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

[dogbiscuit]

1. It is for the FBI to investigate, not to prosecute. Sanger is therefore acting appropriately in bringing it to the FBI's attention.

2. Who is to blame? Well, the co-conspirators are:

* the uploaders for sure.
* the WMF, as they cannot now deny that they are aware that there are such images, and regardless of formal notification, they have not taken reasonable steps to identify such materials once they became aware of the possibility.
* The administrators of Commons - who have volunteered to oversee; especially those who have zealously enforced other policies such as copyright yet have chosen not to enforce obscenity.
* Possibly, but less likely, any person who viewed the inappropriate content and therefore has downloaded it onto their PC, and has not reported it.

3. What should be done?
a) the FBI need to establish whether there is content that falls within the remit of that law.
b) Potentially in consultation with prosecutors, determine whether there is something that requires forwarding for legal action, or is something that can be dealt with with warnings or cautions. However, in the UK, a serious offence should not be treated with a caution (though it does happen, even for GBH).
c) If it was found that there was enough evidence of a crime, then quite simply, it goes to court, and then it is for a court to decide guilt or innocence and the appropriate punishment.

What is not appropriate is suggesting that it is wrong to report a possible crime.

[anthony]

Possibly, but less likely, any person who viewed the inappropriate content and therefore has downloaded it onto their PC, and has not reported it.

Or viewed more than 3 images, even if they did report it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

a) the FBI need to establish whether there is content that falls within the remit of that law.

It is not the job of the FBI to describe what content is legal and what content is illegal. It is the job of the law to do so, and to do so in a clear manner by which does not require a federal agency to interpret.

In any case, I highly doubt the FBI is going to engage in such an act of prior restraint.

What is not appropriate is suggesting that it is wrong to report a possible crime.

And who do you believe is doing that?

I do think it is sometimes wrong to report a possible crime. But in this particular case, I don't think Sanger was wrong for reporting it. I do think he's wrong for publicizing his report in the manner that he did. I do think he's wrong for defending the particular law in question. I do think he's most likely wrong that there was a crime committed. I do think he's wrong for using the term "child pornography" (those he's admitted that error).

[dogbiscuit]

a) the FBI need to establish whether there is content that falls within the remit of that law.

It is not the job of the FBI to describe what content is legal and what content is illegal. It is the job of the law to do so, and to do so in a clear manner by which does not require a federal agency to interpret.

In any case, I highly doubt the FBI is going to engage in such an act of prior restraint.

You are rather obviously misquoting me in that reframing - it is not their job to descibe what content is legal - it is their job to measure content against the descriptions set out in the law and assess whether it appears that there is a likelihood of a problem as the first step in a legal process.

It is quite clear in my post that the courts finally decide whether a crime has been committed, but the police do an initial investigation to decide whether there appears to be a potential illegal act - "a case to answer". I'm not sure what the situation is in detail the States, but in Britain, a private individual cannot start criminal proceedings, we cannot go to the Crown Prosecution Service and ask them to start a case. We go to the police; they investigate; they determine whether there appears to be a case to answer, which laws appear to be broken, and in co-operation with the CPS, decide what legal action is appropriate. This isn't Les Miserables you know. The State gives the police that role. When there have been problems in the Houses of Parliament, the MPs do not commence criminal actions, even when they write the laws, they call the police to investigate.

All in all, I would be bemused at your wild re-interpretation of my comment, but this is the Internet.

[anthony]

I'm not sure what the situation is in detail the States

Then why the long detailed description of what should be done? I'm sorry if I misunderstood your post. But it still seems to me that it is incorrect.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[dogbiscuit]

I'm not sure what the situation is in detail the States

Then why the long detailed description of what should be done? I'm sorry if I misunderstood your post. But it still seems to me that it is incorrect.

The detail may be different but surely it is the case that the police are charged with investigating possible crimes which the public bring to their attention? At the end of their process, you either have a fuss about nothing, or you have a case to answer. What I don't see is why you should say "Nothing to do with the police, it is for the law to decide."

Where I would agree with some critics is that there is a need to be careful about going public, because at the point you create public interest, you have the potential to undermine the legal process. There is, of course, an advantage in that if your intention is not to get people punished, but to bring the dubious action to a stop.

Seeing as Larry is here - hi, Larry, we've not been introduced! - perhaps he can outline what he hoped to achieve in simple terms, what he thought might happen if the police thought that there was a problem with Commons?

[Larry Sanger]

Seeing as Larry is here - hi, Larry, we've not been introduced! - perhaps he can outline what he hoped to achieve in simple terms, what he thought might happen if the police thought that there was a problem with Commons?

Hi dogbisquit and thanks for the welcome. If you don't mind, I'm not going to answer, because I don't want to play this game. If I say, "I expected that some people would be arrested," then the Wikipedians will howl that I was trying to get people arrested. If I say, "They'll just get a take-down notice," or "I didn't think about it," and instead somebody does get arrested, then later they will say, "Sanger acted irresponsibly, without thinking."

If, as I suspect, the intent behind the question is to accuse me of being irresponsible in serious matters, I'll simply say that I know very well that what I did was serious.

But then, what Wikipedia and WMF does daily with people's reputations and with respect to the law is serious as well. They have acted outside of the law and basic moral standards on too many occasions, and it's time they were held responsible for this. It gives me no pleasure at all to say this, but it seems necessary for the law to act in order to rein in their most egregious abuses.

This post has been edited by Larry Sanger:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

what Wikipedia and WMF does daily with people's reputations and with respect to the law is serious as well. They have acted outside of the law and basic moral standards on too many occasions, and it's time they were held responsible for this.

It gives me no pleasure at all to say this, but it seems necessary for the law to act in order to rein in their most egregious abuses.

Welcome and thank you for taking these matters seriously.

You are probably the only person in the world at this point who is able to reach and wake up the kind of people we need to in order to stop or change this abuse. But I think your continued support and involvement will hasten the process.

Law is complex, much moreso than public opinion. Public opinion is much easier to create and its effects can be even further reaching. To be honest, I have little faith in the law and I have far more faith in the effects of separating parasites from their source of financial support by which, specifically, I mean the big trusts and foundation who have been laying down considerable funds based on the chimeras presented by the Mediawiki Foundation.

I would say a few formal letters (not emails) to the boards of those foundations would start a far reaching effect. There is no point speaking to foundation whose record of irresponsibility, indulgence and hypocrisy is without doubt (see the immediate protection of Erik Moeller's biography by Tracy E. Walker, aka Killerchihuahua). You need to speak to the responsible parties.

The interesting thing is that Larry's current action is more likely to effect long-term change in Wikipedia than anything anyone else has done. If he's successful in getting Wikipedia put on school filter lists as a "pornography" site (which appears to be one of his goals in this action), that'll significantly cut them off of one of their major recruitment pools for countervandalism patrollers.

Wikipedia's death is most likely to occur when they can no longer recruit enough countervandalism patrollers to effectively combat the continuing onslaught of petty (and not-so-petty) vandals, and the site essentially dissolves into a pile of undifferentiated spam and graffiti.

Hampering their access to the teen and preteen crowd is almost certain to hasten the day.

I wholly and entirely support Sanger's actions. Given the cult-like nature of the Wikipedia, this is nothing else but typical cult-like recruitment done the world over by similar cult religions. If he is successful, these actions, or let them be a campaign, will be his greatest achievements.

I have been looking into Interpol's position and they might be much more useful than the FBI which is bound by some of the morer ludicrous applications of the First Amendment (which would have the Founding Fathers turning in their graves).

It would seem that other nations cut a far clearer line and, free from the overbearing weight of the pornographic industry in the USA and its financial interests, are more free to act ... info@interpol.int.

Larry appears to have attempted a stab at the heart of the Pornopedia. If I was to suggest an additional strategy, it would be to start cut away - internationally - at the edges of the Imperial Wikipedian Beast, in other countries who have clearer lines on public decency. Attempt change where the Mediawiki Foundation is less well funded.

Some may think that I am joking or being ridiculous to make such statements re "cult" but I am not. Of all of the models I have looked at, 'the Wikipedia as a cult in development' is the closest social modeling I can find.

And, ditto, we see cults, new religious movements to give them their politically correct name, deliberately and specifically target the same demographic groups as the Wikipedia, operate on the same pyramidic model and with the same hyperbolic claims of purpose. Jimbo is just like another guru who gets to keep the money (his enlightenment talk fees) and now and again get to poke an adherent it seems.

Jimmy Wales is not the rock star he likes to think of, he is an irresponsible cult leader.

Looking at the list of most viewed pages on the Wikipedia (what was it, 47 out of 50 being porn ... and that just being the tip of the iceberg), I have to ask whether the amateur hard core porn, and the ability to upload it, is part of the reward stimulus to keep adherents addicted along with the rushes of Wiki-warfare.

One could easily argue that it was a bizarre sexual perversion in itself.

Imagine individuals who went sneaking about public and school libraries slipping photographs of themselves masturbating, ejaculating, exposing their lovers' post-coital sexual organs or acting out S&M scenes under the guise it was "educational" for the children who came across it.

Imagine individuals taking an established publication such as the Bible or Britannica and persistently inserting text across it to support pedophiliac or pederastic preferences or attempting to "normalise" extreme sexual behavior.

In essence, they are nothing more than "flashers" ... sex pervs. They justifying themselves under the guise of managing bit of trivia scrapped off Google. The Wikipedia is their playground and access point to young minds.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Larry Sanger]

I would say a few formal letters (not emails) to the boards of those foundations would start a far reaching effect. There is no point speaking to foundation whose record of irresponsibility, indulgence and hypocrisy is without doubt (see the immediate protection of Erik Moeller's biography by Tracy E. Walker, aka Killerchihuahua). You need to speak to the responsible parties.

You know, I honestly hadn't even thought of that, not even once. I'll have to think about that. But what you go on to describe sounds like a pretty unremunerative career, not to mention stressful and risky. I hate to disappoint you but it's unlikely that I will go to all that trouble. I don't have the soul of an Ahab or Javert. Socrates is more my style. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) Which is fun to consider, considering that, I suddenly recall, Jimmy Wales once declared to me that he hated Socrates. That always struck me as being a very strange thing to say.