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

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Erik Moeller on Defamation in the age of the web, Wikipedia's no. 2 defends himself against child sex allegations
Wikipedia and Child Pornography
Does the Wikimedia Foundation knowingly host child pornograhy?
Yes [ 20 ] ** [66.67%]
No [ 10 ] ** [33.33%]
Does Wikipedia tolerate child-sex proponents (pederasts or pedophiles)?
Yes [ 22 ] ** [73.33%]
No [ 8 ] ** [26.67%]
Does the Wikipedia community consider this to be "educational"?
Yes [ 23 ] ** [76.67%]
No [ 7 ] ** [23.33%]
Does the Wikimedia Foundation appeal to children in promoting the use of their website?
Yes [ 29 ] ** [96.67%]
No [ 1 ] ** [3.33%]
Does the Wikimedia Foundation allow underage administrators to access even censored pornography?
Yes [ 27 ] ** [90.00%]
No [ 3 ] ** [10.00%]
Does the Wikimedia Foundation do enough to ensure child protection regarding such issues?
Yes [ 1 ] ** [3.33%]
No [ 10 ] ** [33.33%]
It does nothing [ 19 ] ** [63.33%]
Is the Wikimedia Foundation failing in its duty of care and damaging society?
Yes [ 24 ] ** [80.00%]
No [ 6 ] ** [20.00%]
Total Votes: 210
Guests cannot vote 
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
post Fri 30th April 2010, 12:19am
Post #1


Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267



Reproduced in full for the sake of posterity ... and as the story is hot enough to crash his server thanks to exposure on Fox News where the previously oft forgotten Wikipedian co-founder Larry Sanger reported explicit and detailed drawings of children performing sexual acts. For example:

renderings of a young child about to perform oral sex on a much older man.

Perhaps Mr Moeller now feels a little more sympathy for those who reputations are regularly shat on by his army of unqualified, often uneducated Wikipedian and anonymous "monkeys with typewriters".

To date, Mr Moeller reports being supported by his employers and the pedophiliac topics and imagery still remain.
QUOTE
My Defamation 2.0 Experience by Erik Moeller, aged ...

Today, past defamatory allegations based on an anonymous smear letter which distorted and misrepresented early online comments and writings of mine, were resurrected by Fox News. I want to say definitively: I do not defend nor support acts of sexual violence against children and have never defended pedophilia in any way. Any claims to the contrary are false and a deliberate distortion of my views. Any repetition of those claims is, at best, reckless and irresponsible.

I’ve remained silent on these issues until now, so not to give credence and visibility to these falsehoods. But now, it seems obvious to me that the issue may be regularly revived, and therefore, I want to set the record straight. The experience of being defamed in this fashion has been highly traumatic and distressing to me. Fortunately, I have the strong support of my employer and my loved ones as I deal with this event in my life, and I’m grateful for all the expressions of support I’ve already received, also from within the Wikipedia community. The Wikimedia Foundation has also published a blog statement of support: I am grateful for that too.

Backstory

My name is Erik Moeller. I’ve been a Wikipedia volunteer editor and software developer since 2001. In 2006, I was elected by its volunteer community to the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization which operates it; in 2007, I was reelected, and in 2008, I relocated from Berlin, Germany to San Francisco to join the Wikimedia Foundation staff as Deputy Director.

In May 2008, an anonymous defamer circulated a smear letter about me to various blogs, which resulted in a series of posts written by Owen Thomas for Gawker Media that defamed me as a “defender of pedophilia”. These posts did not attract much attention until April 2010, when Larry Sanger re-circulated reference to them as part of a false accusation that Wikimedia knowingly distributed illegal child pornography. This in turn resulted in a Fox News story, “Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI”, which is prompting me to write this response. I am also now represented by a lawyer, and intend to take legal action.

Prior to joining the Wikimedia Foundation staff, I worked as a journalist (from 1996 to 2005), public speaker, software engineer, and project manager. I wrote a book titled “Die heimliche Medienrevolution” (”The secret media revolution”) published in 2004 and published in a revised second edition 2006.

I wrote my first article for a magazine in 1996, at the age of 17, a piece about artificial intelligence. Journalism was a good way to make a bit of a living, and it also was my way of thinking through complex issues that I was interested in at the time. In addition to many technical and scientific topics, I wrote extensively about censorship, copyright law and file sharing, privacy, religion, and sexuality.

