|
|
|
Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI - FOXNews |
|
|
A User |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 5,813
|
QUOTE(Subtle Bee @ Wed 28th April 2010, 7:04pm) ... and speaking of fired-up nerds... lolIt'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.
|
|
|
|
Theanima |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 222
Joined:
Member No.: 18,566
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 28th April 2010, 2:54pm) QUOTE(Theanima @ Wed 28th April 2010, 8:20am) 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?
|
|
|
|
dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 28th April 2010, 4:22pm) QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 28th April 2010, 8:12am) 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: QUOTE 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 |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 28th April 2010, 4:58pm) QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 28th April 2010, 4:22pm) QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 28th April 2010, 8:12am) 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: QUOTE 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.
|
|
|
|
GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 28th April 2010, 10:11am)
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: QUOTE 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..
|
|
|
|
SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
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)
|
|
|
|
GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
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) 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.
|
|
|
|
Eva Destruction |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined:
Member No.: 3,301
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 28th April 2010, 8:59pm) QUOTE "Be brave, be strong, our time will come... Be proud to be a boy lover!" -- actual outgoing message on answering machine at NAMBLA headquarters QUOTE "Stay strong and know that there are many, many people who support you." -- actual comment left by Barry Newstead of WMF consulting firm, Bridgespan GroupQUOTE "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)
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
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)
|
|
|
|
anthony |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined:
Member No.: 2,132
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 28th April 2010, 2:12pm) Erik Moeller has posted a lengthy response on his personal blog, which is curiously entitled, Intelligent Designs. QUOTE 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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |