure he gets mean when he drinks, and sure he knocks me around a bit when he's feeling frustrated, but he's got a good heart, and I know I can change him."

Abused E-spouse Syndrome …

Jon

Jon's got it right.

I'll add that once the content is there, Google really does adjust faster than you'd think. Live and Yahoo are even better.

Here is one of my routine Google searches:

"Logic of Relatives" (LOR)

I started the Wikipedia's article on Logic of Relatives, and created stubs on individual papers that Peirce published on the subject over the years — Logic of Relatives (1870), Logic of Relatives (1883), etc. I am giving links to the Wikipedia Review imports since the Wikipedia articles are no longer extant.

Google continues to rank Wikipedia disproportionately highly solely on the basis of the phrase "logic of relatives" occurring in the main Peirce article and a couple others. The rankings shift constantly, but as of this writing they stand as follows:

1. Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy article on Peirce
2. OSdir.com archive of my postings on LOR to an IEEE discussion group
3. Google Books result
4. EBSCOhost link to a journal article
5. Google Books result
6. Wikipedia article on Peirce
7. Wikipedia Review articles on LOR
8. Original copies of my postings on LOR to an IEEE discussion group
9. Textop Wiki article on LOR that I wrote for Larry Sanger's project

Jon

Here's one of my favorite searches:
gigantic threat to civilization

1) Amazon (Near Earth Objects)
2) CNN (Also NEO's)
3) Encyc.org (Wikipedia)
4) Livescience (Super Volcano)
5) Wikipedia Review (Wikipedia)

Strangely it only seems to work on Google.

Hah!

Maybe because Wikipedia is so full of Asses On Steroids.

Jon

That article…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty
…is full of dubious sources and dubious use of sources. Who is Bruce L. Gerig? Some sections cite no sources at all. Note the use of "passim" instead of page numbers - are these original synopses of the cited texts (Plato, for example)? Has anyone challenged this? That would be more scholarly and informative than trying to spin it with criminologically-minded or populist condemnations. I doubt that classical antiquity was anything like the "boy-lover's" (the article even uses this term) paradise depicted in the article - they'd be better off looking at New Guinea.

The pederasty article starts off with "Pederasty is an erotic relation between an adult male and an adolescent boy"

Okay, that's 13-17.

What do they call it when it's an adult man and a boy who's 8? As I thought NAMBLA is only after the prepubsecents.