Valleywag's accusations against Erik Moeller, Claims WMF Deputy Director is "a defender of pedophilia" Options

[Doc glasgow]

Whatever Erik's views are (and perhaps the whole thing was simply an immature troll on his part)

I think you'll need to come up with a better excuse for him than that. I've found numerous postings over at least a 4 year period that are all in a similar vein. He argues that children aged 12 can have positive sexual relations with adults. Paedophiles will use writings such as his (and they have as I showed above) to feel empowered to go and seek out children for abuse. Should someone who wrote what he wrote be in charge of a website WHERE 1000s of un-identified adults interact with 1000s of children? I don't think so.

I'm not trying to excuse anything. All I'm saying is that people stupidly grandstand on these libertarian issues without thinking of the consequences. It is stupid and naive and will probably wreck his career.

But your argument is full of logic jumps. Erik's argument is certainly both silly and reckless. Doubtless it /could/ be use by pedophiles, although, seriously, quoting the Deputy-Director of the Wikimedia Foundation is hardly a clincher in their campaigns. Whilst Erik is a big-noise for WMF geeks, he's still a no-one in the wider world and certainly not a quotable authority in child-psychology. How much intellectual credibility does some silly German teenager lend this? The arguments are dangerous, Erik is not.

As for: "Should someone who wrote what he wrote be in charge of a website WHERE 1000s of un-identified adults interact with 1000s of children?" Why not?

There is a serious question of whether he may become a PR liability for the WMF, but seriously, what are you implying? How does his post a WMF impact on the 1000s of unidentified adults and children? Please be specific.

I'm not defending Erik (Hell, no. The argument is vile and stupid) but emotional knee-jerks don't help either.

[Peter Damian]

But your argument is full of logic jumps. Erik's argument is certainly both silly and reckless. Doubtless it /could/ be use by pedophiles, although, seriously, quoting the Deputy-Director of the Wikimedia Foundation is hardly a clincher in their campaigns. Whilst Erik is a big-noise for WMF geeks, he's still a no-one in the wider world and certainly not a quotable authority in child-psychology. How much intellectual credibility does some silly German teenager lend this? The arguments are dangerous, Erik is not.

That’s not the point. We know there is a large underground of pro-paedos editing on Wikipedia. Their number 1 objective is to get certain points of view across because of the high Google ranking. Example points of view: paedophilia is just a condition, it doesn’t imply the practice, or even tendency to practice, paedos should be free to associate with children, because they are not inherently harmful &c &c. It becomes very hard to challenge this without being challenged or blocked or banned (as I was on a related issue) for supposed ‘personal attacks’, because people like Erik have created a certain climate in Wikipedia that is friendly to this. Whether or not he deliberately intended this is beside the point. Undoubtedly his actions, possibly well-meaning actions, have brought this about. That’s all.

[dogbiscuit]

Should someone who wrote what he wrote be in charge of a website WHERE 1000s of un-identified adults interact with 1000s of children? I don't think so.

Don't worry about it, blame the parents.

I will claim a COI. I've let my children sleep over at a house where my children started hinting that they were not so keen on the idea. So we assumed they were bored of the company and moved on. A couple of years later, when we were still in happy contact with the parents, the father, a plausible and pleasant man, (even if he was a vegan*), got arrested and sent to jail, serving two and a half years for child abuse. No harm done here, and my children were not involved.

I'm fairly sure he thought he was in a consensual and loving relationship and is probably still convinced he did nothing wrong. The insidious thing, which corrodes one's trust in fellow man, is that the whole point about deceptive people and conmen is that there should be no embarrassment about falling for the charms of a plausible character. In terms of plausibility, mother was a cousin of Princess Diana and daughter of a Conservative MP of the Thatcher era who has been a prominent advocate for truth and reconciliation** in the Irish peace process. It seems she was deceived too.

So, no it is not a theoretical problem, and Wikipedia does provide networking abilities. As I was pointing out at the most blatantly obvious level and got poo-poo'd by some teenager and that man of high moral values, David Shankbone, if you have meet-ups, make sure you know who you are meeting up with, not just to protect the kids, but to protect the adults.

Is there a world wide conspiracy to pervert the world's youth? I don't really think so, but Wikipedia sure tries to do a good impression of one at times.



*Joke (for sensitive readers).
**It can happen, and it can work Moulton.

[Peter Damian]

This article on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmful_to_Minors

about the Judith Levine case

and this

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/7/175457/5447

by Moeller, is a graphic description of the furore caused when Levine promoted a positive view of certain adult-child relationships, in an academic context. Without taking a view on this, I wonder what is going to happen to Wikipedia, when this story gets widespread circulation?

