EXCLUSIVE: Pedophiles Find a Home on Wikipedia - FOXNews Options Rating

[Newsfeed]

FOXNews

Wikipedia has become home base for a loose worldwide network of pedophiles who are campaigning to spin the popular online encyclopedia in ...

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/25/...e-on-wikipedia/

[dogbiscuit]

Wikipedia is such an easy target, through their own inaction, that I am amazed that senior politicians haven't lept on it before.

It is always worth political points to bash an unpopular minority, and an unpopular criminal minority - well, who is going to come above the parapet to fight for their freedom? (OK, I underestimate the rose-tinted world of the freedom advocates, but hey).

Good on Fox News, they scented a story, and have kept working behind the scenes until they've managed to get some traction. Dare I say that is proper journalism, even if the presentation sucks.

Jimbo has personally probably done enough to avoid taking the fall for this with his pronouncements, even though he has been ineffective. Makes Sue's appointment of a consultant to advise the WMF at this time rather obvious. I guess the phone calls started after the last round of publicity and Sue, in typical corporate fashion, has appointed an external advisor to blame for the lock down to try and keep WMF in line with Teh Communteh.

I noted elsewhere on Commons the wonderful quote that it was unacceptable for Wikipedia to "tag inappropriate content". I thought that had all the insightfulness that we expect of a typical Wikipedian response - the tacit acknowledgement of the problem, and the refusal to accept any responsibility for a problem of its own making.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Sue Gardner obviously has no idea what "zero tolerance" means. I wonder if she ran her reply past her Assistant Director before sending it out?

Who ... Erik 'the Child' Moellester?

No, Sue does not know ... but she knows what it means AND get someone to photocopy the PR letters and send them out. She is looking more as if she was hired because she is able to say the right things rather than do them ... and spending the Wiki donators' money on hiring "consultants" is typical. 99% of adults would know what to do put in the same situation. Kids, and hard core porn and extreme sexual advocacy do not mix. So, if you want to do the hard core porn and extreme sexual advocacy, you got to remove the kids.

Now, what we really need is some intern inside the WMF office to start leaking what is going on in there ...

Jimbo has personally probably done enough to avoid taking the fall for this with his pronouncements, even though he has been ineffective.

Makes Sue's appointment of a consultant to advise the WMF at this time rather obvious.

Sue is gradually slipping down towards Fucksville ... if she cannot sort this one out (and she cannot) from now on, and for the next 20 years of employment interviews, she will be

"Sue Gardner ... the woman who was in charge of the Wiki when all that pornography and pedophilia business was going on".

That puts Jimbos actions into a different light too.

Was he just "doing something" and "being seen to do something" ... just enough ... to lie convincingly without twitching or touching his nose?

To be able to say, "I spent hours deleting images but they just put them all back". What was it ... 70 odd images in total of which 40 odd were reverted? It sure was hyped up in the media.

The big joke will be 'Teh Consultant' tries to tell 'the Community' what to do ... but now they know they have us and Fox with our fingers up their pokies reminding them.

... and some reinforcements are on the way.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Sat 26th June 2010, 3:01pm

[GlassBeadGame]

Sue Gardner obviously has no idea what "zero tolerance" means. I wonder if she ran her reply past her Assistant Director before sending it out?

Who ... Erik 'the Child' Moellester?

In all fairness there is no evidence I'm aware of he is a child molester. Friend of the pedophile, pedophile enabler, apologist for pedophiles, yes to all. But he never acknowledges or evidences the behavior himself AFAIK.