Not all of my writings were published professionally: At age 20 I co-founded a secular humanist weblog called “Der Humanist”. In the following years, I also launched a blog called infoAnarchy, and wrote many stories for a community weblog called Kuro5hin.org. As a Wikipedia editor, I made nearly 7,000 edits to a large variety of articles, on topics ranging from technology to history to popular culture.

Most of my published articles are in German, and a list of many can be found on my personal homepage.

As Deputy Director, I represent the Executive Director, Sue Gardner, in her absence or on delegated projects, and oversee the development of Wikimedia’s product strategy – that is: how does the Wikimedia Foundation use technology to serve its mission, to bring free knowledge to every person on the planet. I am proud of my work: I think the Wikimedia Foundation makes the world a better place, and I am happy to be part of that.

The beginning of the campaign

Two years ago, a Silicon Valley gossip blog operated by Gawker Media, called Valleywag, began a smear campaign against Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation which runs it. Following attacks focused on the personal life of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, in May 2008 the blog ran a series of posts by Owen Thomas which defamed me by calling me a “defender of pedophilia”, deriving its claims from articles and comments I wrote in 2000 and 2001, mixed with malicious fabrications and insinuations.

The defamatory claims which originated in that blog were repeated in a small number of other blogs without deeper reflection. They were not picked up by mainstream media at the time.

The defamation campaign by Gawker was deeply hurtful to me. At the time, I also met with an attorney specializing in defamation, who assessed the claims and confirmed his opinion that they constituted legal defamation, but who also made it clear that trying to have the posts taken down would be very expensive and time-consuming. It was also obvious that any legal action would serve to amplify the visibility of the original posts, and would drive traffic to Valleywag.

I had no reason to believe that Valleywag would engage in a responsible dialogue: quite the opposite. And I didn’t want to increase its public profile. Therefore, I decided then that it was best to ignore the claims, rather than responding to them. It may not have been the right decision, but at the time I believed it was the best among many bad options available to me.

On April 7, 2010, Larry Sanger made public statements to the effect that Wikipedia’s media repository, Wikimedia Commons, knowingly hosts illegal child pornography, and that he had reported the Wikimedia Foundation to the FBI. It’s a false claim related largely to some historic early 20th century drawings, as described in the summary published by the Wikipedia Signpost. The Wikimedia Foundation’s General Counsel examined the drawings and concluded that they do not violate federal laws; we have not received any communication from the FBI to the contrary, and when and if we are asked by authorities to remove images that are illegal, we will do so.

In that context, Sanger repeated the two-year-old defamatory claims about me, adding his own defamatory comment that I was “well known for [my] views in defense of pedophilia”. This resulted in some additional visibility for these claims, most notably the April 27 Fox News story “Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI” . Moreover, two years since the original Gawker publication, the associated blog posts remain accessible and highly ranked in a Google search on my name, thanks to Gawker’s heavy search engine optimization.

At this point, I believe it’s preferable to have a full response to these defamatory claims on the record, rather than letting them go unchallenged. If you write about this situation, I would ask you to provide a reference to this response where relevant, and to avoid linking directly to the defamatory claims in question, both to avoid perpetuating the libel, and to avoid further driving page views to its publishers.

I have no problem being called out for things that I believe. Even attacking me based on things I wrote in my late teens or early twenties without giving me a chance to weigh in is, while not fair play, forgivable. But defaming me based on deliberate, malicious misconstruction of old writings , attributing claims to me which I have never made, describing me as a person who would defend sexual violence against children – that is completely beyond the pale, it is shocking, and it is unforgivable.

I’m not going to speculate about why Valleywag, Larry Sanger and Fox News would do this: your theories are probably not much different from mine.

The intent of this post is therefore the following:
to state clearly which claims are defamatory and false;
to provide further context for the defamation campaign;
to provide context for my writings on the topic of sexuality.

Nature of the defamatory claims

The key defamatory claims originally made by Gawker include:

That I am a “defender of pedophilia”:
Pedophilia is a mental disorder which causes adults to be sexually attracted to children. Pedophiles who act upon these impulses commit abhorrent acts of sexual violence against children. I have not defended pedophilia in any of my writings.

That I have argued that “non-violent child pornography does no harm”:
I have never made such an argument. This claim is apparently based on the malicious insertion of the word “child” into a heading from an article which stated “non-violent pornography does no harm”, based on an interpretation of a German-to-English machine translation. Child sexual abuse is an abhorrent crime, and the depiction of child sexual abuse, and the trade in such depictions, are rightly criminalized.

That I “oversee editorial operations” at Wikipedia, or otherwise control its content:
Wikimedia’s projects are governed by volunteer communities. Individual Wikimedia Foundation staff members, including myself, do not control or direct editorial changes. I am not sure why Valleywag made that claim, which it presumably knows to be false. I can only assume its goal was to amplify excitement and outrage about the story, by implying that I was personally influencing Wikipedia’s articles on controversial topics.

Gawker Media made several other insinuations and defamatory claims in its posts which are so over-the-top that they are barely worth rebutting; one post attributed an edit to the Wikipedia article about child sexual abuse to me which was made well before my first edit to it, based on an incorrect reading of the edit history. That post was completely false.

Context of the defamation campaign

As mentioned above, Gawker Media ran a series of other posts with defamatory attacks against the Wikimedia Foundation before and after its campaign against me. Most of these posts were written by managing editor Owen Thomas, who left Gawker.com in 2009 and recently joined VentureBeat.com.
Gawker Media is a multi-million dollar publishing empire comprised of several blogs. The defamatory claims about me and the Wikimedia Foundation were published in Gawker’s ValleyWag blog, which was later folded into the main Gawker.com site.

The primary Gawker.com blog is a celebrity gossip blog, and ValleyWag applied a comparable editorial style to blogging about more or less notable figures in the Silicon Valley. That’s remarkable in and of itself: regardless of whether individuals are celebrities or not, they are now subjected to the same kind of invasive attacks that celebrities have long endured on a daily basis. Gawker bloggers were, at least at the time of the defamation campaign, rewarded according to the number of pageviews they produced: optimizing for the most sensationalized output possible. Heavy search engine optimization through massive cross-linking and syndication ensures that Gawker posts often rank at the top of relevant searches indefinitely.

Valleywag is widely derided in Silicon Valley: nobody takes it seriously. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t cause real damage. People are afraid of Valleywag, and generally stay quiet about it, for fear they will otherwise be targeted.

That’s presumably why technology blogger Michael Arrington asked in early 2008: When will we have our first Valleywag suicide? Not surprisingly, Arrington became a target of multiple Valleywag posts after writing the story. Indeed, before Valleywag targeted me, I wrote a post in my own blog, titled “The Rise of the Trash Blogs“, in response to the campaign against Jimmy Wales. I have no idea if Owen Thomas ever read it, and indeed, I do know that it was not the trigger for his series of posts about me.

That’s because I know I know the trigger: an anonymous e-mail smear campaign. I know that because Jimmy Wales received a tip-off from a blogger, who forwarded to Jimmy a long, rambling smear letter he had received. The e-mail called me “a man who would actually put Jimmy Wales to shame for his decrepitude”, and went into a long series of snippets from various writings, throwing in some bizarre and mean-spirited insinuations for good measure (for example, it stated that “I can only imagine why Google blocked one page of his blog” – which was, in fact, because of a temporary Wordpress vulnerability –, and that it was no wonder that I had “planned on moving to the Netherlands before the Wikimedia gig took off”).

I was able to confirm that the email was sent to multiple bloggers; the only recipient who ran with it was Owen Thomas. His series of posts is almost entirely based on the original email (and probably some additional correspondence with its author).

I cannot confirm the identity of the anonymous defamer and will not speculate about it. Regardless, it’s evident that Owen Thomas had no problem copying even the most bizarre aspects of the smear letter, wrapping them under the headline “Erik Moeller, No. 2 at Wikipedia, a defender of pedophilia”, accompanied by an old photo. That initial post remains, as of this writing, result number 3 in a Google search for my name. It was also linked from the Fox News story. Again, at the time I didn’t want to dignify the Valleywag posts with a response. They were not journalism as I understand it; nobody had called me to verify facts or ask for a comment. I assumed nobody would take them seriously. And so I decided to remain silent.

My writings about sexuality

My writings about sexuality focus on the core topics of pleasure/affection, pornography, censorship, and children’s sexuality. Not a single article I published either as a journalist or as a blogger focuses on the topic of pedophilia. There’s a reason for that: I have never had any interest in the topic.

Indeed, in order to support the claim that I am a “defender of pedophilia”, the anonymous defamer had to dig deep into my writings. Nine years ago, at the age of 22, I wrote an article titled “Defending the Right to Pleasure“. The article has nothing to do with pedophilia; it doesn’t mention the issue. To find a snippet worth quoting, the defamer had to dig further into the comments section of the article, where I wrote a 3,000 word response addressing various comments.

Pulling from this long, carelessly written comment, the anonymous smear letter, followed by Gawker and later Fox News, quoted three sentences out of context: “What is my position on pedophilia, then? It’s really simple. If the child doesn’t want it [sexual contact], is neutral or ambigious [sic], it’s inappropriate.” It omitted the sentence immediately following: “This excludes most adult/child sexual contact, but only little child/child contact.”

If you read the entire piece, the context of the comment and the article are clear: They argue for a less zealous approach to policing consensual sexual relationships among young people of comparable age.
From the article:

A 16-year-old girl from Oregon, a beautiful, intelligent young woman named Crystal Larkin, was sentenced to 6 years and 3 months in prison for consensual sex with a 12-year-old boy. Another 16-y-o boy was sentenced to the same sentence for having sex with a 13-year-old — again, consensual, and he was imprisoned against the explicit will of the girl and both families. This is the result of the sex abuse scare coupled with the "tough on crime" scare, as these sentences are mandatory minimums.

In other states, large groups of kids aging from 7 to 17 having sex with each other were split up into "victims" and "offenders", half of them sent to prisons, the other half to "therapy". Again, the sexual relationships were playful and non-violent. Teenagers have been imprisoned for making photos of each other while having sex — producing "child pornography".

The intent of the comment was precisely to differentiate between adult/child and child/child sexual contact. The only borderline cases are those of the type described above — statutory rape cases covering consensual sex between teens, one of whom may be a legal adult. Certainly, if I had anticipated at the time that a blog comment would be used 9 years later to defame me, I would have taken greater care to make myself absolutely clear. But, it takes deliberate malicious or sensationalist intent to construct out of this a “defense of pedophilia”, knowing the full context of the comment and blog story, which have nothing to do with pedophilia.

I have consistently defended the right of children of comparable age to engage in consensual, harmless sexual interactions with each other – what’s commonly called “playing doctor”, and also safe sex among teens. I have never defended the “right” of pedophiles to abuse children; child sexual abuse is a crime, and there is no such right. Children also don’t have the ability to consent to sexual activity with pedophiles, and such activities are sexual violence against children by definition.

All my writings (including the above comment in context) are consistent with this view. One particularly pertinent article that I wrote about the topic of children’s sexuality is called “Gefaehrliche Doktorspiele” (”Dangerous doctor games”), which describes the results of several weeks of journalistic research I had done into the criminalization and pathologization of consensual child sexual activity. Many of my views on the topic are also well-reflected by Judith Levine’s excellent book “Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex”.

Sexual violence against children, like all violence against children, is abhorrent. 9 years ago, as a 22-year-old student, I wrote about these topics with an eye to issues and questions that gave me pause – the implied consensus that children are asexual creatures, that sexuality is a switch that is flipped on with adulthood, that non-violent adult pornography is harmful to minors, etc. I didn’t believe those things then, and I don’t believe them now.

The difference between then and now is that those topics are no longer the focus of anything I write about or do. If I did write about them today, I would take greater care to reassure any reader that I, too, believe that sexual violence against children is a horrific crime inflicted upon the weakest members of society. I have always believed that, and any suggestion to the contrary is false.

Defamation in the age of the web

What’s remarkable about this entire episode is how decade-old web writings have been used against me in a blog-based smear campaign, which then, after another two years, successfully escalated into a mainstream news publication. This is an eye-opening example of how defamatory information can be spread – all going back to an anonymous smear letter distributed in 2008 – and how helpless and incompetent mainstream media can be when dealing with such challenges.

Michael Arrington proclaimed last month that “reputation is dead“. The truth is, however, that we’re in the dangerous transitional period where media, especially old media, are still received with a degree of trust that is not necessarily warranted. This defamation will probably continue to damage me and my employer. I can only appeal to you to reject a smear campaign for what it is – and to let it reflect on the people who have engaged in it instead.

I want to make a few final points.

First, I am very grateful to have my employer’s support. Throughout this, the Wikimedia Foundation has supported me without wavering. I am grateful that I work for an organization that is loyal and not easily frightened. I know that’s not true of all employers, and I’m glad it’s true of mine. I do also want to explicitly say that although I voluntarily asked various people at the Wikimedia Foundation to review this post and help me ensure it’s clear, I have not been asked by the Wikimedia Foundation to submit it for approval, nor have they asked me to censor myself in any way.

I also want to explicitly express my thanks to my colleagues — Wikimedia staff and editors — for their personal support. Wikipedia is a high-visibility website, and like anything high-profile, it attracts its share of cranks, detractors and media. Wikipedia editors and staff have sometimes been stalked, publicly maligned, and threatened. I am sad for everyone who has been targeted as a result of their involvement with Wikimedia, and I am grateful for the personal messages of support that I’ve received from others, including those who have themselves been targeted.

I also want to explicitly say this: at this point, I intend this blog post to be my definitive and final comment on this issue. The entire episode has been deeply distressing and a distraction from my work. If you are a journalist who calls me for further comment, I will likely direct you here and be done with it. I have no interest in wasting my time or my employer’s time rebutting false accusations: I have work to do.

Erik Moeller April 2010


* Note to moderators ... please change child to children in poll question if possible. I cannot correct.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Fri 30th April 2010, 2:52am
Post #2


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE
My Defamation 2.0 Experience by Erik Moeller, aged ...

Defamation in the age of the web

What’s remarkable about this entire episode is how decade-old web writings have been used against me in a blog-based smear campaign, which then, after another two years, successfully escalated into a mainstream news publication. This is an eye-opening example of how defamatory information can be spread – all going back to an anonymous smear letter distributed in 2008 – and how helpless and incompetent mainstream media can be when dealing with such challenges.



It's eye-opening! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) His eyes have been opened.

To wit, when it happens to himself, he doesn't like it.

That is all.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Fri 30th April 2010, 3:04am
Post #3


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Which is worse, Erik?
Being "defamed" by the likes of Valleywag?.......
or having Mike Godwin's hand shoved up your ass?

(IMG:http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss273/metasonix/puppetupass.jpg)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Fri 30th April 2010, 3:33am
Post #4


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 30th April 2010, 3:04am) *

Which is worse, Erik?
Being "defamed" by the likes of Valleywag?.......
or having Mike Godwin's hand shoved up your ass?



I hope this doesn't start up that whole Crisco/fisting debate again!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
victim of censorship
post Fri 30th April 2010, 3:55am
Post #5


Not all thugs are Wikipediots, but all Wikipediots are thugs.
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,148
Joined: Tue 6th Jan 2009, 8:33am
From: The SOCK HOP
Member No.: 9,640



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 30th April 2010, 3:04am) *

Which is worse, Erik?
Being "defamed" by the likes of Valleywag?.......
or having Mike Godwin's hand shoved up your ass?

(IMG:http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss273/metasonix/puppetupass.jpg)





GOT TO LOVE IT!!!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
post Fri 30th April 2010, 6:06am
Post #6


Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267



Looking back at Erik Möller's introduction of the topic on Child sexuality in 2003, one has to wonder how seminal it was in future trends?

I should think all the talk of Larry Sanger, the FBI, The Register and the Fox News article are now "reliable" enough for his biography but do not appear to have made it in yet. Calling ColScott ...

QUOTE(Erik Möller @ Fri 30th April 2010, 3:33am) *
It is generally acknowledged that children are capable of feeling sexual pleasure, even if they are not yet able to engage in sexual intercourse with each other, and/or are not yet biologically able to reproduce.
QUOTE
A small minority believes that children are capable of consenting to homosexual acts with older men, but all major pro-homosexual groups have rejected that view.
QUOTE
Again, someone who sexually abuses a minor is not necessarily a pedophile (”exclusively” ”attracted” to ”preadolescents” — emphasis on every word), but may simply be acting out of opportunity. The title “pedophiles and pederasts” is redundant — pedophilia ”includes” pederasty. This does not in any way mitigate the definitional problems of this article.

I hope this is all a key event in the taming of the Wikipedia. Original article and photo here. I sorry but doesn't the photo have the look of a... [censored]?
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 30th April 2010, 3:04am) *
Which is worse, Erik?

Being "defamed" by the likes of Valleywag?... or having Mike Godwin's hand shoved up your ass?

In terms relating to typical Wikipedian interests ... it would depend how old you were and how big his fist is.

There seems to be something strange about abusive individuals that they seldom operate alone and do so usually in rings, like pedophile rings and Pornopedian cabals. So if you have one Wikipedia fist shoved up your ass, you can pretty much be sure that a few of their friends will feel they can do it later too ... the rest sitting around watching and gloating.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Fri 30th April 2010, 8:08am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Fri 30th April 2010, 6:47am
Post #7


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



I dunno... Are you guys sure we're not spoiling our moral-high-ground potential here with all these "ass fisting" references? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Frankly, I've never understood that whole concept - there's little or no pleasure to be had from it for either party, it's unsanitary as all get-out, and I would assume there's also considerable injury risk involved.

OK, now I think I understand - it's all just an allegory for the whole Wikipedia experience, isn't it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/idea.gif)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Daniel Brandt
post Fri 30th April 2010, 6:55am
Post #8


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 12:23am
Member No.: 77



QUOTE

My Defamation 2.0 Experience by Erik Moeller

What’s remarkable about this entire episode is how decade-old web writings have been used against me in a blog-based smear campaign, which then, after another two years, successfully escalated into a mainstream news publication. This is an eye-opening example of how defamatory information can be spread – all going back to an anonymous smear letter distributed in 2008 – and how helpless and incompetent mainstream media can be when dealing with such challenges.


And here's my Defamation 2.0 Experience, with a 2006-04-06 comment from Erik on one of the 14 AfDs it took, spanning almost two years, before my bio was deleted:

QUOTE
"[If] any person who doesn't like their biography could request it to be deleted, [this] would result in huge gaps in our coverage. WP is an encyclopedia which attempts to accumulate the sum of all human knowledge, not the sum of knowledge which people find tolerable." (vote to KEEP) — Erik Moeller
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Subtle Bee
post Fri 30th April 2010, 7:36am
Post #9


melli fera, fera...
****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 340
Joined: Tue 9th Mar 2010, 3:06pm
Member No.: 17,787



QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 29th April 2010, 11:47pm) *

I dunno... Are you guys sure we're not spoiling our moral-high-ground potential here with all these "ass fisting" references? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Our moral topography is deucedly Riemannian, and I just can't do the math.

QUOTE

OK, now I think I understand - it's all just an allegory for the whole Wikipedia experience, isn't it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/idea.gif)

yes

This post has been edited by Subtle Bee: Fri 30th April 2010, 7:39am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Fri 30th April 2010, 8:28am
Post #10


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 29th April 2010, 11:47pm) *
Frankly, I've never understood that whole concept - there's little or no pleasure to be had from it for either party, it's unsanitary as all get-out, and I would assume there's also considerable injury risk involved

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

You could always go to Big Gay Hole, or Gay Fisting Video, or Gay Fisters, or Fisting Central, or RedRight, or Frat Jock Fist, or Studfist, or Gay Fisting Movie, or Gay-Fist, or Gayassfist, or a long list of other such sites, and ask them what they think.

(Google is always ready to help ream you out!)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Fri 30th April 2010, 8:34am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Fri 30th April 2010, 11:05am
Post #11


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



QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Thu 29th April 2010, 8:19pm) *
Perhaps Mr Moeller now feels a little more sympathy for those who reputations are regularly shat on by his army of unqualified, often uneducated Wikipedian and anonymous "monkeys with typewriters".

The above remark got me thinking about the well-known practice of monkeys who fling their feces at intruders who are disturbing their peace.

The recollection took me back to this otherwise long-forgotten posting by one of the dominant monkeys administrators at Cafe Utne...

QUOTE(Kirsten on Cafe Utne in 1998)
Meta.33.495: Post:Meta.31.36 (kirsten) Mon, 13 Jul 1998 02:10:27 CDT (13 lines)

Yep, that is me, Lorelei. A shit flinger. I fling shit everywhere. Every thing I do involves flinging shit. I love to fling shit. The more the better.

Yep. I prove that over and over again here in the Cafe and in real life: you can ask anyone: I fling shit. Even when I am not flinging shit, I really am.

You can't find a post where I am not flinging shit at someone, even if it doesn't look like it.

I don't understand why monkeys administrators fling poo when a simple "harrumph" will do. Don't they realize that the unbecoming practice of poo flinging tends to start up long-running high-visibility poo flinging wars?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
post Fri 30th April 2010, 11:34am
Post #12


Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267



QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 30th April 2010, 6:47am) *
I dunno... Are you guys sure we're not spoiling our moral-high-ground potential here with all these "ass fisting" references? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Frankly, I've never understood that whole concept - there's little or no pleasure to be had from it for either party, it's unsanitary as all get-out, and I would assume there's also considerable injury risk involved.

If so, I apologies and am happy for the topic to be split.

I guess it is more about power and domination and so, yes, it is allegorical of Porno-pedia behavior.

But it also seemed to run parallel to other discussion that we are having regarding, say, hard core porn biography pushing and the likes of Goatse.cx which, of course, gets the full detailed treatment in case any child looking for the sum of human knowledge wished to ask what we are talking about.

Brandt's quotation of Moeller's own comments is very apt.
QUOTE(Erik Moeller @ Fri 30th April 2010, 6:47am) *
[If] any person who doesn't like their biography could request it to be deleted, [this] would result in huge gaps in our coverage. WP is an encyclopedia which attempts to accumulate the sum of all human knowledge, not the sum of knowledge which people find tolerable." (vote to KEEP) — Erik Moeller
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Fri 30th April 2010, 11:41am
Post #13


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



QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 30th April 2010, 7:34am) *
Brandt's quotation of Moeller's own comments is very apt.

WP is a popular culture web site which accumulates the scum of all human trollage.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Fri 30th April 2010, 7:14pm
Post #14


Member
*********

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



QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Thu 29th April 2010, 8:19pm) *

* Note to moderators ... please change child to children in poll question if possible. I cannot correct.


Would be nice to correct everything that's wrong with this poll (such as "Wikipedia Foundation"). I mean, really... how long have we been at this, and we can't get the name of the legal corporation correct?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Fri 30th April 2010, 7:27pm
Post #15


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 29th April 2010, 11:55pm) *

QUOTE

My Defamation 2.0 Experience by Erik Moeller

What’s remarkable about this entire episode is how decade-old web writings have been used against me in a blog-based smear campaign, which then, after another two years, successfully escalated into a mainstream news publication. This is an eye-opening example of how defamatory information can be spread – all going back to an anonymous smear letter distributed in 2008 – and how helpless and incompetent mainstream media can be when dealing with such challenges.


And here's my Defamation 2.0 Experience, with a 2006-04-06 comment from Erik on one of the 14 AfDs it took, spanning almost two years, before my bio was deleted:

QUOTE
"[If] any person who doesn't like their biography could request it to be deleted, [this] would result in huge gaps in our coverage. WP is an encyclopedia which attempts to accumulate the sum of all human knowledge, not the sum of knowledge which people find tolerable." (vote to KEEP) — Erik Moeller


(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

And how do you like that idea now, Herr Moeller?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Fri 30th April 2010, 8:47pm
Post #16


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 30th April 2010, 2:14pm) *
Would be nice to correct everything that's wrong with this poll (such as "Wikipedia Foundation"). I mean, really... how long have we been at this, and we can't get the name of the legal corporation correct?

OK, try it now... (to wit, Mr. Cock-up had referred to the "Wikipedia Foundation" instead of the "Wikimedia Foundation.")

As for the subject at hand, I know I've pointed this out a couple of times before, but it bears repeating.
QUOTE(Erik M.)
"[If] any person who doesn't like their biography could request it to be deleted, [this] would result in huge gaps in our coverage. WP is an encyclopedia which attempts to accumulate the sum of all human knowledge, not the sum of knowledge which people find tolerable." (vote to KEEP) — Erik Moeller

The fact is, this is simply wrong. Even if an opt-out (or "courtesy deletion") policy were to be as liberally applied and inclusive as might be possible without being rejected by a majority of Wikipedians (and please note that it's currently being stonewalled by what I consider to be a very loud, tenacious, and evil minority), there's just no way the attrition rate would ever be more than 5 percent. I doubt it would be more than 1 or 2 percent, personally.

The fact is, most people consider it an honor of sorts to be "included" in Wikipedia, despite the public editability. Of those who don't consider it an honor, most of those aren't going to fuss with it even if they should find out that an opt-out is available. And by all means, Wikipedia should make it fairly difficult to opt out - a written request along with hard-copy proof of identity at the very least. And if the main reason they don't do this now is their fear of having to maintain a "bureaucracy" to deal with such requests, well, fuck them. They created the problem, let them at least deal with some small aspect of solving it. I have no sympathy for that argument whatsoever.

But I also have no sympathy for fools like Moeller, who say utterly stupid and irresponsible things like "if we allow an opt-out, we'll lose half our BLP articles." That's total and complete bullshit. Adjusting for article-count inflation, right now I'd be shocked if they "lost" more than 1,200 in the first year, and maybe 400 per year after that. (Though admittedly, if the media keeps making the WP community to be some sort of pedophile haven, that's going to boost those numbers somewhat.)