[edit] and seconding DogBiscuit's view above. [edit 2] I recommend reading the thread linked by DB, for a good example of where wiki-reality just takes off into a different dimension.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Wed 7th May 2008, 10:50am

[Doc glasgow]

We know there is a large underground of pro-paedos editing on Wikipedia.

Do we? {{fact}}. I'm aware of pov-pushing on this certainly, but "large underground"?? I suspect an amount of what I saw of was trolling pure and simple.

People like Erik have created a certain climate in Wikipedia that is friendly to this. Whether or not he deliberately intended this is beside the point. Undoubtedly his actions, possibly well-meaning actions, have brought this about. That’s all.

Fact? Please explain how Erik did this?

Underlying wikipedia is an extreme libertarian ethos, that wants to take the hippy-revolution to the Californian max, and break all boundaries and authorities. But I think were people ideologically try to apply this to child abuse issues, they just show how silly it all actually is. It is one massive reduction ad absurdum. But really, the paranoia does not help here.

[Peter Damian]

We know there is a large underground of pro-paedos editing on Wikipedia.

Do we? {{fact}}. I'm aware of pov-pushing on this certainly, but "large underground"?? I suspect an amount of what I saw of was trolling pure and simple.

I think you are being naive. Follow the link that Squeakbox provided the other day.

People like Erik have created a certain climate in Wikipedia that is friendly to this. Whether or not he deliberately intended this is beside the point. Undoubtedly his actions, possibly well-meaning actions, have brought this about. That’s all.

Fact? Please explain how Erik did this?

Underlying wikipedia is an extreme libertarian ethos, that wants to take the hippy-revolution to the Californian max, and break all boundaries and authorities. But I think were people ideologically try to apply this to child abuse issues, they just show how silly it all actually is. It is one massive reduction ad absurdum. But really, the paranoia does not help here.

He helped promote this ethos in many different ways. Follow all his edits from the early days, follow the POV he is forcefully putting across. E.g. just read the Levine stuff I linked to above. I'm not denying it wasn't in good faith. But you would be naive to deny the influence that Erik has had in the early development of the enyclopedia.

Or look at what he says here in a Wikipedia article

Child and youth sexuality is a highly controversial subject in western society. Not only are parents worried about sexual predators, sexual acts among children and/or juveniles are sometimes interpreted as child sexual abuse and answered with therapy or detention. Researchers agree that there is a fundamental lack of knowledge about children's sexual behavior and what is culturally defined as normal. Due to the taboo surrounding youth sexuality and to legal and political constraints, little research has been conducted.

Translation

1. It’s a controversial subject (i.e. there are pros and cons).
2. Parents are worried about it, but they ‘interpret’ things in a way that leads to ‘therapy or detention’. (That's bad)
3. Researchers say there is a fundamental lack of knowledge (i.e. the parents are ‘interpreting’ things in a way that is not borne out by research, one way or the other)
4. Youth sexuality is ‘taboo’, and the constraints are legal and political (i.e. not proper constraints at all)


This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Wed 7th May 2008, 11:05am

[the fieryangel]

We know there is a large underground of pro-paedos editing on Wikipedia.

Do we? {{fact}}. I'm aware of pov-pushing on this certainly, but "large underground"?? I suspect an amount of what I saw of was trolling pure and simple.

People like Erik have created a certain climate in Wikipedia that is friendly to this. Whether or not he deliberately intended this is beside the point. Undoubtedly his actions, possibly well-meaning actions, have brought this about. That’s all.

Fact? Please explain how Erik did this?

Underlying wikipedia is an extreme libertarian ethos, that wants to take the hippy-revolution to the Californian max, and break all boundaries and authorities. But I think were people ideologically try to apply this to child abuse issues, they just show how silly it all actually is. It is one massive reduction ad absurdum. But really, the paranoia does not help here.

Look, go to the first Valleywag article and follow the links to Boytalk and to the Dutch organization.

They have said that they are doing this and they have praised Erik for creating the climate which allows this to happen.

See for yourself.

(does anybody else find it really creepy that there is no discussion of this at ANI, at the Village pump or on either the Wiki-En or foundation lists?)

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Wed 7th May 2008, 11:07am

[the fieryangel]

Somebody tried to recreate his Wikipedia article (currently a redirect to WMF) yesterday and got slapped by Jehochman...curiouser and curiouser...Discussion of this page protection on Jehochman's talk page...

