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/

[The Wales Hunter]

Just noticed Squeakbox (Wiki user) is threatening to sue Fox News:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SqueakBox

[CharlotteWebb]

Just noticed Squeakbox (Wiki user) is threatening to sue Fox News:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SqueakBox

Surprising the right-wingers on WP didn't been ban him for legal threats against Fox.

[The Wales Hunter]

Surprising the right-wingers on WP didn't been ban him for legal threats against Fox.

Ha! I've read the Tweets of the man behind the Wikipedia Squeakbox - won't like as it connects the dots - but it's fair to say he is right-of-centre himself, in a "damn the lefties" sort of way. Not that I'm saying that's a bad thing. At all.

Wikipedia Squeakbox has always come across as one of the good guys, from what I've seen.

[thekohser]

Wikipedia Squeakbox has always come across as one of the good guys, from what I've seen.

No, he's one of those "Wipe Jimbo's Talk Page" guys -- I think he's gotten several of my accounts blocked before. He's a True Believer. So, he's one of the few Wikipedians opposed to pedophilia. Doesn't make him a saint.

I am sorry for any confusion I may have caused by mentioning "his" alias here, without researching a pro-pedophilia site more carefully to learn that another person on the Internet stole "his" alias.

[Larry Sanger]

... So, he's one of the few Wikipedians opposed to pedophilia. Doesn't make him a saint.

Jimmy Wales claimed that the FoxNews.com article was lies from top to bottom. One of the things the article implies (if not states) is that Wikipedians are tolerant of pedophilia editors in their midst. You seem to agree with the article on this.

But there was a purge of pedophile editors in 2008, right? And there is somewhere (where?) a page which seems to make it quite clear that pedophilia propaganda will not be tolerated. You say that he's one of the few who are opposed. Well, what would be relatively persuasive to me is a list of prominent admins who have come out in some reasonably clear way in favor of tolerance of pedophile editors.

I think what is necessary to specify if this conversation is to be at all clear is what is meant by "pedophile editors" (or whatever you want to call them), what sorts of things, generally, they do, and why those things are so outrageous. For example, would the following be outrageous for an article to state? It is true that there is a movement in favor of "equal rights for pedophiles." Obviously I don't know much about it, but I know it exists. It's not outrageous to say so, is it? I think to the contrary that it's rather important to state, if it's true. This is not a problem we want to sweep under the carpet. What are a few examples of claims made in WP articles, either previously or even now, that a serious encyclopedia should not permit?

I am obviously sympathetic to keeping Wikipedia free of both pedophile creeps (and, probably, felons of all sorts as well), and it is very disturbing that they can use Wikipedia as a platform to try to normalize their behavior (or their desires). But this does not answer the questions I was just asking about.

[the fieryangel]

But there was a purge of pedophile editors in 2008, right? And there is somewhere (where?) a page which seems to make it quite clear that pedophilia propaganda will not be tolerated. You say that he's one of the few who are opposed. Well, what would be relatively persuasive to me is a list of prominent admins who have come out in some reasonably clear way in favor of tolerance of pedophile editors.

Dr. Sanger,

There was indeed a purge in 2008, but the direct result of that was recharactorizing "Pedophilia" as "Pederasty", in order to muddy the waters. This has been discussed for years at this site (see here for some threads - this one is especially important, as the "Boy" article still contains two nude photos out of four, with three of the four being possibly sexualized images) One of the main ringleaders of that was Haiduc (T-C-L-K-R-D) who edited as a SPA from 2004 to 2010, inserting pro-pedophilia propaganda into an incredible array of articles.

I interacted with him on the Jean Cocteau (T-H-L-K-D) and Raymond Radiguet (T-H-L-K-D) articles, as there is a kind of legend (based on jealous gossip of the time) that these two were lovers. Haiduc was extremely courteous and played the WP game extremely well, yet never lost his sense of purpose of inserting his Pro-Pedo POV into articles by any means possible. People were well-aware of this for six years, yet it was only when the issue was pressed here, specifically in this thread , that ARBCOM finally banned him....however, six years of POV-pushing in articles only indirectly related to the subject are going to be extremely hard to clean up, especially since Haiduc was extremely intelligent about how he presented things. It was only when you figured out his game that you could see what he was trying to do with all of this.

Where's this stuff now? Well, they can't call it "pederasty" any more. They have to use something else. Perhaps they've decided to try to not call it anything and just try to get the material articles via series of edits. Whatever it is, they're been forced underground now. I don't believe that they're just going to disappear.

To find editors who support this kind of editing, look at the discussions for the AfDs for these "pederaty" articles created by Haiduc : for example, the one.

[dogbiscuit]

But there was a purge of pedophile editors in 2008, right? And there is somewhere (where?) a page which seems to make it quite clear that pedophilia propaganda will not be tolerated. You say that he's one of the few who are opposed. Well, what would be relatively persuasive to me is a list of prominent admins who have come out in some reasonably clear way in favor of tolerance of pedophile editors.

It is also worth remembering that you have to think in terms of Wikipedian logic which goes like this:

1) Doing illegal things is wrong and might cause trouble for the project;
2) WMF need deniability therefore must not be told of the problems;

Therefore:
3) People who accuse other people of such serious offences are causing trouble for the project,
Therefore:
4) It is the people raising the issue that are the problem rather than those creating the content.

Add in a smattering of Assume Good Faith, where making an accusation is a de facto breach of Wikipedia etiquette and liable to bring the house down on you before anyone considers the facts of the matter; There is No Forgiveness, so that the "bad faith" accusation is never forgiven so when it does turn out that the accuser was well founded, he is still wrong for having raised the accusation; and the general lack of proper governance of Wikipedia, then you have a formula designed to give shelter to any group that Teh Communeh decide by their convoluted logic should be tolerated.

The response to the Boy Scouts problem (where a dubious bunch had perverted the boy scouts article into a poster for child abuse on Wikia) was initially Not Our Problem, that is what free culture is about, until Jimbo realised that it was indefensible and might impact his reputation; but the tenor was always that they had been bullied into conceding by an unfair world rather than it was the Right Thing To Do.

In a way, this is the hardest point to get over; that from a real world perspective, people cannot get their heads around the subtleties of the Wikipedia society and see that there are a wide range of reinforcing actions and reactions that encourage tolerance of inappropriate content as the norm rather than discouraging it; and that Wikipedia is distorting people's thinking that this is right and appropriate and that real world morals are somehow wrong and old-fashioned.

This is often described by the short-hand term of "libertarian": whose fundamental flawed philosophy is that freedom of information of all kinds can only produce good things. It is an attractive philosophy (along with Jimbo's so-called objectivism) because it removes the need for critical inspection and evaluation - information is free, it is therefore good, no need to discuss further; Jimbo need not consider the impact on anyone else of the consequences of his actions as long as it suits him. In the long term it is a poisonous and regressive laziness that has the potential to infect a generation at its most extreme.

[Stillwaterising]

It is also worth remembering that you have to think in terms of Wikipedian logic which goes like this:

1) Doing illegal things is wrong and might cause trouble for the project;
2) WMF need deniability therefore must not be told of the problems;
Therefore:
3) People who accuse other people of such serious offences are causing trouble for the project,
Therefore:
4) It is the people raising the issue that are the problem rather than those creating the content.

Exactly.

[GlassBeadGame]

It is also worth remembering that you have to think in terms of Wikipedian logic which goes like this:

1) Doing illegal things is wrong and might cause trouble for the project;
2) WMF need deniability therefore must not be told of the problems;
Therefore:
3) People who accuse other people of such serious offences are causing trouble for the project,
Therefore:
4) It is the people raising the issue that are the problem rather than those creating the content.

Exactly.

The error here is clinging to the absolutely delusional belief that "the community" can police themselves or be any kind of locus of reform. Any reform must be imposed. This must come at the board level. Clearly the presently constituted board with its present mind set is not capable of doing so at this time. It will take repeated bruising (and imperfect) exposés of the kind that Ms. Winters has been pursuing. It will take embarrassed donor and foundation grantors. It will take the general disdain of the wider community. Unfortuantely, and tragically, it will probably take actual child victims of predation, not mere advocacy or content.

Chats about sexuality with self styled Wikipedian "sex experts" achieves nothing other than masturbatory gratification.