|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |