QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 28th April 2010, 11:22am)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 28th April 2010, 12:15pm)
QUOTE
Jon Awbrey Says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.April 28th, 2010 at 17:56Barndoor, Horses.
Horses, Barndoor.
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 (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)
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. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Erm, I suppose WP:NLT doesn't apply to Godwin, even when published in the WP:SIGNPOST. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) 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 (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) . 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 (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif) )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wik...ger_allegationsHere's a Godwin quote which only Godwin could explain:
QUOTE(Godwin)
Returning to "community standards", Godwin stated: "There is no evidence in Sanger's message that the community has failed in its efforts to make sure that the content of Wikimedia Commons is legal, at least in the context of the law applicable to Wikimedia Foundation as a hosting provider".
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?) (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)