The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

12 Pages V  1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Valleywag's accusations against Erik Moeller, Claims WMF Deputy Director is "a defender of pedophilia"
Newsfood
post Tue 6th May 2008, 12:10am
Post #1


Senior Member
****

Group: Bots
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed 12th Dec 2007, 5:55am
Member No.: 4,132



Valleywag

Erik Möller, No. 2 at Wikipedia, a defender of pedophilia


"Erik Möller is the deputy director at Wikipedia's nonprofit parent, the Wikimedia Foundation. As such, he oversees tech and editorial operations at the world's most comprehensive history of obscure British contemporary art movements. And as an editor on the site, he takes special interest in subjects such as "child abuse," "child sexuality," and "pedophilia.""
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
the fieryangel
post Tue 6th May 2008, 8:55am
Post #2


the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined: Tue 21st Nov 2006, 9:49pm
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577



QUOTE(Newsfood @ Tue 6th May 2008, 12:10am) *

Valleywag

Erik Möller, No. 2 at Wikipedia, a defender of pedophilia


"Erik Möller is the deputy director at Wikipedia's nonprofit parent, the Wikimedia Foundation. As such, he oversees tech and editorial operations at the world's most comprehensive history of obscure British contemporary art movements. And as an editor on the site, he takes special interest in subjects such as "child abuse," "child sexuality," and "pedophilia.""


I wonder if he was a "boyscout", way back when....

Now, either Valleywag is gonna get sued to hell and back...or more people are going to be looking at this. Something is definitely rotten in Denmark....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
the fieryangel
post Tue 6th May 2008, 9:06am
Post #3


the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined: Tue 21st Nov 2006, 9:49pm
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577



Copying this here from the "blog" forum

Valleywag's headline :

QUOTE
Erik Möller, No. 2 at Wikipedia, a defender of pedophilia


Granted, Valleywag is not mainstream media, if enough information were tied into this (such as the Boy Scouts/Spanking incident over at Wikia), this could blow up.

I would be surprised if WMF did not sue because of this....

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Tue 6th May 2008, 9:23am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robster
post Tue 6th May 2008, 11:01am
Post #4


"Community"? Really?
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue 20th Mar 2007, 2:24am
Member No.: 1,155

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 6th May 2008, 5:06am) *

I would be surprised if WMF did not sue because of this....


As Roger Clemens has found out, though, you don't file a defamation suit if you have skeletons in your closet.

So unless the Heir Apparent has a very clean background, there won't be a lawsuit.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Tue 6th May 2008, 11:55am
Post #5


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

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Let me argue on the other side for once. Moeller's comments were taken absurdly out of context. Read his article in full, or at least the stuff around the quoted material. I don't see anything particularly damning in anything there, and indeed he makes some thoughtful and good comments (with which I don't agree, but there's nothing inherently disturbing in his remarks).

I haven't linked to the Boyline one for obvious reasons, but I'm interested in what they say.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Tue 6th May 2008, 12:36pm
Post #6


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

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



There is another thread on this, which I commented on (the comment being that Moeller's remarks could be charitably construed as 'taken out of context'. To be fair, I suggest reading everything he says.

[edit] the comments make interesting reading. Someone has correctly pointed out what I have just said (namely that M's remarks have been taken out of context). That person has then been accused of supporting pedophilia....

The problem is that M's remarks are of the close-to-the-wire-but-not-quite-over remark that look like smoke, even if there is no fire.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 6th May 2008, 12:46pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
the fieryangel
post Tue 6th May 2008, 12:48pm
Post #7


the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined: Tue 21st Nov 2006, 9:49pm
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 6th May 2008, 11:55am) *

Let me argue on the other side for once. Moeller's comments were taken absurdly out of context. Read his article in full, or at least the stuff around the quoted material. I don't see anything particularly damning in anything there, and indeed he makes some thoughtful and good comments (with which I don't agree, but there's nothing inherently disturbing in his remarks).

I haven't linked to the Boyline one for obvious reasons, but I'm interested in what they say.


I think that Wikipedia not taking a hard line on pro-pedo articles and editors will certainly be taken out of context and come back to haunt them. Their whole "don't ask, don't tell" tactic just isn't enough for this kind of thing.

I agree that this portrayal of Erik is definitely not fair, but I can't help thinking that they could have avoided this entirely by having a clear policy against all pro-pedo material, encyclopaedic or not....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
the fieryangel
post Tue 6th May 2008, 12:54pm
Post #8


the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined: Tue 21st Nov 2006, 9:49pm
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 6th May 2008, 12:36pm) *

There is another thread on this, which I commented on (the comment being that Moeller's remarks could be charitably construed as 'taken out of context'. To be fair, I suggest reading everything he says.

[edit] the comments make interesting reading. Someone has correctly pointed out what I have just said (namely that M's remarks have been taken out of context). That person has then been accused of supporting pedophilia....

The problem is that M's remarks are of the close-to-the-wire-but-not-quite-over remark that look like smoke, even if there is no fire.


WP should have implemented a much clearer policy regarding pro-pedophilia articles and editors. The procedures that they have in place, which effectively takes all instances of this "behind the curtains" of ARB-COM etc and also which punishes those who try to out people perceived as pushing the pedophile agenda as severely as those who are caught pushing said agenda can only lead to the idea that they are somehow supporting this agenda. It's quite obvious that 1. at one point they were pretty much allowing any sort of sexual expression to be covered equally but 2. this openness has changed, except you have to have followed the entire story to understand that.

This isn't good for WMF...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Tue 6th May 2008, 12:58pm
Post #9


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

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Any time any individual or organization operates substantially below best practices, it's not good for them. It's better to do one's best.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Random832
post Tue 6th May 2008, 1:36pm
Post #10


meh
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,933
Joined: Thu 14th Feb 2008, 8:52pm
Member No.: 4,844

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 6th May 2008, 12:54pm) *

The procedures [...] which punishes those who try to out people perceived as pushing the pedophile agenda as severely as those who are caught pushing said agenda.


Thank you, that's a very clear way of stating the fundamental problem with the way WP deals with this. I suspect the cause is that it's [quite obviously] wrong to make a false accusation - which got translated somewhere along the way to it being "wrong" to make an incorrect accusation, leading to a paranoid environment where since every accusation results in either the accused or the accuser being banned, so everyone's afraid to say anything.

This post has been edited by Random832: Tue 6th May 2008, 1:36pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
the fieryangel
post Tue 6th May 2008, 1:58pm
Post #11


the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined: Tue 21st Nov 2006, 9:49pm
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577



I just noticed the following quote :

QUOTE
One wonders if trustees of the Sloan Foundation, which recently donated millions to Wikipedia after Möller pitched them, share his views on pedophilia. BoyLinks finds his pro-pedophilia arguments agreeable, as does Martijn, a Dutch counterpart to the North American Man-Boy Love Association.


They've also got the Sloan foundation tagged. I wonder how long will it be before this comes up on the Sloan foundation's google hits?

Edited: It's already there : http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&client=f...echercher&meta=

It's number two in that search string....

In the comments on this article, somebody just linked to the "infamous" Wikipedophile article over at ED....

There might only be smoke here, but there's enough evidence for these guys to get quite a lot of milage out of it...

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Tue 6th May 2008, 1:58pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
the fieryangel
post Tue 6th May 2008, 1:54pm
Post #12


the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined: Tue 21st Nov 2006, 9:49pm
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577



QUOTE(Random832 @ Tue 6th May 2008, 1:36pm) *

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 6th May 2008, 12:54pm) *

The procedures [...] which punishes those who try to out people perceived as pushing the pedophile agenda as severely as those who are caught pushing said agenda.


Thank you, that's a very clear way of stating the fundamental problem with the way WP deals with this. I suspect the cause is that it's [quite obviously] wrong to make a false accusation - which got translated somewhere along the way to it being "wrong" to make an incorrect accusation, leading to a paranoid environment where since every accusation results in either the accused or the accuser being banned, so everyone's afraid to say anything.


Actually I'm beginning to think that this was more about embarrassing the Sloan foundation than anything else...Look at the number two result on this Google search....



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Tue 6th May 2008, 2:05pm
Post #13


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 6th May 2008, 9:54am) *

Actually I'm beginning to think that this was more about embarrassing the Sloan foundation than anything else...Look at the number two result on this Google search....


It's #1 for me, but nobody's going to naturally search "Erik Moller" in a batch with Sloan Foundation and Wikipedia.

Just like hardly anybody would ever search for this, but look what site is #1.

Greg
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Tue 6th May 2008, 2:59pm
Post #14


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

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Just to note there are two threads, one in Bureaucracy here

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=99379

and one in ‘Blogland’ here

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=99282
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Tue 6th May 2008, 2:59pm
Post #15


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

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Just to note there are two threads, one in Bureaucracy here

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=99379

and one in ‘Blogland’ here

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=99282
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Tue 6th May 2008, 3:37pm
Post #16


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
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(Peter Damian @ Tue 6th May 2008, 5:55am) *

Let me argue on the other side for once. Moeller's comments were taken absurdly out of context. Read his article in full, or at least the stuff around the quoted material. I don't see anything particularly damning in anything there, and indeed he makes some thoughtful and good comments (with which I don't agree, but there's nothing inherently disturbing in his remarks).

