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/

[GlassBeadGame]

Lets return from the rabbit hole of user generated content on Wikipedia and examine the truthfulness of Sue Garners "zero tolerance" statement. What policies has the WMF board issued? What procedures, practices and protections has the staff of WMF implemented eliminate pedophile editing and protect children? I believe the answer to both is none at all. I am not talking about whatever user content, whether called "policy," "standards," "Arbcom Rulings" or "essays" might pretend to address the issue. All of this material deposited by the users of the interactive service provided by WMF. WMF can in no way rely on this kind of transient and casual content and call it "zero tolerance." It exists, even in the sad shape we find it, until the next anon user, perhaps a pedophile, hits the edit button.

[Subtle Bee]

What is not clear is what exactly tends to drive that house point of view. My best guess is that in the main it seems to be anti-establishment (resisted trying to work in antidisestablishmentarianism to the post) - which is interesting to consider how a radical view on tolerance of extremes of sexual behaviour fits with that - together with the deliberate blurring of definitions by those with agendas.

So you resisted working it in, until you stopped resisting? Who cares, it's rare to see blunt & subtle go together like that.

"Unmarried urban Canadian male grad student" is even shorter.

Some day in the tarpit you're going to have to expound on your view of Canadians... though if you intended "irreligious and liberal", I think that's fair. Computer skillz? Meh. Metrosexual? Not until beer & flannel come (back?) into style.

Lets return from the rabbit hole of user generated content on Wikipedia and examine the truthfulness of Sue Garners "zero tolerance" statement. What policies has the WMF board issued? What procedures, practices and protections has the staff of WMF implemented eliminate pedophile editing and protect children? I believe the answer to both is none at all. I am not talking about whatever user content, whether called "policy," "standards," "Arbcom Rulings" or "essays" might pretend to address the issue. All of this material deposited by the users of the interactive service provided by WMF. WMF can in no way rely on this kind of transient and casual content and call it "zero tolerance." It exists, even in the sad shape we find it, until the next anon user, perhaps a pedophile, hits the edit button.

I think the disconnect is that wikiculture has such a vague notion of "policy", where nothing is prescriptive but everything is binding, depending on the social capital of the proponents. There are no real rules, and if there are, then IAR. So it's not that they're "pretending" to address the issue - they just don't know how, because they have no mechanisms for addressing any issue - except Jimbo. Making policies they can't and won't enforce, and calling it a day, is just what they do.

[Milton Roe]

"Unmarried urban Canadian male grad student" is even shorter.

Some day in the tarpit you're going to have to expound on your view of Canadians... though if you intended "irreligious and liberal", I think that's fair. Computer skillz? Meh. Metrosexual? Not until beer & flannel come (back?) into style.

I'm not talking about your average Canadian. I said "urban Canadian male grad student." Urban. Canadian. As is those Canadians who actually live in largish cities like Toronto or Montreal. A quarter of Canadians live in just those two cities. A third of Canadians live in its 5 largest cities, so they're not all "liberal-hicks." Though I have to say that they are indeed much sweeter on average than people who live in cities of over a million people in the US.