Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI - FOXNews Options

[Newsfeed]

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

[GlassBeadGame]

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

[Subtle Bee]

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?

[Subtle Bee]

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

lol

It's as stunningly idiotic as it is inevitable.

[A User]

... 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.

[Moulton]

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

Blocking is commonly used on wikipedia to silence critics, so nothing new to see here. Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

[Theanima]

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

[Jon Awbrey]

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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

An unsurprisingly bad report from Fox News there, full of contradictions and inaccuracies.

[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".

[carbuncle]

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

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

[Moulton]

The story repeats serious falsehoods and offers information taken grossly out of context, resulting in what amounts to a deliberate misrepresentation of reality.

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

[Peter Damian]

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

lol

It's as stunningly idiotic as it is inevitable.

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

[Theanima]

An unsurprisingly bad report from Fox News there, full of contradictions and inaccuracies.

[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".

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?

[Moulton]

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.

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

[thekohser]

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.

[dogbiscuit]

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.

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:

If you are irritated by the length of this comment, please read only the parts that interest you.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

[Peter Damian]

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.

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:

If you are irritated by the length of this comment, please read only the parts that interest you.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

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.

[dogbiscuit]

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?

[Peter Damian]

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?

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

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:

What is my position on pedophilia, then? It’s really simple. If the child doesn’t want it, is neutral or ambiguous, it’s inappropriate.

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

[Ottava]

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.

[Theanima]

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?

[dogbiscuit]

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.

[carbuncle]

What does Moeller do anyway?

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.

[SB_Johnny]

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

meh.

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

[Jon Awbrey]

blog.wikimedia.org/2010/04/28/wikimedia-foundation-responds-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.
• "It's 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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

[Jon Awbrey]

Jon Awbrey Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 28th, 2010 at 17:56

Barndoor, Horses.
Horses, Barndoor.

[GlassBeadGame]

Jon Awbrey Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 28th, 2010 at 17:56

Barndoor, Horses.
Horses, Barndoor.

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.

[Jon Awbrey]

Jon Awbrey Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 28th, 2010 at 17:56

Barndoor, 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)

[GlassBeadGame]

Jon Awbrey Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 28th, 2010 at 17:56

Barndoor, 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)

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.

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

[thekohser]

"Be brave, be strong, our time will come... Be proud to be a boy lover!"
-- actual outgoing message on answering machine at NAMBLA headquarters

"Stay strong and know that there are many, many people who support you."
-- actual comment left by Barry Newstead of WMF consulting firm, Bridgespan Group

[Eva Destruction]

"Be brave, be strong, our time will come... Be proud to be a boy lover!"
-- actual outgoing message on answering machine at NAMBLA headquarters

"Stay strong and know that there are many, many people who support you."
-- actual comment left by Barry Newstead of WMF consulting firm, Bridgespan Group

"Be brave and then be strong
Be brave, you'll not be wrong if you are right
Keep your chin up tight and be brave
and then be strong.

Be brave and then be strong.
Be brave you'll not go wrong with fighting might
You will reach the site so be brave and be strong. "
--- Mr. Rogers

(before Horsey beats me to it)

[Ottava]

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

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

[Milton Roe]

Jon Awbrey Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 28th, 2010 at 17:56

Barndoor, 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_allegations

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

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)

[anthony]

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

I was able to confirm that the email was sent to multiple bloggers; the only recipient who ran with it was Owen Thomas. His series of posts is almost entirely based on the original email (and probably some additional correspondence with its author).

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).

This post has been edited by anthony: