FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2933 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php)
FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2943 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php)
Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI - FOXNews -
     
 
The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
 Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI - FOXNews
Newsfeed
post
Post #21


Postmaster General
********

Group: Bots
Posts: 3,272
Joined:
Member No.: 2,885
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
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post
Post #22


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


We have MSM pay dirt, with Moeller's greasy smile and pro-pedophile quote predominately featured.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Subtle Bee
post
Post #23


melli fera, fera...
****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 340
Joined:
Member No.: 17,787
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 27th April 2010, 3:21pm) *

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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Subtle Bee
post
Post #24


melli fera, fera...
****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 340
Joined:
Member No.: 17,787
... and speaking of fired-up nerds...

lol

It's as stunningly idiotic as it is inevitable.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A User
post
Post #25


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...

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post
Post #26


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
The bit about routinely blocking sincere critics (on specious and trumped up charges) is quite telling, ain't it?

QUOTE(Malleus Fatuorum)
Blocking is commonly used on wikipedia to silence critics, so nothing new to see here. Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Theanima
post
Post #27


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 222
Joined:
Member No.: 18,566
An unsurprisingly bad report from Fox News there, full of contradictions and inaccuracies. The foundation had this to say.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post
Post #28


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
QUOTE(Theanima @ Wed 28th April 2010, 9:20am) *

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)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post
Post #29


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
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".
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post
Post #30


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
QUOTE(Theanima @ Wed 28th April 2010, 1:20pm) *

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."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post
Post #31


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
QUOTE(WMF)
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).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post
Post #32


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
QUOTE(Subtle Bee @ Wed 28th April 2010, 10:04am) *

... 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Theanima
post
Post #33


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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post
Post #34


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post
Post #35


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(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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post
Post #36


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dogbiscuit
post
Post #37


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)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post
Post #38


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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dogbiscuit
post
Post #39


Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
********

Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 28th April 2010, 5:11pm) *

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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post
Post #40


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, 5:24pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 28th April 2010, 5:11pm) *

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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now:
 
     
FORUM WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home2/wikipede/public_html/int042kj398.php:242) (Line: 0 of Unknown)