Valleywag's accusations against Erik Moeller, Claims WMF Deputy Director is "a defender of pedophilia" Options

So, if Dogbiscuit's daughter's car had broken down on the way to Romania and she had been sexually assaulted; or if a band of gypsies came and sold her into slavery while she sat around with a bunch of children at some camp in Romania, he would likely have blamed Wikipedia as the real problem. Yes, Somey, "Narcissists always think it's somebody's else's fault" and so do negligent parents.

What if, say, a picture of your 9 year old boy was used by Wikipedians and placed on Jimbo Wales's Boy-Scout Sex Site. And when you complained about it, Wikipedians denounced you as "threatening their freedom".

Well that happened on Wikipedia.

What if your site was frequented by known paedophiles who attempt to groom minors, who you freely allow to monitor and control content.

Well that happens on Wikipedia.

Why use hypotheticals?

Try this for starters: 1) this is the problem. 2) this is a possible solution.

The Problem: A heady mix of loony libertarianism and a Cult of The Amateur has led us to a situation where 13 year olds with no accredited experience have been given power in the largest information resource and one of the largest social networking systems devised.

The Solution: Grow up, and at least try and acknowledge some responsibility, and the obvious problems with this. (See Child Spanking Wiki episode for starters)

The Problem: The Internet is filled with morons. And I'm not just referring to Wikipedians, here. Remember the uproar from Wikipedia's critics (including some people here on WR) over [[User:Virgin United]] creating the article [[Virgin Unite]]. Yeah, that was me. a89b588c

The solution: I don't know. I don't think there is one.

This post has been edited by anthony: Wed 7th May 2008, 4:02pm

The solution: I don't know. I don't think there is one.

What, you don't think that people who spend years training and then practicing the complex profession of Child Protection haven't got a solution?

First, I have a deal of sympathy with Erik. He wrote a terrible, extremist, pseudo-profound, libertarian essay some years ago, and now it has come back with a vengeance. Whilst some will want to infer more than that, there is zero evidence to suggest it. Damn to hell what he said, but give him a break.

I wonder if Doc has a point here. I never wrote an extremist essay at a young age about what Erik is going on about, but I do remember writing a naive, extremist, and libertarian essay about legalizing all drugs! That was for school, and I suppose it is probably not online (who knows!). My point is that, since I was 18-22 years of age, my political/ideological/philosophical opinions have become much more nuanced, less extreme, and hopefully "mature".

Is there a place where Erik has responded to this information? My guess is that he probably holds similar views now as he did then, since the poor guy never got a chance to "mature" his views about things like this, as he threw himself into Jimbo's Big Bag of Propaganda and Trivia. Wikipedia is a place that can foster these views, as you find other people that believe the same as you do. Most of the time, these naive, extremist views are rather funny and good for a laugh--this one is not so funny. Erik would probably call that "evidence" of my "hysteria".

The solution: I don't know. I don't think there is one.

What, you don't think that people who spend years training and then practicing the complex profession of Child Protection haven't got a solution?

Now now Kato, we all know that the opinions of professionals are worthless in our brave new wikiworld. We must trust in consensus and the wisdom of crowds.

The solution: I don't know. I don't think there is one.

What, you don't think that people who spend years training and then practicing the complex profession of Child Protection haven't got a solution?

Which problem, the problem of child abuse, or the problem of the Internet being filled with morons? In either case, I'd say no, they don't have the solution, though in the case of the former problem they probably have some good ideas.

The solution: I don't know. I don't think there is one.

What, you don't think that people who spend years training and then practicing the complex profession of Child Protection haven't got a solution?

Now now Kato, we all know that the opinions of professionals are worthless in our brave new wikiworld. We must trust in consensus and the wisdom of crowds.

O wonder!
How many goodly creatures there are here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world
That has such people in't!

-Miranda, Act V, Scene I. The Tempest

The solution: I don't know. I don't think there is one.

What, you don't think that people who spend years training and then practicing the complex profession of Child Protection haven't got a solution?

Which problem, the problem of child abuse, or the problem of the Internet being filled with morons? In either case, I'd say no, they don't have the solution, though in the case of the former problem they probably have some good ideas.

We don't have people grooming minors on our site. We don't have minors controlling content. We don't have minors presenting photographs of themselves. We don't have minors on this site period.

We don't have your problem. Because we implemented responsible measures in compliance with COPPA, drawn up by professionals. The kind of measures anyone in Real Society would understand. Only when fantasist lunatics like Erik Moeller get involved do you find problems.

Ah, the fine intellectual rigor of Wikipedia Review!

David, every time you have engaged with me on this you have been entirely dismissive and used trite arguments to belittle the suggestion that there is even an issue to discuss. For example, you are the one who went off into hyperbole about sarin attacks and crashes into skyscrapers, that theoretical problems were problems that needed no consideration. You told me I was an old granny who was clearly abusing my children with my obsessive and misplaced concerns and I spend my days in fear and loathing of the outside world. I ignored those very personal attacks, and didn't even once type "Please NPA!"

