Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI - FOXNews Options

[Newsfeed]

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

[Larry Sanger]

All, I just thought I would log in here and thank you for your support. I've never written on the Wikipedia Review before, but it seems that the quality of discussion has become a lot more subtle and interesting since the site was first founded. Also, when SB Johnny wrote this, suddenly everything became so clear! Also, I'm making use of these instructions on how to increase the signal-to-noise level.

This post has been edited by Larry Sanger:

[Somey]

All, I just thought I would log in here and thank you for your support. I've never written on the Wikipedia Review before, but it seems that the quality of discussion has become a lot more subtle and interesting since the site was first founded. Also, when SB Johnny wrote this, suddenly everything became so clear!

Maybe we should move that to the "Forum Information" forum... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

Anyway, welcome to WR. I myself had to comment on that Techdirt piece when someone tried to characterize drawings of child sexual abuse as "fictional child abuse," so that they could then attempt to draw a bogus parallel between that and "fictional murder," as if images and text are fundamentally the same, or as if drawings or stories of children being raped should be no more disturbing to kids (and their parents) than a Margaret Truman novel.

It's amazing what some people will convince themselves of in order to avoid having cracks appear in their belief systems, and IMO the internet only feeds this tendency. Moreover, I'd say the WP'ers reaction to the FBI letter being treated as news worth reporting (even if it is just on Fox) is considerably more instructive than their reaction to the letter itself.

[Larry Sanger]

It's amazing what some people will convince themselves of in order to avoid having cracks appear in their belief systems, and IMO the internet only feeds this tendency. Moreover, I'd say the WP'ers reaction to the FBI letter being treated as news worth reporting (even if it is just on Fox) is considerably more instructive than their reaction to the letter itself.

Well, the difference is that it has become public--it's beyond the fold of Internet geeks and Wikipedia followers and commentators. Expect the vituperation to become even more intense if the FBI really does take up the case. The problem isn't really so much the accusation as it is the introduction of the accusation to full-fledged adults and established institutions who naturally have higher standards than Wikipedia's. It's like snitching. As to myself, I call it bringing the law, and ordinary standards of personal responsibility, honesty, and basic decency to bear on a Wikipedia community that thinks it has the inviolate right to live outside of such standards.

All, I just thought I would log in here and thank you for your support. I've never written on the Wikipedia Review before, but it seems that the quality of discussion has become a lot more subtle and interesting since the site was first founded.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) Maybe it's just that you yourself have gotten a little more subtle and interesting since the site was founded? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Well, I should hope it's that too--it's been five years or so, hasn't it? But I seem to remember this place as being dominated by banned Wikipedians who were real pieces of work, that I had no desire whatsoever to interact with.

I don't know how much it's changed now, but now I am armed with a trusty kill file, I won't let it bother me. Looking forward to my next *plonk*. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Most of the rest of us have been here for quite some time, you know. Welcome to the unofficial party.

Thanks.

[Somey]

...I seem to remember this place as being dominated by banned Wikipedians who were real pieces of work, that I had no desire whatsoever to interact with.

Most of the real pieces of work have been replaced by fake pieces of work, many (most?) of whom aren't banned at all - with several prominent exceptions, of course. I myself have never made a single Wikipedia edit, and most people would probably call me the "head admin" here. I might also be considered responsible for emphasizing more levity and jocularity among regular posters than there probably was originally... However, the site's owner (who isn't me) may be one of those people you mention, though I doubt she was all that unpleasant to deal with even then - you might have known her as "Mistress Selina Kyle." (She doesn't post much these days, though!)

Anyway, this is getting a bit off-topic... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

I have to admit that I was incredulous, at least initially, about your not being aware of those images on Commons. I'm not saying that I thought you'd seen them personally, though - just that we'd been discussing them here for some time, and these things have a tendency to get talked about. I hadn't realized the degree of disaffection you seem to have from there, though, so I think I owe you an apology for that. Sorry I doubted you!

Having said that, presumably all of us here knew about this stuff and nobody (AFAIK) reported it to the FBI. Maybe we just assumed they knew, too, or maybe none of us felt like we had the clout or the gravitas to garner any attention from them, or maybe we assumed they wouldn't care no matter who reported it. Whatever the reason, it was a fairly big step, and I for one am glad it was you who took it and not, say, me. (And who am I, anyway? Nobody seems to know, including myself.)