QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 3rd May 2010, 1:25am)
what Wikipedia and WMF does daily with people's reputations and with respect to the law is serious as well. They have acted outside of the law and basic moral standards on too many occasions, and it's time they were held responsible for this.
It gives me no pleasure at all to say this, but it seems necessary for the law to act in order to rein in their most egregious abuses.
Welcome and thank you for taking these matters seriously.
You are probably the only person in the world at this point who is able to reach and wake up the kind of people we need to in order to stop or change this abuse. But I think your continued support and involvement will hasten the process.
Law is complex, much moreso than public opinion. Public opinion is much easier to create and its effects can be even further reaching. To be honest, I have little faith in the law and I have far more faith in the effects of separating parasites from their source of financial support by which, specifically, I mean the big trusts and foundation who have been laying down considerable funds based on the chimeras presented by the Mediawiki Foundation.
I would say a few formal letters (not emails) to the boards of those foundations would start a far reaching effect. There is no point speaking to foundation whose record of irresponsibility, indulgence and hypocrisy is without doubt (
see the immediate protection of Erik Moeller's biography by Tracy E. Walker, aka Killerchihuahua). You need to speak to the responsible parties.
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 3rd May 2010, 3:21pm)
The interesting thing is that Larry's current action is more likely to effect long-term change in Wikipedia than anything anyone else has done. If he's successful in getting Wikipedia put on school filter lists as a "pornography" site (which appears to be one of his goals in this action), that'll significantly cut them off of one of their major recruitment pools for countervandalism patrollers.
Wikipedia's death is most likely to occur when they can no longer recruit enough countervandalism patrollers to effectively combat the continuing onslaught of petty (and not-so-petty) vandals, and the site essentially dissolves into a pile of undifferentiated spam and graffiti.
Hampering their access to the teen and preteen crowd is almost certain to hasten the day.
I wholly and entirely support Sanger's actions. Given the cult-like nature of the Wikipedia, this is nothing else but typical cult-like recruitment done the world over by similar cult religions. If he is successful, these actions, or let them be a campaign, will be his greatest achievements.I have been looking into Interpol's position and they might be much more useful than the FBI which is bound by some of the morer ludicrous applications of the First Amendment (which would have the Founding Fathers turning in their graves).
It would seem that other nations cut a far clearer line and, free from the overbearing weight of the pornographic industry in the USA and its financial interests, are more free to act ... info@interpol.int.
Larry appears to have attempted a stab at the heart of the Pornopedia. If I was to suggest an additional strategy, it would be to start cut away -
internationally - at the edges of the Imperial Wikipedian Beast, in other countries who have clearer lines on public decency. Attempt change where the Mediawiki Foundation is less well funded.
Some may think that I am joking or being ridiculous to make such statements re "cult" but I am not. Of all of the models I have looked at, 'the Wikipedia as a cult in development' is the closest social modeling I can find.
And, ditto, we see cults, new religious movements to give them their politically correct name, deliberately and specifically target the same demographic groups as the Wikipedia, operate on the same pyramidic model and with the same hyperbolic claims of purpose. Jimbo is just like another guru who gets to keep the money (his enlightenment talk fees) and now and again get to poke an adherent it seems.
Jimmy Wales is not the rock star he likes to think of, he is an irresponsible cult leader.Looking at the list of most viewed pages on the Wikipedia (
what was it, 47 out of 50 being porn ... and that just being the tip of the iceberg), I have to ask whether the amateur hard core porn, and the ability to upload it, is part of the reward stimulus to keep adherents addicted along with the rushes of Wiki-warfare.
One could easily argue that it was a bizarre sexual perversion in itself. Imagine individuals who went sneaking about public and school libraries slipping photographs of themselves masturbating, ejaculating, exposing their lovers' post-coital sexual organs or acting out S&M scenes under the guise it was "educational" for the children who came across it.
Imagine individuals taking an established publication such as the Bible or Britannica and persistently inserting text across it to support pedophiliac or pederastic preferences or attempting to "normalise" extreme sexual behavior.
In essence, they are nothing more than "flashers" ... sex pervs. They justifying themselves under the guise of managing bit of trivia scrapped off Google. The Wikipedia is their playground and access point to young minds.This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: