Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI
FOXNews

The parent company of Wikipedia is knowingly distributing child pornography, the co-founder of the online encyclopedia says...

View the article

We have MSM pay dirt, with Moeller's greasy smile and pro-pedophile quote predominately featured.

WOW! I just liked Foxnews there for a second. Are the nerds at CERN firing up their atom mill again?

... and speaking of fired-up nerds...

lol

It's as stunningly idiotic as it is inevitable.

*LOL* Hive mind at work. It's just a matter of time when Dr. Sanger will get blocked. He's annoyed a fair few people on wikipeedia.

The bit about routinely blocking sincere critics (on specious and trumped up charges) is quite telling, ain't it?

An unsurprisingly bad report from Fox News there, full of contradictions and inaccuracies. The foundation had this to say.

“a deliberate misrepresentation of reality” (ADMOR)™

The Wikimedia Foundation must defend its patent on that.

Jon

[citation needed] There are minor inaccuracies (spelling errors, and the like) but I didn't see any glaring errors. Please point out the "contradictions and inaccuracies".

And Moeller himself has a blog post about this now. Short version: "I have been misunderstood and I'm suing you guys."

I suppose the same could be said about many of the BLPs found on Wikipedia (including several I personally worked to correct).

Beeblebrox. Big slap with a sh1t-filled stocking comes to mind.

E.g. "The parent company of Wikipedia is knowingly distributing child pornography" then "Wikimedia has quite a bit of pornography on it and they had no idea." How can they "knowingly distribute" something they have no idea they have?

Erik Moeller has posted a lengthy response on his personal blog, which is curiously entitled, Intelligent Designs.

I suppose when it comes to feeling defamed, Erik can anticipate some empathy from those who similarly felt defamed by their scandalous treatment at the hands of ethically challenged Wikipedians.

Moeller is distancing himself from his earlier statements and spinning them to be more acceptable to normal society. He now says that he only meant to not condemn near-same-age statutory rape type of sex between young adults and their almost adult sexual partners. It is a good sign that he is running from his past unacceptable statements. Yet he still uses weasel words. He is now against "sexual violence against children" which leaves one to wonder if he is only talking about adult/child sex with additional use of violence or the adult/child sex as being a form violence itself.

I suspect that Moeller will only ever have one employer willing to hire him and pay him more than $80K per year, and that is the Wikimedia Foundation.

Yes, directly pointing to his "misrepresented response" is not particularly wise, because he does present a number of ideas which are, shall we say, challenging, including the idea that it is fine for pre-teens to have sex and that he can see no problem with that.

Actually, I notice that we have, even in 2001, evidence of an emergent Wikipedian mindset:

Do we have a link to the original piece he wrote. Is he claiming that it was doctored or altered in some way? Was it doctored or altered in some way? I am confused.

Original article
His response to comments

I don't believe he is claiming that there is any issue with the original articles' form, just that other people have misrepresented what they say. Again, this is WikiWorld, so why should that be a surprise?

The main theme of the article and the response is that sexual between young children (but not between adults and young children) is OK. Is that the gist?

That's interesting. I think Moeller is being too clever by half here. He refers to Defending the Right to Pleasure. When I went to this article on Kur5hin and started to read it this morning my first though was "well that not as bad as I remember it." But then I dug a little further. This article is more moderate than Erik's Pleasure, Affection, Cause and Effect which has a similar title and is also on Kur5shin. The latter is certainly not about near same age adolescents having sex with each other. In fact Erik goes out of his way to make clear he is referring "not only to adolescents" but younger children too. It contains the knock out punch statement by Erik:



Clearly putting him outside the camp or those who ought to administer a project that facilitates collaboration between adults and children..

It seems like the WMF, if this doesn't disappear naturally, will have to cut off Mr Moeller to save from a PR Snafu. It wouldn't be too big of a loss, as everyone on staff can be replaced without too much of a problem.

What does Moeller do anyway?

I believe his most important role is spending lots of money to delay the implementation of flagged revisions.

In his own words: "As Deputy Director, I represent the Executive Director, Sue Gardner, in her absence or on delegated projects, and oversee the development of Wikimedia’s product strategy – that is: how does the Wikimedia Foundation use technology to serve its mission, to bring free knowledge to every person on the planet."

I presume he gets somewhat less that the US$175,050 that Gardner makes.

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/04/28/wikim...ds-to-fox-news/

meh.

So that's what "meh" means.


