Forked from The continued march of wiki porn topic with a nice, new eye catching topic. See: Most viewed pages on the Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia Foundation must be feeling very secure now, what with the latest multi-million dollar rake off tucked away in its war chest, but it is not beyond being challenged and changed.

Personally, I don't count myself amongst the "Destroy the Pee-dia" Brigade. I just think it needs reformed. Extensive reform. I was thinking over the Holiday period about a new pet project for the new year and I thought Wikipedia reform might be an interesting one to take on board. It has been fun to 'vent', in order to put everything into perspective. Now it is time to sit down, sober up, roll up the sleeves and get down to some 'mightier than the sockpuppets' work.

I am glad to read that there are others who feel the same ... and I am sure that there are many, many, many other responsibility individuals within politics, education and child protection who feel even more strongly that we do but just lack the insight, experience and strong enough moral asbestos suits and breathing apparatus in order to enter into the depths of the shitholes that exist on the Wikipedia.

I think we will find that they are better equipped and connected than we are to make things happen.

It really does not take much effort or many resources to start to change public opinion, to have questions asked in government or parliaments, to create a trickle down effect within power and influence.

The Wikipedia: pornography, pedophilia, nationalists and cultists.

I entitled this, "How to knock $1,000,000 holes in the Wikipedia's budget & bring on the heat" because these are where I see best place to focus limited resources;

• the big funding trust (past, present and future) - targeting the trustees and their corporate partners
• responsible agencies (governmental, diplomatic and voluntary sector) - targeting government representatives and director levels

Anyone interested in collaborating should realise that there are many open and revolving doors between such trusts and agencies (the players change positions but take their knowledge and opinions with them and they talk amongst each other). Efforts will be gradual and cumulative. What is required are modest, patient and persistent efforts in the same direction over time.

I think the combined issue of hard core sexual imagery and politics under the cloak of anonymity and the lack of child protection, is the most vulnerable one to target.

I imagine that any letters of concern written can easily be adopted, e.g. pedophilia and bestiality to political conservatives and groups with a duty of care to children, nationalism to the diplomatic sector, cults to religious conservatives.

Personally, on the basis of previous experience, I would not imagine immediate result. Generally, the first response of the responsible individuals within such trusts is to defend their own decision but, if they sniff that the winds of change are blowing in a different direction, you will see fairly rapid changes.

Truth speaks and people hear it.

I do not see any point whatsoever in engaging with either the Foundation or the so called community. It is futile. Just aim for the money, and social credibility amongst opinion formers.

In my opinion, outside of the adherents, I actually think most people see the Pee-dia as it is; that it is no longer 'cool' and that it (or becoming a contributor) is a bit of a joke. The trendy uncle getting drunk and dancing at the wedding reception and trying it on with young girls.

Any such initiative would demand organization centered on people with real names, disclosed.

... And a series of template letters.

I do not see either as an obstacle, as long as it is for public service rather than personal promotion.

I was reading that the German Bundesprüfstelle für Jugendgefährdende Medien shut down or limited a porno site BMEzine as a "danger to the youth" due to BME not including age verification or an entrance page warning users of potential adult content.

According to Jimbo's Great Plaything, in December 2005 the German agency forced Google to remove the site from search results returned by www.google.de. What is the situation regarding the German Wikipedia and all the filth?

It would seem to be a good place to apply some leverage. There are bound to be other nations with similar legal codes.

More power to you, and I will offer to help. I already suggested many threads ago that the most vulnerable point of Wikipedia was its funding.

I'm also glad to see that Wikipedie Review is at last taking this issue seriously. When I joined (2 years ago) the focus was mainly on personality disputes, and on BLP issues. Nothing wrong with that, but there is also the ultra-libertarian, anything goes problem of Wikipedia, and the child-protection problem that goes with that (you cannot be a libertarian about protecting children).

Without becoming too distracted over the issue, I think this is very common mistake in the use of the words 'Libertarian' and 'Libertarianism'.

What is meant is 'Libertine' and 'Libertinism' ("a dissolute person; a person who is morally unrestrained, a disregard of authority or convention in sexual, religious or academic matters").

I remember the quote, "A Libertarian is just a Republican who takes drugs" but even there again, what they really mean is still Libertine.

A Libertarian might wish the right to shoot a pedophile if they caught one; a Libertine seeks the right to indulge in pedophilia ... or at least a large collection of pedophiliac manga cartoons depicting the sex abuse of infants, such as the artist Kasuga who drew the Wikipedia Counter-Vandalism Unit and Admin Coaching mascot, 'Wikipe-tan'.

If you wonder where I find such 'facts' and form opinions such as these, try the Wikipedia ... Libertarian perspectives on the death penalty.

I would have no problem dropping my dox for such an endeavor. What are the Wiki-cultists going to do? They have no power outside of the internet.

It is funny you call them "Wiki-cultists" because I noticed an incredible similarity to religious cultist when it comes to dealing with criticism beyond the leaders' control ... that is, outside of the walls of the clique where the social influence of the leaders, groupthink and their enforcers have no effect.

That is, to cast the critic in the mode of a "disaffected ex-follower", the embittered apostate etc ... and deflect any such criticisms as invalid without addressing them.

The other reason to aim for the money, the trustees of the charities financially support the Wiki-porno empire, general public opinion ... because, after all, at the end of the day that is what all cults are about ... is that it costs real time, money and other resources to deal with.

It is not an area where they cannot count on an infantry of unpaid munchkin serfs to do their bidding for free and defend them.

Most rational people, especially those that have climbed their way into positions of responsibility within trusts can filter out the rambling exhortations of a cultist as just that ... and is keen to cover their own ass.

They are not going to risk their positions for RichieX's stiffie, dribble of sperm or his girlfriend's wet coochie.

...





Back to the drawing board, Peter

I am sorry if I went too graphically far ... but I think the shock value of it all works in our favour. Especially to government officials, charitable trustees and the like.

Again, it is very much the same being enculted into religious cult.

All that wonderful, expansive, world saving rhetoric to invite newcomers, targeting children and so on ... and then the gradual process of confusion, confoundment and demoralisation through abuse until one accepts the unacceptable as the norm, stops questioning the leaders or one's ability to change or influence it.

The trick is in not fighting the flow but going upstream and damning it.

One wants to aim not just at current funders but also future potential funders and their associates.

As to the adherents giving away their children's (or their own) pocket money to Jimbo's Plaything ... forget them. Any questioning of their probity will only make them defensive and be counter productive.

Put the same effort into a polite letter writing campaign.

(Sorry ... did I mean "damming" it?)