It would seem that this subject is, um, taboo on Wikipedia....

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Wed 7th May 2008, 11:25am

[dogbiscuit]

I think there are a few basics:

1) Being moral has been defined as being anti-libertarian, and therefore is subtly evil.
2) Being amoral is being defined as being right thinking. There is a strong link between NPOV and this being adopted as the "correct" viewpoint to hold on matters.
3) Concern for young people being vulnerable is defined as old hat, over-protective and foolish. Young people know they know best and therefore people suggesting otherwise are ageist.
4) Not having any specific evidence of an actual incidence of an event means that the risk is defined as "theoretical" rather than "real" (not that this makes sense). Being theoretical means in Shanklebone-speak that there is no need to bother yourself about it, rather than evaluating whether the risk is of a level that it is likely to come to fruition.
5) Wikipedia is so different, so novel, that real world or parallel systems like MySpace where issues are acknowledged to occur, cannot in any way be used to predict or suggest how Wikipedia might be abused.

I find it intensely irritating to have it suggested that even discussing these issues is tantamount to proving I am some sort of oppressive demon who has clearly destroyed my children's childhood by obsessing over these matters. It is the parent's lot to agonise over these matters on occasion, even if we chose not to act on our concerns. (I do have a fairly clear conscience, for example sending my 16 year old daughter on a 3 day car journey to Romania to help with a youth camp with no parental supervision for 3 weeks is hardly nannying).

Any organisation seeing a risk should attempt to evaluate it objectively, with reference to the normal moral standards and ethics expected of the communities it serves. The WMF are not likely to be able to do that if one of their own is an advocate for an extreme point of view who does not accept that the concerns of improper behaviour are anything other than theoretical.

Now, to put this in perspective, I am not obsessed with this, I have not banned my kids (I don't need to, Wikipedia is far too dull for them) though they have been warned about he perils of online communities enough that I don't have to say much. I don't think it should be a major focus, I simply want someone to acknowledge that it is an issue that needs mature consideration (i.e. falls outside the remit of the community) and that there are some cultural changes that might need to be encouraged to minimise risk.

How much risk would Erik be taking in having a private meeting with the President of the Swiss Chapter?

[David Shankbone]

I think there are a few basics:

1) Being moral has been defined as being anti-libertarian, and therefore is subtly evil.
2) Being amoral is being defined as being right thinking. There is a strong link between NPOV and this being adopted as the "correct" viewpoint to hold on matters.
3) Concern for young people being vulnerable is defined as old hat, over-protective and foolish. Young people know they know best and therefore people suggesting otherwise are ageist.
4) Not having any specific evidence of an actual incidence of an event means that the risk is defined as "theoretical" rather than "real" (not that this makes sense). Being theoretical means in Shanklebone-speak that there is no need to bother yourself about it, rather than evaluating whether the risk is of a level that it is likely to come to fruition.
5) Wikipedia is so different, so novel, that real world or parallel systems like MySpace where issues are acknowledged to occur, cannot in any way be used to predict or suggest how Wikipedia might be abused.

Dogbiscuit, instead of spending paragraphs and paragraphs of hand-wringing mental anguish about all the problems that can occur, and how nobody really thinks about them, why don't you succinctly--SUCCINCTLY--make your point in two sentences? Try this for starters: 1) this is the problem. 2) this is a possible solution.

Is that difficult for you to do?

I don't think it should be a major focus, I simply want someone to acknowledge that it is an issue that needs mature consideration (i.e. falls outside the remit of the community) and that there are some cultural changes that might need to be encouraged to minimise risk.

Why do you assume it has not been given "mature consideration"? You infer that we are blindly going around hanging out with 13 year olds. I've already pointed out to you that at no meet-Up that I have attended has anyone appeared to be under 18 (take a look at the group photos) and nobody has gone off in private with anyone else. But if they do, that is not something Wikipedia or the community can police. And if you think it is, then SUCCINCTLY state 1) this is the problem; and 2) this is a possible solution.

As was pointed out to you time and again on Wikipedia, you aren't saying anything, nor proposing anything. You seem to just want to talk about all the scary possibilities and find it "intensely irritating" that people don't want to be as anguished as you that it's always possible for someone to take advantage of any situation and do harm to someone else, whether a child or not. This is a fact of life. If that's not the case, then SUCCINCTLY state 1) this is the problem; and 2) this is a possible solution.

I do have a fairly clear conscience, for example sending my 16 year old daughter on a 3 day car journey to Romania to help with a youth camp with no parental supervision for 3 weeks is hardly nannying.