What's more, if they implement an opt-out policy, that takes away much of their liability-related argument against lowering BLP notability standards. I'm not saying they should lower them, in fact I think they'd be foolish to do so, but if people who have a real problem with their BLP can simply opt out, what's the moral/ethical objection to bringing in more articles about more people? They could easily gain more articles than they lose.

Hopefully after this incident, Mr. Moeller will have at least taken a small step towards finally learning that it isn't the information itself that people aren't finding "tolerable" - it's the loss of privacy and control over one's life and reputation that Wikipedia inherently represents, and the fear of having to deal with a faceless, anonymous, and often hostile community of people with no professional journalistic integrity or academic standing to lose, just to set the record straight.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Fri 30th April 2010, 8:54pm
Post #17


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 30th April 2010, 4:47pm) *

Hopefully after this incident, Mr. Moeller will have at least taken a small step towards finally learning that it isn't the information itself that people aren't finding "tolerable" — it's the loss of privacy and control over one's life and reputation that Wikipedia inherently represents, and the fear of having to deal with a faceless, anonymous, and often hostile community of people with no professional journalistic integrity or academic standing to lose, just to set the record straight.


I won't be holding my breath …

(IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eva Destruction
post Fri 30th April 2010, 9:03pm
Post #18


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 7:22pm
Member No.: 3,301

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 30th April 2010, 9:47pm) *

The fact is, this is simply wrong. Even if an opt-out (or "courtesy deletion") policy were to be as liberally applied and inclusive as might be possible without being rejected by a majority of Wikipedians (and please note that it's currently being stonewalled by what I consider to be a very loud, tenacious, and evil minority), there's just no way the attrition rate would ever be more than 5 percent. I doubt it would be more than 1 or 2 percent, personally.

It wouldn't even need that; a perfectly workable "opt-out" policy would be to create a basic article, listing only the most basic and uncontroversial facts, and lock that in place. ("Don Murphy is an American film producer"). That would avoid the "random redlinks" problem and glaring gaps in coverage, without the muckrake-and-libel for people who objected to it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HRIP7
post Fri 30th April 2010, 9:18pm
Post #19


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat 6th Feb 2010, 3:58pm
Member No.: 17,020

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 30th April 2010, 8:27pm) *

QUOTE
"[If] any person who doesn't like their biography could request it to be deleted, [this] would result in huge gaps in our coverage. WP is an encyclopedia which attempts to accumulate the sum of all human knowledge, not the sum of knowledge which people find tolerable." (vote to KEEP) — Erik Moeller


I notice Erik Möller's BLP has been pre-emptively protected, to prevent addition of the Fox News story. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

So, looking at the wider issues, and recalling the recently deleted Eric Ely BLP, what is the solution for Wikipedia? How should Wikipedia deal with journalistic BLP sources of the sort used in Eric Ely's "BLP", or of the sort now available for Möller?

It is certainly clear that when the subject of arguably unfair press coverage is one of their own, Wikipedia applies criteria that are quite different from those applied to Brandt.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Fri 30th April 2010, 9:39pm
Post #20


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Fri 30th April 2010, 2:18pm) *

I notice Erik Möller's BLP has been pre-emptively protected, to prevent addition of the Fox News story. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)
[...]
It is certainly clear that when the subject of arguably unfair press coverage is one of their own, Wikipedia applies criteria that are quite different from those applied to Brandt.


It's long been clear than when unfair press coverage is applied to one of their own, WP applies BLP criteria different from those they apply to ANYBODY else. The only thing that comes close is the BLP coverage of some marginally notable wanker who is involved in some issue that is holy to a powerful admin (or who actually IS the editor, ala Weiss) and who thus succeeds in WP:OWNing their BLP. COI be damned. But for WMF personnel, it goes far beyond even that. This is because they are goddamned hypocritical bastards.

And because they learn nothing general, even while doing all this, and even though they do it repeatedly over the years, I have to conclude that they aren't very bright in many ways, either.

Of course, intelligence is a multifaceted thing. I'm just astounded that there's no trace of "G" here. These people are no dumbies when it comes to writing or whatever. They are college grads. They haven't had concussions and brain damage. But when it comes to social matters, their EQ is about 70. They are dumb as rocks; stupid is as stupid does.

They are the Forrest Gumps of EQ. Remember how Gump's IQ was 70, but in the film we find that his EQ is appealingly about 130 or more? Well, with the crew of WMF, it's the other way around.

Not a new observation. But still fascinating. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 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, 3:04pm