I haven't linked to the Boyline one for obvious reasons, but I'm interested in what they say.


Not so much taken out of context as isolated from his overall purpose in writing the article. What has happened once again is yet another instance how "the cult of the amateur" distorts judgment. Erik launches into a very Wikipedian amateur lecture of child sexuality. He has the usual Wikipedian pseudo-reliance on authority, but in the usual manner of an amateur cut off from the actual peer review and participation in the field comes up with some very outlying conclusions. These include the premise that children, especially "older children" should be permitted to enter into any non-coerced sexual relationships they wish to pursue. Erik is blindly following his own thinking, cut off from ideas of people who know better. He concludes that this includes adult/child sexual relations. So long as child is good with it all. "Older children" are not defined but what... 13, 14 , 15 years old? This pedophilia is ok with me if it is ok with the child position was just a stepping stone in Erick's reasoning. But it was a step he seemed to clearly take in the context I have just described.

Erick may not be a pedophile or even their fellow traveler. The main thrust of his argument was meant to defend a permissive attitude to "older children" having sex with other older children and the harm done by repressing sexuality. Two fifteen year old children having sex may be a parental management problem, and may have serious consequence for the children involved, but it is hardly anything that toleration of would be shocking.

What is of greater concern is the underlying abandonment of respect for wider community norms or the positions of scholars, professionals and activists seeking to protect children. In the world of the wisdom of crowds, what is good for children depends on whoever shows up on any given day in that crowd. This is certainly no way to run a website that engages thousands of child to collaborate in a project with thousands of adults.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Tue 6th May 2008, 3:44pm
Post #17


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 6th May 2008, 11:37am) *

...What is of greater concern is the underlying abandonment of respect for wider community norms or the positions of scholars, professionals and activists seeking to protect children. In the world of the wisdom of crowds, what is good for children depends on whoever shows up on any given day in that crowd. This is certainly no way to run a website that engages thousands of child to collaborate in a project with thousands of adults.


I could take the entire day and not be able to write something as precisely cogent as what GlassBeadGame just wrote. Thank you, GBG!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
the fieryangel
post Tue 6th May 2008, 3:48pm
Post #18


the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined: Tue 21st Nov 2006, 9:49pm
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577



QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 6th May 2008, 3:37pm) *

What is of greater concern is the underlying abandonment of respect for wider community norms or the positions of scholars, professionals and activists seeking to protect children. In the world of the wisdom of crowds, what is good for children depends on whoever shows up on any given day in that crowd. This is certainly no way to run a website that engages thousands of child to collaborate in a project with thousands of adults.


This is the problem exactly: Wikipedia is about the validation of what we think rather than about actually collecting knowledge. Erik thinks (probably quite reasonably from his standpoint) let the kids have their sexuality if that's what they want., but he doesn't consider the complete implications of what he's suggesting. There are social workers, child psychologists, teachers, doctors and others who have done research on this subject who might have surprising things to add, but the only that matters is the validation of his own personal agenda regarding child sexuality.

It's irresponsible. It's also completely amateur, as you so clearly put it. But it is, indeed, the Wiki way...a world in which electric knives are primarily used to create buttocks padding for male transvestites....and this is the sum of all human knowledge....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guy
post Tue 6th May 2008, 4:57pm
Post #19


Postmaster General
*********

Group: Inactive
Posts: 4,294
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 8:52pm
From: London
Member No.: 23



Mod note: threads merged as requested
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kato
post Wed 7th May 2008, 1:41am
Post #20


dhd
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined: Fri 29th Dec 2006, 8:39pm
Member No.: 767



More on Eric Moeller and paedophilia.

http://valleywag.com/387735/wikipedia-lead...are-pornography

Apparently he wrote a paper back in 2000 asserting that "nonviolent child pornography does no harm".

Regarding Moeller's nasty views against BLP victims on this site, as Eloquence, and now these idiotic and plain creepy revelations, he's proving to be possibly the most sinister figure in the cult. No wonder Angela gave him the shrug.

Danny Wool rightly asks why the WMF didn't background check Moeller and find this stuff out before they employed him. I mean, it was after the Carolyn Doran scandal, and after their claims that the WMF were getting tighter on these kind of things.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

12 Pages V  1 2 3 > » 
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: 6th 12 14, 3:19pm