Why are ANY of the considerations in doing this less than sending your 16 year old daughter to spend two hours discussing Wikipedia at a library on the Columbia University canvas with thirty other people?

[Kato]

Try this for starters: 1) this is the problem. 2) this is a possible solution.

The Problem: A heady mix of loony libertarianism and a Cult of The Amateur has led us to a situation where 13 year olds with no accredited experience have been given power in the largest information resource and one of the largest social networking systems devised.

The Solution: Grow up, and at least try and acknowledge some responsibility, and the obvious problems with this. (See Child Spanking Wiki episode for starters)

[GlassBeadGame]

...instead of spending paragraphs and paragraphs of hand-wringing mental anguish about all the problems that can occur, and how nobody really thinks about them, why don't you succinctly--SUCCINCTLY--make your point in two sentences? Try this for starters: 1) this is the problem. 2) this is a possible solution.

Wikipedia provides the software for easy private communication and social networking. It provides a culture of apparent anonymity. It provides the supposed "good cause" that produces a context for forming relationship. It fosters the internet notions of "age doesn't matter" and a the permissive libertarian attitude, so well demonstrated by Erik, that "we can now make the world anew free from the chains of social norms." What a toxic combination for exploiting children.

Wikipedia ought to immediately voluntarily comply with COPPA. Drop the idea that "we are not a commercial site." Wikipedia is licensed in such a matter that content can be freely appropriated for profit making purposes. It is scrapped and repackaged for profit. Wikipedians have themselves used that content for openly commercial purposes. It collects personal information about children into it's database. Even if it is not required to comply with COPPA, it ought to in any event. It should also provide additional protection for children between 13 and 18. Parental awareness and consent is the bare minimum of what is needed.

[dogbiscuit]

Dogbiscuit, instead of spending paragraphs and paragraphs of hand-wringing mental anguish about all the problems that can occur, and how nobody really thinks about them, why don't you succinctly--SUCCINCTLY--make your point in two sentences? Try this for starters: 1) this is the problem. 2) this is a possible solution.

Is that difficult for you to do?

Succinctly:

1) There can be a problem with perverts stalking kids.
2) Some idiots just can't see it and attack people who suggest it is a problem. <<< Problem

Go back to your porn shoots, creep. <<< Solution

[edited for problem and solution]

[Somey]

1) There can be a problem with perverts stalking kids.
2) Some idiots just can't see it and attack people who suggest it is a problem...

We should have a contest to see who can be the most succinct!

Here's my entry:
1) Wikipedia attracts narcissists.
2) Narcissists always think it's somebody's else's fault.

[dogbiscuit]

We should have a contest to see who can be the most succinct!

P: Wikipedia
S: Shoot to Kill! *




*<ref>Jimbo</ref>

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

P: wiki
S: rm -rf wiki

[Jon Awbrey]

1. There can be a problem with perverts stalking kids.
2. Some idiots just can't see it and attack people who suggest it is a problem …

We should have a contest to see who can be the most succinct!

Here's my entry:

1. Wikipedia attracts narcissists.
2. Narcissists always think it's somebody's else's fault.

1. Φeces
2. Φlush

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Wed 7th May 2008, 3:42pm

[thekohser]

1) There can be a problem with perverts stalking kids.
2) Some idiots just can't see it and attack people who suggest it is a problem...

We should have a contest to see who can be the most succinct!

Here's my entry:
1) Wikipedia attracts narcissists.
2) Narcissists always think it's somebody's else's fault.

You didn't provide a solution. FAIL.

Here's my entry:

PROBLEM: Kids rarely show up in photographs at Wikipedia meet-ups.

SOLUTION (more of a REASON): They were afraid to ask their parents to drive them, for fear that their Wikipedia addiction would be discovered and banned by Mom and Dad. Either that, or the kids who ARE in attendance are not in photographs because they're locked off in a back dungeon with FT2 and Eloquence.

[Daniel Brandt]

PROBLEM: Wikipediots suck.
SOLUTION: Protect the children.

[GlassBeadGame]

GlassBeadGame, if the standard for a Commercial site is one that "is licensed in such a matter that content can fbe reely appropriated for profit making purposes" then the United States federal government's websites will need to be licensed as commercial websites themselves. It's the same issue.

What US government collects information about children? Provides social networking and private communications facilities? Displays penis, vaginas and anal stretching?

If any government official wrote what Erik has concerning child sexuality they would be gone in a minute.