You seem to think that you have achieved some intellectual rigour in your thought processes that absolves you from explaining them, we will simply divine your intellect, and are therefore allowed to dismiss others comments as we similarly divine your analytical skills.

You think because you call yourself a journalist that you have achieved some higher mental being that allows you into view everything objectively. It was blatantly obvious last time you came you had such preconceived ideas about Wikipedia Review that you got hysterical and hurt when people challenged you, and you ran off crying that we had all been nasty to you, and it is all our fault.

Just go back and read that Wikipedia discussion. Look at how much time you spent ranting and raving about shooting the messenger. I did give you the credit to respond to your points, when they were, frankly asinine. How much time did you spend thinking about the issue? I'd guess no time at all, because you just think you know it all, you just spouted out the same old tired excuses for doing fuck all.

I am happy to discuss this with you sensibly, but it is a two way street, and you need to show me and others that you have actually considered the issue properly. You sounded so much like celardor, some 18 year old who is so innocent that he thinks that because Wikipedia has a policy WP:NOT#MYSPACE that there is no social networking. Even he had the good grace to admit it is just a role playing game.

Problem

O wonder!
How many goodly creatures there are here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world
That has such people in't!

— Miranda, Act V, Scene I. The Tempest

Solution

You have the right to remain silent …
— No, The Other Miranda

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Wed 7th May 2008, 4:24pm

You seem to think that you have achieved some intellectual rigour in your thought processes that absolves you from explaining them, we will simply divine your intellect, and are therefore allowed to dismiss others comments as we similarly divine your analytical skills.

David Shankbone is the usual privileged, naive Wikipedian with no idea what goes on at The Front Line of Society. He can treat the world as his stage and make flippant comments at will. Much like the idiotic Erik Moeller.

Stick 'em in The Front Line. With all its complications and complexities, with all its disappointments and difficulties. And ask them what they think after that experience.

Being extremists, they'd probably lurch in the opposite direction and start advocating outlandish authoritarian practices to prevent the ongoing tragedy of Child Abuse that make things even worse. In my experience, that is what these naive kinds of folk do. Swing from ludicrous premise to ludicrous premise.

What everyone should be doing is applying responsible measures, and seeking to aspire to professional norms.

The Problem: A heady mix of loony libertarianism and a Cult of The Amateur has led us to a situation where 13 year olds with no accredited experience have been given power in the largest information resource and one of the largest social networking systems devised.

The Solution: Grow up, and at least try and acknowledge some responsibility, and the obvious problems with this. (See Child Spanking Wiki episode for starters)

Word. (aka: Right-on)

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....

I think that this has more to do with cronysim as in "one of us, one of us" sort of supporting anyone who's part of the clique (ahem, cabal).

Because the last time I checked, Wikipedia was on a reactionary we-got-busted-allowing-pedos bender resulting in ad-hoc attacks on 20-something young men expressing attraction towards 15-somethings. Scads of relatively normal (however horney) guys got unfairly banned and labelled as pedos. While their dating preferences, if acted upon, would have caused them trouble, they probably didn't deserve to be humiliated online as pedophiles - some in their real namess (!).

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 7th May 2008, 4:55pm

David Shankbone is the usual privileged, naive Wikipedian with no idea what goes on at The Front Line of Society. He can treat the world as his stage and make flippant comments at will...

It isn't just flippancy, it's this stubborn refusal to avoid strawman arguments in the face of serious issues that I find really disturbing.

I mean, this is a case in point. Presumably this car-trip to Romania was chaperoned by adults who were known to Mr. Dogbiscuit, everyone had passports and visas and reasonable expectation of safe-conduct, and their families knew, for the most part, where they were going to be at any given time and how to reach them. Even then, I'm sure he was worried sick, but it would have been a far more controlled situation than Wikipedia - the only difference is that Wikipedia can expose your kids to dangerous people without them even leaving your house.

On WP, you just don't know who is who, how old anyone is, where they are in relation to you geographically, who's telling the truth about anything, who's lying, what anyone's agenda is... You just don't know.

Now, I'd probably be willing to accept the idea that any internet site that's accessed from a controlled environment, like a house or a school, is inherently safer for a minor than an adult-supervised car trip to Romania - or at least physically safer. Emotionally, psychologically, developmentally, though... maybe not so much.

But then to say that Mr. Dogbiscuit would have blamed Wikipedia if his daughter had been kidnapped in Romania, well... that's an almost comically stupid thing to say. He just destroys his own argument, which prior to that might have had some degree of validity.

...over [[User:Virgin United]] creating the article [[Virgin Unite]]. Yeah, that was me. a89b588c

Oh my God! It's a single purpose account! Block the IP! Ban the user! Get someone at the WMF to write a press release denouncing their activity!

The criminal system, in the US and in the UK, is based on the false principles of "punishment" and "sin".

