It's official: no pedo, At least, Jimbo says so; others debate Options

[Jagärdu]

What planet are you from? Where have you been for the past three plus years?

Here's a helpful hint: before you post any more of this nonsense, read the discussions concerning Pedophilia and pornography which have already been discussed. There are many of them, so it might take you a bit of time. If you actually read them, though, the problem becomes quite apparent as does the solution.

1) The "planet" I've been on has not been Wikipedia Review as would be apparent by my neophyte status so I'm uncertain how you would expect me to be able to recall past discussions. 2) Your response is completely unhelpful because it doesn't identify any specific discussions that would be particularly helpful nor does it identify what parts of the post I should expect to realize are nonsense when I do find this reading material. I have no problem learning that I'm wrong but all I ask is some help in finding my way there.

[GlassBeadGame]

What planet are you from? Where have you been for the past three plus years?

Here's a helpful hint: before you post any more of this nonsense, read the discussions concerning Pedophilia and pornography which have already been discussed. There are many of them, so it might take you a bit of time. If you actually read them, though, the problem becomes quite apparent as does the solution.

1) The "planet" I've been on has not been Wikipedia Review as would be apparent by my neophyte status so I'm uncertain how you would expect me to be able to recall past discussions. 2) Your response is completely unhelpful because it doesn't identify any specific discussions that would be particularly helpful nor does it identify what parts of the post I should expect to realize are nonsense when I do find this reading material. I have no problem learning that I'm wrong but all I ask is some help in finding my way there.

You would need read nothing more than the instant thread to be able to see the rough outline of the problem. After doing that use the site's search function to locate more relevant threads. Also look to threads on pornography and child protection. Look into the "Virgin Killer" matter as well a the oddly named "spanking arts" topic. You will find dozens in the last three years. See also the articles on Fox News website by Jana Winters published in the first half of this year.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

That said, in terms of pornographic or possibly pornographic images Wikipedia is like the National Geographic version. I can't imagine any serious deviants of any kind hoping to use Wikipedia to disseminate pornographic imagery. That simply makes little to no sense when the internet is filled with all kinds of dark holes where various filthy garbage can be posted and viewed with much more security.

Ha.

Whereas National Geographic might have done a nice line in "native women" for adolescent boys a few decades ago, I am fairly sure they don't do all the hard core amateur pornography the Wikipedia specialises in.

Look down the list of top 100 pages view, RichieX's contributions, search for autofellatio, goatse, the swollen, bolted or electrocuted ball sacks, the outright pedophiliac stuff we have removed and all the rest of it ... honestly, if the National Geographic do it ... animations included ... I will buy you a life time subscription.

As for the "why", sure, but all those dark hole are not aimed at children and called encyclopedias.

I think thought what most of us have realised by the time we reach here is that the porn and extreme sexual agendas are not the cause of the problem but merely a symptom.

Look deeper ...

[carbuncle]

1) The "planet" I've been on has not been Wikipedia Review as would be apparent by my neophyte status so I'm uncertain how you would expect me to be able to recall past discussions. 2) Your response is completely unhelpful because it doesn't identify any specific discussions that would be particularly helpful nor does it identify what parts of the post I should expect to realize are nonsense when I do find this reading material. I have no problem learning that I'm wrong but all I ask is some help in finding my way there.

Follow some of the links that I included in this WR post. You'll soon see that the problem has been discussed on WP and associated mailing lists for years. Lack of a stated policy or a desire to tackle this subject has left it to fester.

Enacting a policy may drive away some of the more hardcore libertarians and free speech advocates, but the backlash on EN has been negligible. If enacted across all projects, expect a much larger and louder uproar. I doubt the WMF have the balls to do that, but without doing it they are looking to see still more stories of paedophiles active on Wikipedia.

[Jagärdu]

Whereas National Geographic might have done a nice line in "native women" for adolescent boys a few decades ago, I am fairly sure they don't do all the hard core amateur pornography the Wikipedia specialises in.

Look down the list of top 100 pages view, RichieX's contributions, search for autofellatio, goatse, the swollen, bolted or electrocuted ball sacks, the outright pedophiliac stuff we have removed and all the rest of it ... honestly, if the National Geographic do it ... animations included ... I will buy you a life time subscription.

As for the "why", sure, but all those dark hole are not aimed at children and called encyclopedias.

OK point taken. National Geographic was a poor example to use when you get down to some of the darker holes that are actually on Wikipedia. However, your second point is what I wonder about more generally. It seems to me that much of the discussion isn't about what actually does reach children, but more generally about what lies hidden in the depth of Wikipedia, its servers and its publicly accessible areas. Children don't exactly go to Wikipedia and start digging in Commons for dirty pictures -- though I also agree that there is no reason for any clearly pornographic images to be hosted by Wikipedia. But back to the actual children ... there are much easier places on the interwebs for them to find that junk, and they are going to go to these places rather than an encyclopedia 99 times out of 100. Now is there any encyclopedic value to entries like autofellatio? I think maintaining content like this is a lose lose situation for Wikipedia, but I think its more about how people view Wikipedia than anything else. There maybe other much darker holes out there but Wikipedia shouldn't be one of them. I get that point. I do.

So I guess what I'm wondering is what kind of credible information is out there on how Wikipedia content has actually adversely effected various sub populations, like children. The reason I find the new study on controversial content so ridiculous is that it isn't an actual study on controversial content and the impact of that content, but instead clearly the kind of unscientific effort that precedes a PR campaign. The other issue that people ought to keep in mind is that given the anonymity granted to editors at Wikipedia it is pretty much impossible to keep any type of person from editing. A policy that simply says ... pedophiles need not apply ... is purely PR and nothing more.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu: Tue 6th July 2010, 9:16pm

[GlassBeadGame]

Whereas National Geographic might have done a nice line in "native women" for adolescent boys a few decades ago, I am fairly sure they don't do all the hard core amateur pornography the Wikipedia specialises in.

Look down the list of top 100 pages view, RichieX's contributions, search for autofellatio, goatse, the swollen, bolted or electrocuted ball sacks, the outright pedophiliac stuff we have removed and all the rest of it ... honestly, if the National Geographic do it ... animations included ... I will buy you a life time subscription.

As for the "why", sure, but all those dark hole are not aimed at children and called encyclopedias.

OK point taken. National Geographic was a poor example to use when you get down to some of the darker holes that are actually on Wikipedia. However, your second point is what I wonder about more generally. It seems to me that much of the discussion isn't about what actually does reach children, but more generally about what lies hidden in the depth of Wikipedia, its servers and its publicly accessible areas. Children don't exactly go to Wikipedia and start digging in Commons for dirty pictures -- though I also agree that there is no reason for any clearly pornographic images to be hosted by Wikipedia. But back to the actual children ... there are much easier places on the interwebs for them to find that junk, and they are going to go to these places rather than an encyclopedia 99 times out of 100. Now is there any encyclopedic value to entries like autofellatio? I think maintaining content like this is a lose lose situation for Wikipedia, but I think its more about how people view Wikipedia than anything else. There maybe other much darker holes out there but Wikipedia shouldn't be one of them. I get that point. I do.

In the end the worst problem is likely to be conduct not content. Wikipedia has a tolerance for pedophiles, sexual content, anonymity and less child protection features than your six year old nieces breakfast cereal's website. At least the breakfast cereal is COPPA compliant and obtains parental consent for child participation. Based on the BS of A and the American/Irish Catholic Churches these problems may take decades to surface.

[UserB]

In the end the worst problem is likely to be conduct not content. Wikipedia has a tolerance for pedophiles, sexual content, anonymity and less child protection features than your six year old nieces breakfast cereal's website. At least the breakfast cereal is COPPA compliant and obtains parental consent for child participation. Based on the BS of A and the American/Irish Catholic Churches these problems may take decades to surface.

COPPA only applies to for-profit entities. Wikipedia is non-profit. Does Wikia do anything for parental consent?

[taiwopanfob]

In the end the worst problem is likely to be conduct not content. Wikipedia has a tolerance for pedophiles, sexual content, anonymity and less child protection features than your six year old nieces breakfast cereal's website. At least the breakfast cereal is COPPA compliant and obtains parental consent for child participation. Based on the BS of A and the American/Irish Catholic Churches these problems may take decades to surface.

COPPA only applies to for-profit entities. Wikipedia is non-profit.

... operated for the benefit of Jimbo Wales? Or are all those speaking fees being shoveled straight into the WMF's coffers?

Anyways, show me the law that stops the WMF from just doing the COPPA thing anyways, as a matter of good will towards the larger community?

[GlassBeadGame]

In the end the worst problem is likely to be conduct not content. Wikipedia has a tolerance for pedophiles, sexual content, anonymity and less child protection features than your six year old nieces breakfast cereal's website. At least the breakfast cereal is COPPA compliant and obtains parental consent for child participation. Based on the BS of A and the American/Irish Catholic Churches these problems may take decades to surface.

COPPA only applies to for-profit entities. Wikipedia is non-profit. Does Wikia do anything for parental consent?

We discussed this many times and that COPPA applies to commercial sites is not news Captain Obvious. You are way behind the curve. The point is that WP is a much more dangerous place for children than the breakfast cereal site and they do nothing.

[thekohser]

...when you get down to some of the darker holes that are actually on Wikipedia.

There maybe other much darker holes out there but Wikipedia shouldn't be one of them....

The Wikimedia Foundation may have an appropriate way (NSFW) of illustrating darker holes to children, you never know.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

The reason I find the new study on controversial content so ridiculous is that it isn't an actual study on controversial content and the impact of that content, but instead clearly the kind of unscientific effort that precedes a PR campaign. The other issue that people ought to keep in mind is that given the anonymity granted to editors at Wikipedia it is pretty much impossible to keep any type of person from editing. A policy that simply says ... pedophiles need not apply ... is purely PR and nothing more.

It might be worth people looking at the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 to get some ideas of how things should be done and state laws relating to the same.

Thank you, and please do not think my response was in anyway hostile. To be honest, after years of editing I had no idea this stuff actually existed because I had no reason to go there ... once my eyes were opened - as Larry Sanger wrote of his acquaintances - I was utterly shocked. Especially to discover all the war zones and connivances that I had experienced in other aspect (cult religion, nationalism etc) were at full strength across the entire sexual agenda.

One aspect I refer back at this point is that the Wikipedia is NOT as it attempts to present itself ... an internet host hosting self-published material ... but it is a 501 c registered NPO.

Within NPO/labor laws, the minimum age for volunteers is generally 14. By 8th/9th grade most youth are considered capable of carrying out many service activities without adult supervision. That does not include maintaining a amateur hard core porn collection both written and visual.

Child labor laws apply to youth volunteers, so youth under the age of 18 are subject to other restrictions may apply, depending upon the child labor laws of the state.

What also of 'background checks' of adult volunteers? Even long timers. Bona Fide charities are advise re-doing background checks at regular periods.

Who has ever heard of the Pornopedia doing so ... to the contrary, Jimmy Wales himself has blithely employed and supported both identity fraudsters and financial criminals.

Any volunteer’s refusal to grant the authorization to do a background check would be a red flag to any bona fide organization. Wikipedia's position ... protected anonymity.

What insurance is that for volunteers, can volunteers receive any compensation for issues arising from Wikipedia work? Laughable to even consider ... they are unpaid and strangely voluntary slaves to the project, many due to their own addictions, and without any rights or staking holding at all. If the Wikipedia is a miracle ... it is a miracle how they get away with it and have done so for so long.

Thank you for your sensible and clear comment on the current bogus "consultation" with one of Sue Garnder's old cronies from CBC. Again ... it would be laughable if it was not so pitiful. What we are waiting to see if what the Foundations REAL message is, the message they want HIM to deliver as an "outsider" ... and how much it is costing them.

One suspects they would have been better just sending the money to "that girl in Africa for whom it is all for", to quote Jimbo. But, no, if given a choice, they chose a straight, white, middle age man from a wealthy developed nation to give it too. I mean ... what even happened to that Indian feminist they buttered up just a few months ago? Has the PR value of her involvement evaporate already?


This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Wed 7th July 2010, 5:00am

[Alison]

Now Jimbo says it's policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=371845302

Wikinutjob Kameraad Pjotr says "Wales has nothing to say here, nor has the Wikipedia Arbcom. And frankly, if WMF makes this kind of rulings, one wonders whether they are capable of running this website altogether. Kameraad Pjotr 19:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)"

He's followed this up with the unblocking of Tyciol, so this doesn't appear to be a policy that is enforced.

And the same guy is now threatening to block Ottava over the Tyciol issue; "Either go do something useful or f*ck off. If you make any of those comments again, you'll be blocked. Period."

That for quoting Sue Gardner's recent comments on their 'zero tolerance policy' (FWIW)

Also, a link germane to the whole case, posted by User:Wknight94, was redacted by the same guy per "Inappropriate personal information"

[UserB]

We discussed this many times and that COPPA applies to commercial sites is not news Captain Obvious. You are way behind the curve. The point is that WP is a much more dangerous place for children than the breakfast cereal site and they do nothing.

I humbly apologize for not reading every prior post on Wikipedia Review so that I can know what has been and what has not been discussed.

You will get no argument from me that Wikipedia's standards on this, as with many issues, are woefully insufficient.

In any organization where banning pedophiles is something controversial that leads to weeks (or years?) of debate, there are fundamental problems. Banning pedophiles should be the most obvious thing in the world.

This post has been edited by UserB: Wed 7th July 2010, 6:11am

[Alison]

And Ty is busy trolling on Meta while our pal User:Wnt is valiantly fighting for .. uh .. free speech an' stuff. Yeah

[Moulton]

The drama on Commons with Ottava et al is the mirror image of a similar drama on Wikiversity. The subject matter under discussion is entirely different (on WV it's a discussion on blocking policy), but the practice of blocking, binding, gagging, and censoring the voice of the opposition is almost exactly the same (but with the roles reversed).

[Jagärdu]

Child labor laws apply to youth volunteers, so youth under the age of 18 are subject to other restrictions may apply, depending upon the child labor laws of the state.

I've never understood why Wikipedia embraces underage volunteers the way it does. I feel like every so often there is a drama storm generated by some teenage admin who was doing just fine for years until finally his age caught up with him, he got bored and decided to prank the encyclopedia. One wonders how "fine" this person was really doing all along. Of course I mean no disrespect to the teenage volunteers who do not act out like this, but the policy regarding children clearly needs to be thought through a bit better.

[GlassBeadGame]

And Ty is busy trolling on Meta while our pal User:Wnt is valiantly fighting for .. uh .. free speech an' stuff. Yeah

Perhaps Ms. Gardner meant Wikipedia has policy of total ambivalence of pedaphilia when she said zero tolerance. People are always confusing the two. Or maybe she meant Wikipedia
has zero tolerance while WMF's other site, Commons, welcomes them with open arms.

[SB_Johnny]

Child labor laws apply to youth volunteers, so youth under the age of 18 are subject to other restrictions may apply, depending upon the child labor laws of the state.

I've never understood why Wikipedia embraces underage volunteers the way it does. I feel like every so often there is a drama storm generated by some teenage admin who was doing just fine for years until finally his age caught up with him, he got bored and decided to prank the encyclopedia. One wonders how "fine" this person was really doing all along. Of course I mean no disrespect to the teenage volunteers who do not act out like this, but the policy regarding children clearly needs to be thought through a bit better.

Well, if it were managed better, it would be a very positive opportunity for teenagers to chip in and create something positive. Actually, I think quite a few of them are still able to do that, though probably that's less common as the atmosphere becomes more toxic. The key thing (and the thing that's sadly missing) is that there should be adults keeping an eye out for teens treating one another badly (as they are wont to do), or worse still for adults that treat teens badly, or worst of all predatory adults who should be kept away from young people full stop.

[GlassBeadGame]

Child labor laws apply to youth volunteers, so youth under the age of 18 are subject to other restrictions may apply, depending upon the child labor laws of the state.

I've never understood why Wikipedia embraces underage volunteers the way it does. I feel like every so often there is a drama storm generated by some teenage admin who was doing just fine for years until finally his age caught up with him, he got bored and decided to prank the encyclopedia. One wonders how "fine" this person was really doing all along. Of course I mean no disrespect to the teenage volunteers who do not act out like this, but the policy regarding children clearly needs to be thought through a bit better.

Well, if it were managed better, it would be a very positive opportunity for teenagers to chip in and create something positive. Actually, I think quite a few of them are still able to do that, though probably that's less common as the atmosphere becomes more toxic. The key thing (and the thing that's sadly missing) is that there should be adults keeping an eye out for teens treating one another badly (as they are wont to do), or worse still for adults that treat teens badly, or worst of all predatory adults who should be kept away from young people full stop.

"Volunteers" indicates a misunderstanding of the nature of the relationship between WMF and participants ("users")of the projects. In the view that WMF hold, in fact utterly depends on for its continued operation, the participants are not volunteers at all. They are only users of an interactive active computer service that permits the participants to provide content for whatever their own purposes might be, consistent or inconsistent with an encyclopedic writing project. Everything that is said about what is permitted or not, other than licensing terms, is nothing more than other user generated content.

Volunteers are agents of the organization they work for. They are answerable to the organization and the organization is liable for there wrongs and harm they might do. This gives non-profits good reasons to select, vet, background check, train and supervise their volunteers. The unique "user" arrangement relied on by WMF seeks to end run all accountabilty and provides none of the protections nor reasons for neither WMF nor the users to act in a responsible manner.

[tarantino]

Sue Gardner speaks, and the wikimedia foundation weasels out of articulating any "official policy" to the volunteers regarding the subject of pedophiles participating in their project,

Personally, I believe that zero tolerance for pedophilia and pedophilia advocacy is just common sense, and shouldn't necessarily need to be explicitly articulated in policy in order to be regularly and consistently enforced by admins. It's possible that the board of trustees may in future make a statement offering guidance with regards to the appropriate protection of children --- I don't know. But I do hope that the projects in the normal course of their work would act responsibly, without necessarily needing to have policies or guidance explicitly articulated for them by the board (or any other party). Sue Gardner (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)