David Gerard "dances on the skulls" of the IWF, his words not mine Options

[Kato]

In a blog post, disgraced WMF UK spokesman David Gerard - previously best known as the guy who blocked a whole region of Utah, and censored various IPs round the world, as well as censoring "encyclopedia text", all because he didn't like the views of one person who turned out to be correct anyway - and the guy currently accused of entirely deleting ("oversighting" or "censoring" if you will) edits on the subject of zoophilia to protect a fellow high-powered Wikipedian who made them, for political reasons - boasts that after his appearances in the media to oppose the recent IWF censorship:

A small amount of gleeful dancing on the skulls of the IWF today.

This is aimed at a group who work with the Police and Child Protection agencies to alert ISPs about potentially illegal exploitative images of children.

He goes on to write:

I predict a flood of helpful citizenry going to the IWF reporting page and entering any image on any top 10 website that might be “potentially illegal.” Much as the head of the IWF is “potentially a fabulous drag queen.”

Can Wikipedia get more hypocritical, arrogant and obnoxious?

EDIT: More on David Gerard here.

[GlassBeadGame]

In a blog post, disgraced WMF UK spokesman David Gerard - previously best known as the guy who blocked a whole region of Utah, and various IPs round the world, as well as censoring "encyclopedia text", because he didn't like the views of one person who turned out to be correct anyway - and the guy currently accused of entirely deleting ("oversighting" or "censoring" if you will) edits made by another leading Wikipedian on the subject of zoophilia - boasts that after his appearances in the media to oppose the recent IWF censorship:

A small amount of gleeful dancing on the skulls of the IWF today.

This is aimed at a group who work with the Police and Child Protection agencies to alert ISPs about potentially illegal exploitative images of children.

He goes on to write:

I predict a flood of helpful citizenry going to the IWF reporting page and entering any image on any top 10 website that might be “potentially illegal.” Much as the head of the IWF is “potentially a fabulous drag queen.”

Can Wikipedia get more hypocritical, arrogant and obnoxious?

I assume Mr. Gerard will be dancing to the tune "Let's Do the Time Wrap Again."

[Alex]

Well let's face it, the whole thing was a big cock-up on the IWF's part.

[Kato]

Well let's face it, the whole thing was a big cock-up on the IWF's part.

Getting entangled in Wikipedia's ridiculous editing circus is a cock-up on everyone's part - whether they are doing so in good faith or not. In the end, Wikipedia dances on everyone's skulls, including yours Alex.

[Lifebaka]

I'm not sure you can equate Gerard to all of Wikipedia. I, for instance, refuse to dance, even upon the skulls of my enemies.

Alex is right that the IWF did screw up pretty badly in not blocking the image itself, instead blocking the Image: page and the Virgin Killer article. And the ISPs not forwarding the actual IP addresses through the proxy was a big screw up as well. Hopefully they'll both learn from this so that these technical issues can be avoided the next time they block a Wikipedia article. They'll fare much better in the PR department if they do.

[Cedric]

Hopefully, Gerard in his capacity as "spokesman" will be doing some of his gloating in front of the media. Anything to give these ignorant media types more incentive to uncover all that wiki-porn out there (which is not really that hard to find). Then I daresay his "dancing" will become much more entertaining.

[Kato]

I'm not sure you can equate Gerard to all of Wikipedia. I, for instance, refuse to dance, even upon the skulls of my enemies.

Alex is right that the IWF did screw up pretty badly in not blocking the image itself, instead blocking the Image: page and the Virgin Killer article. And the ISPs not forwarding the actual IP addresses through the proxy was a big screw up as well. Hopefully they'll both learn from this so that these technical issues can be avoided the next time they block a Wikipedia article. They'll fare much better in the PR department if they do.

Why doesn't Wikipedia change its "technical issues"? Starting from the fact that it could easily carry a drop down box to cover extreme images at the very least?

Why must it always be everyone else's cock-up?

Why must everyone who gets entangled in Wikipedia's ridiculous editing circus be subject to the rabid lunatic drama-fest that surrounds that place? To the point where people like David Gerard are "dancing on the skulls of the IWF"?

David Gerard

"A small amount of gleeful dancing on the skulls of the IWF today."

[dogbiscuit]

Hopefully, Gerard in his capacity as "spokesman" will be doing some of his gloating in front of the media. Anything to give these ignorant media types more incentive to uncover all that wiki-porn out there (which is not really that hard to find). Then I daresay his "dancing" will become much more entertaining.

Hopefully someone will think to contrast the "Oh, actually I get the problem" response from Jimbo (not a quick thinker but he got there in the end) with Gerard - who went for a high risk strategy and won the battle but has now raised the public's awareness that Wikipedia is a place where they don't like their pornographic images to be censored. Eventually, someone will twig that they don't like that more than some watchdog. In the UK we like to have people we can complain to and when things go wrong we expect someone to take responsibility.

[Lifebaka]

I'm not sure you can equate Gerard to all of Wikipedia. I, for instance, refuse to dance, even upon the skulls of my enemies.

Alex is right that the IWF did screw up pretty badly in not blocking the image itself, instead blocking the Image: page and the Virgin Killer article. And the ISPs not forwarding the actual IP addresses through the proxy was a big screw up as well. Hopefully they'll both learn from this so that these technical issues can be avoided the next time they block a Wikipedia article. They'll fare much better in the PR department if they do.

Why doesn't Wikipedia change its "technical issues"? Starting from the fact that it could easily carry a drop down box to cover extreme images at the very least?

Why must it always be everyone else's cock-up?

Something sort of like Template:Hidden on extreme images isn't a bad idea. It wouldn't technically change whether or not viewing the page is illegal, I don't believe, but it'd certainly be nice to not have the images suddenly in your face while browsing.

A "mature content filter" or other similar feature is also doable, though it would take a software update. The way I'm imagining it the filter would automatically hide anything that's been flagged as mature content, but could be manually overridden on a per-view basis or turned off in the user preferences (not available for those without accounts, possibly limited to autoconfirmed or higher).

[Silly Fake Name]

And the ISPs not forwarding the actual IP addresses through the proxy was a big screw up as well.

If a website is hosting child pornography, what moral right do the website administration have to know the IP addresses?

This post has been edited by Silly Fake Name: Wed 10th December 2008, 11:46pm

[Lifebaka]

And the ISPs not forwarding the actual IP addresses through the proxy was a big screw up as well.

If a website is hosting child pornography, what moral right do they have to know the IP addresses?

Hmm, point. While it was an issue here it's certainly a good thing overall. My brains need some non-Wiki-thinking time, it seems.

[Piperdown]

David Gerard is now notable by Wikipedia's standards. Lol.

So fire up that BLP.

Information wants to be free, not censored.

[Kato]

Sticky Parkin asks about creating a Biography on David Gerard.

Even if only articles that mention your wiki work are borne in mind, you are now undoubtedly notable [4] Sticky Parkin 01:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no third-party bios of me. Thankfully. - David Gerard (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There's 100s of mentions in WP:RS of you. Sticky Parkin 14:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

* Delete RS BLP NOR AUTO NPOV AGF ABC 123 WTF OMG BBQ - David Gerard (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't even go near the ones that begin "A.G.something" 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a tricky one

But I'm with David Gerard. There shouldn't be an article on him, as he formally wishes to WP:OPT-OUT, and there is no established encyclopedia biography of Gerard already out there. Meaning he escapes under clause two of our proposed BLP policy. (WP:OPT-OUT / WP:NO ORIGINAL BIOGRAPHIES / WP:DEAD TREE SOURCES Subject can opt-out if not covered by dead tree biographies).

However, this policy hasn't been implemented on Wikipedia. And when deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation, Erik Moeller posted to our site a while ago under the moniker Eloquence he stated:

Giving such an individual the choice not to have an article written about them is an obscene suggestion if your goal is to build a general reference work.

Also, Gerard participated with Phil Sandifer in the now deleted smear article on Judd Bagley, described as "an attack piece" and sourced largely to smears orchestrated by a Wikipedia insider who appeared in various guises in the deletion debate. Bagley angered Gerard and leading Wikipedians including Jimbo by identifying Mantanmoreland and others as being the source of the public smears. Gerard censored a whole region of Utah to prevent Bagley broadcasting his findings on WP.

According to Gerard:

What strikes me about your version of the [[Judd Bagley]] page is that it's his notoriety and attacks on critics that are the focus of the reliable-sources coverage. It's rare that someone achieves such coverage for sheer nastiness without an actual indictment. But anyway

Gerard concluded:

But that he's arguably notable, even if it is only for his public odious behaviour. It's a tricky one, like any really good AFD.

[EricBarbour]

Even if only articles that mention your wiki work are borne in mind, you are now undoubtedly notable [4] Sticky Parkin 01:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
There's no third-party bios of me. Thankfully. - David Gerard (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
There's 100s of mentions in WP:RS of you. Sticky Parkin 14:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
* Delete RS BLP NOR AUTO NPOV AGF ABC 123 WTF OMG BBQ - [i]David Gerard (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh. In that case, Mr. Gerard can personally remove the next instance of one of his drones recreating the Daniel Brandt bio.

Giving such an individual the choice not to have an article written about them is an obscene suggestion if your goal is to build a general reference work.

Same old hypocrisy. Always amazes me how earnest and straight-faced these guys are, when inserting various feet into their mouths. (Or other body parts.....)

[Alison]

A small amount of gleeful dancing on the skulls of the IWF today.

This is aimed at a group who work with the Police and Child Protection agencies to alert ISPs about potentially illegal exploitative images of children.

That's pretty offensive whatever way you look at it

Pride goeth before a fall, David. Less of the 'gleeful dancing', please

[Kato]

A small amount of gleeful dancing on the skulls of the IWF today.

This is aimed at a group who work with the Police and Child Protection agencies to alert ISPs about potentially illegal exploitative images of children.

That's pretty offensive whatever way you look at it

Pride goeth before a fall, David. Less of the 'gleeful dancing', please

Indeed.

In his blog post, the Australian resident of the UK, Gerard, encourages punters to make bogus complaints to the IWF to undermine their capacity to act on British complaints about Child Abuse images. Gerard does this despite being a name on WMF UK's commitment to work with Children's charities.

I predict a flood of helpful citizenry going to the IWF reporting page and entering any image on any top 10 website that might be “potentially illegal.” Much as the head of the IWF is “potentially a fabulous drag queen.”

[Somey]

In his blog post, the Australian resident of the UK, Gerard, encourages punters to make bogus complaints to the IWF to undermine their capacity to act on British complaints about Child Abuse images. Gerard does this despite being a name on WMF UK's commitment to work with Children's charities.

To be fair, he only predicted a flood of bogus complaints, he technically didn't encourage them. Of course, like most of his predictions, this one will end up being wrong. The other "Top Ten Websites" actually do tend to act positively and err on the side of social responsibility when responding to reports of child-porn that they're hosting. Wikipedia is the odd duck in that regard...

So, another Wikipedia lesson learnt: porn OK, hypocrisy OK, gloating OK; acting in the interests of kids (along with the usual stuff like correcting erroneous information that has written about you or pointing out incidents of administrative malfeasance), not OK.

[dtobias]

Forces of censorship and oppression always claim to be doing it for great motives like "protecting the children". The world isn't generally fully of comic-book or Saturday-morning-TV villains who call themselves by handy names like "Dr. Evil". Some of you seem to be saying that everybody else needs to immediately fold whenever the "Kiddie Card" is played.

----------------
Now playing: Jane Child - Don't Let It Get To You
via FoxyTunes

[dtobias]

(Though, if I were putting myself forward as a spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation, I'd try to use more tactful language than Gerard did.)

----------------
Now playing: Lily Allen - Smile (Radio Edit)
via FoxyTunes

[dogbiscuit]

Forces of censorship and oppression always claim to be doing it for great motives like "protecting the children". The world isn't generally fully of comic-book or Saturday-morning-TV villains who call themselves by handy names like "Dr. Evil". Some of you seem to be saying that everybody else needs to immediately fold whenever the "Kiddie Card" is played.

No, the kiddie card is just one trump card, against which others may be played. It is disingenuous to suggest that Protect the Children protests are... disingenuous. The basis is simple: it has long been recognised by society that children are vulnerable and it is the role of society to be protective of children. What is unusual is the suggestion that an instinctive reaction of protection is improper and the appropriate solution of ignoring the issue as it will magically all come right is a counter-intuitive one - one that is offered with no evidence, just an assurance of arrogant righteousness.

Residents in the UK are aware that such emotive approaches can be overused, and we often have a good laugh about the mixed up American society which cannot marry up its freedom ideals and its oppressive approach of the moral majority which have carried repressive ideologies into the White House itself. However, it would be foolish to assume that any society had got the dilemma solved.