Notice how the libertarian rabble are keeping their heads down and staying in the tall grass? Come on let's hear you guys:

• Age doesn't matter.
• "Its for the children" is a phony meme.
• Pedophiles are an oppressed sexual minority.
• Anyone can edit means pedophiles too.
• So, this is the internet.
• WP:Not censored.
• We answer to nobody.
• Free Erik.

You forgot:

• That story is a week old.

Jon

To read their statement you would think that Wikipedians organize themselves into diligent patrols to censor inappropriate material and not perform "Skull Dances" when they succeed in thwarting the demands of a anti-porn advocacy organization that requested the removal of offending material.

Unlike Mr. Seigenthaler's or Prof. Taner's biography some information is just to potentially harmful to let just anyone say anything any old time.

I have to say I was a little shocked to discover this, but apparently they've come up with some kind of Electronic Series Of Tubes (ESOT) that prevents unwanted content from appearing on their, how U say, “Weblog” — maybe Wikipedia could get itself an ESOT, too?

Jon

I suppose you could always try Erik's Blog to comment. The range of free expression their runs from We Wub You Erik all the way through We Wub You Erik Very Very Much I'm sure Mr. Information-Wants-to-Be-Free welcomes your views.

Some of the comments on Fox's site are really over the top. Over the months on WR moderator, staff and the best contributors have worked to make clear that Moeller advocacy does not make him himself a pedophile. We have also worked to keep the subject free from conflating pedophilia with homosexuality and avoid the resulting homophobia and gay bashing. Still the case was made that a person engaging in such advocacy is not appropriate for service in a position of administrative responsibility in an organization that facilitates collaboration between adults and children. It was also argued that his views represented a deeply ingrained extreme libertarianism that was a major barrier preventing WMF from instituting any effective measures to assure child protection.

Having repeatedly made these arguments and having been ignored the issue has now made its way into the mainstream media in the form of Fox News coverage. It arrives to be greeted by Fox's constituency with many of their worst aspects, including homophobia, fully intact. While this makes me uncomfortable I still am grateful to Fox for the coverage. This coverage might have been missed altogether by more liberal media who are enchanted with technology and possess a shoot from the hip free speech orientation without taking a harder look.

For all of Fox News outrage they still have not completely grasped the most outrageous aspect of this scandal. They proceed as if this where a dispute about content only. They completely underestimate or lack any understanding of the nature of Wikipedia. This is not only a matter of protecting children not from the fleeting harm of viewing the offending material. It is also a matter of protecting children from the very real danger presented by the unsupervised collaboration of child and adults in the absence of any rigorous child protection measures. A twelve year old child receives more protection from a web site that promotes his/her breakfast cereal than from a Wikipedia that asks his/her participation in a sustained collaborative project engaging both adults and children. I don't suppose the comments will become much more rational once this threat is understood.

(before Horsey beats me to it)

More blog responses about the situation. I guess Fox News has the ability to give stories legs.

Apparently when Wikipedians post child pornography Mr. Walsh considers them to be mere users of an interactive computer service, while if any Wikipedians feels inclined to overcome the inertia of a laissez-faire libertarian environment of Wikipedia and remove such images they are "volunteers" who act with the blessing of WMF, at least this week. I don't remember him saying so during the Virgin Killer incident. Then the people defending the child pornography were "volunteer spoke-persons." Walsh's concept of respondeat superior is flexible and convenient. I wonder if his rate of compensation as a spokesperson varies depending on which side of his mouth is speaking.

Mr. Information-wants-to-be-free is probably wishing wewy wewy hard that certain information about his past opinions, now that he has a good day-job, would remain hidden in the net's nooks and crannies, never be found. Alas, this is not the way the net works.

Rectal exam time, Mr. Moeller. And I can't think of a more appropriate patient.

Here's a blog with all kinds of Moeller edits AND a link to his defense of non-violent child-porn:

http://mashable.com/2008/05/08/erik-moeller-pedophilia/

This cite was given by Sanger in his letter to the FBI and cc: to WMF. From which we find that Councillor Godwin actually does do something during the day. Godwin hinted darkly that Sanger saying that Moeller was "well-known for his defense of pedophilia" was perhaps actionable. Erm, I suppose WP:NLT doesn't apply to Godwin, even when published in the WP:SIGNPOST. That would be asking too much. But here's Godwin's full response. Given that Moeller has explicitly defended child porn as being harmess, I'm not sure that it is actionable if somebody says that he's well known for defending pedophilia. He's more well-known all the time . And the rest is splitting a mighty fine hair-- since who else but a pedophile would be interested in child porn?? (Not me, Mr. Godwin )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wik...ger_allegations

Here's a Godwin quote which only Godwin could explain:



The question of who the community is, in this situation, has not been defined. Godwin doesn't help. From here, it looks like Godwin is going to argue that it's anybody BUT whoever anybody else thinks the community is, is the community. The "community" is undefinable.

In any case, he says CDA 230 protects WMF as long as they don't originate the material. And he's probably right, although CDA 230 is going to groan and snap eventually, as we alll know.

As for Moeller, he's #2 man at WMF on their org chart. Aren't these public background-checks a bitch? Especially when they get to FOX news. Heck, don't you wish you could just block and ban FOX? Alas, WP doesn't control TV or Google. They simply help them in their destructiveness. Usually with no harm to themselves. But what goes around, does tend to come around.

I have a "if the glove don't fit you must acquit" slogan for WMF: "The interNET does not forGET." WP has an oversight memory hole. Don't let it influence your view of the rest of the world.

All this surely isn't going into any BLP of Moeller on WP any time soon (maybe right after they finish the Doran one-- what do you think?)

So the Valleywag article was "almost entirely based" on the work of "another information content provider". Ha, I hope they assert a section 230 defense (in addition to all the others).

There appears to be some sort of obstruction in their ESOT.

Jon

Funny, two new posts got through, both urging suing someone (unclear just who.) This from the land of NLT. I guess they can't take it but still get to dish it out. The hypocrisy is layered and elegantly textured.

Seems to me they want Erik "User:Eloquence" Moeller to sue Fox News. In principle I'd say yeah, sure, anybody who sues Fox News is doing a good thing, even if they have no case and are more likely to end up "Plaxicoing" themselves in the process. However, I'd be unsporting if I didn't at least point out that Fox News probably has a little bit more money in their legal-defense budget than Erik Moeller has.

I'm naturally assuming, of course, that the WMF won't lift a finger, dollar-wise, to assist Mr. Moeller in suing anybody - even if it is Fox News.

I noticed that too, of course... It's weird, actually. In paragraph 2 they say, "Larry Sanger, who left Wikipedia in 2002, said Wikimedia Commons, the parent company of Wiki products including Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikinews and Wikiquote..." which implies that they don't even know what Commons is, much less the actual nature of the interrelationship between the various WMF-owned domains.

And yet, a few paragraphs later, there's this:...Which implies that maybe they do at least know that Commons isn't a "company," much less the "parent company of Wikipedia." Maybe they shouldn't be taken to task so much for not understanding the domain interrelationships, which are somewhat confusing for most people (and bearing in mind that Fox News doesn't really do journalism in the traditional sense, more like advocacy and propaganda).

FoxNews.com also just (?) added a note to the end of the piece linking to Mr. Moeller's defense of his past statements on the subject of pedophilia.
This is a fine response, except that the community of volunteer editors does not take action to remove illegal material when such material is brought to its attention; rather, it argues over whether or not the laws are wrong, and often concludes that they are. More importantly, the statement (naturally) makes no mention of the fact that WMF-funded sites have the technology to prevent such material from being posted in the first place, and have essentially refused to implement it.


Ah. So, "playing doctor," that's all it is, then! It's all consensual and harmless! Clean, wholesome family entertainment! Shee-it, why didn't he just say so all along? Think of the time we could have all saved, thinking that he meant... well, never mind that now.

By the way, does this mean Erik believes children do have the ability to consent to sexual activity, as long as it isn't with pedophiles?


Historic? Did he really say historic?


Legislative attention... that usually results in at least a case number, doesn't it? Maybe they should be less worried about being "contacted" by the FBI and more worried about being raided!

My God. And they haven't even got onto his edits on the bestiality article yet (some of the stranger edits my emphasis).

Hrmm. I vaguely recall once being on a jag about accuracy, ethics, and excellence in journalism.

It looks like Wikipedia and Faux News are made for each other.

Personally, I can't see an issue with those. He's not saying people are actually capable of forming stable (sic) relationships with animals; he's quite carefully worded it to say that they claim it. Since the psychopathology of "why on earth would anyone want to?" is such a fundamental point in all these sexual-deviancy topics, I don't see "this is how they justify it to themselves" equating to condoning it.

Did he link these claims to reliable sources, or was he just typing off the cuff as an expert on what bestiality proponents claim? How did he become such an expert? I thought he was like a computer programmer or something.

Nope, no sources.

Zoophilia Pedophilia advocates also claim that the human/animal adult-child relationship goes far beyond sexuality, and that they are capable of forming a loving relationship with an animal a child that can frequently last several years and that they do not consider functionally different from any other love/sex relationship.