Heh. Did a European (German) really write this? Puh-leese. This is a European who is blissfully ill-apprised of the French penal system, which (traditionally has) viewed rehabilitation as a non-ideal. But in the spirit of America-bashing, and in the absence of American's savvy enough to call him on the ignorance of his blather, he reigns supreme on Wikipedia. Hello? FBI cybercrime "thought police©"? Tattle-alert!

And p.s., Eric. You don't have to live in the U.S., if you find it so offensive. There's an nice big country on the other side of the planet, called "your home".

I can't stand guys like this. Mostly because most Americans don't know enough about his home to put him in his place. Hey Eric. Did you know abortion wasn't legal in Germany until the DDR was integrated 14 years ago? That they used to arrest women on trains coming back from Holland? No?

These Christian principles are enforced to satisfy the lust for revenge, not to re-integrate the offenders into society.

Oh, now with the religion-bashing. And yeah, re-integration of pedos into society is a huge problem, because they honestly have problems stopping, and this genius hasn't done his reading before making declarative pronouncements.

Well, well. The world may yet know the genius of Wikipedia yet. Ahem.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 7th May 2008, 5:40pm

We know there is a large underground of pro-paedos editing on Wikipedia.

I don't think we do know that there is a large underground of pro-pedophiles editing on Wikipedia, its much more likely a very small group of pro-pedophiles who edit using multiple accounts, many through open proxies.

You guys really exist in your own reality - yet another "prime example" of this: I haven't mentioned Erik Moeller once, but have kept my arguments centered on Dogbiscuit and his talking about the danger to children (and adults) at Meet-ups.

So, I guess I have lost since the wisdom of the crowd (four fingers point at me, etc.) has decided I have lost. So, I will accept the wisdom of the crowd.

It's funny that so many of the hivemind tendencies that many on WR see in Wikipedia can be seen here. I'm not the first to point that out.

I'm not worried about meet-ups, I'm worried about Wikipedia, the internet encyclopedia. I've said before that we monitor our children's access to the internet closely, but Wikipedia for the moment is an 'allowed site' because it does have a limited educational value.

David, you say it is the parents' job to protect children. Let me give you an analogy. I make sure my children use licensed taxis. What if one of them were attacked, and the licensing authority said that it is my job to protect my children? Poo to that. That's what licensing, and 'trusted authorities' in general are for.

Wikipedia admittedly is not licensed. Perhaps it should be? And in any case, it comes across in a 'you can trust me' kind of way. It says 'encyclopedia' on the front. It doesn't say 'written by paedophiles' on the front. Why not?

[edit] Perhaps I will start a campaign about this. First of all, to the Church of England's education officer, telling him all about this, and perhaps he can then put internet protection on Wikipedia for all the 1,000 or more schools they are in charge of. David, that would be my duty as a parent, do you agree? And what about all these net-nanny products like Websense which monitor access to pornographic sites, perhaps they should put Wikipedia on the list too? That would stop anyone accessing it at work.

Wikipedia's 'license' is its supposed educational value. Perhaps that license should be revoked.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Wed 7th May 2008, 6:18pm

You guys really exist in your own reality - yet another "prime example" of this: I haven't mentioned Erik Moeller once, but have kept my arguments centered on Dogbiscuit and his talking about the danger to children (and adults) at Meet-ups.

So, I guess I have lost since the wisdom of the crowd (four fingers point at me, etc.) has decided I have lost. So, I will accept the wisdom of the crowd.

It's funny that so many of the hivemind tendencies that many on WR see in Wikipedia can be seen here. I'm not the first to point that out.

I'm not worried about meet-ups, I'm worried about Wikipedia, the internet encyclopedia. I've said before that we monitor access closely, but Wikipedia for the moment is an 'allowed site' because it does have a limited educational value.

David, you say it is the parents' job to protect children. Let me give you an analogy. I make sure my children use licensed taxis. What if one of them were attacked, and the licensing authority said that it is my job to protect my children? Poo to that. That's what licensing, and 'trusted authorities' in general are for.

Wikipedia admittedly is not licensed. Perhaps it should be? And in any case, it comes across in a 'you can trust me' kind of way. It says 'encyclopedia' on the front. It doesn't say 'written by paedophiles' on the front. Why not?

Great post Peter. Spot on.

It says 'encyclopedia' on the front. It doesn't say 'written by paedophiles' on the front. Why not?

I think that it should have a prominent child warning, a tool to block out non-child friendly content, and prominent warnings about COI, and other aspects which can cause people due harm.

But who listens to me?

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 7th May 2008, 6:28pm

The issue is that Wales and his acolytes swan around the world lecturing educationalists and making other crass comments about Wikipedia in schools.

Meanwhile his site is exhibiting outrageous lapses in judgment regarding Child Protection, while his next in command is launching absurd defenses of Paedpohilia.

That conflict is a serious problem.

The solution? Get serious and aspire to be COPPA compliant.

Shankbone's attempts to divert the attention and deny that there are both problems and solutions already outlined in this thread is risible.