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

[Milton Roe]

The President certainly has bigger fish to fry and I tend to be over all supportive of his policies and action. Still after his recent Twitter-fest with Medvedev I'd be pleased if he ever got angry over anything at all concerning social media. In this area he is enamored of technology and naive about the limits and pitfalls of web 2.0.

Not to mention the limitations of Rolling Stone Magazine 1.0. Still made of cheap tree pulp last I saw.

[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.

[Peter Damian]

Presidents are over-rated when it comes to this kind of stuff ... BUT ... players such as these can make small changes that start tanker sized turns, e.g. aim for blocking from federal and educational facilities etc. They can grab the attention of big opinion formers.

Yes quite. Get onto your school board now.

[A User]

Interesting. Fox seems to think it can smell blood with Wikipedia. Btw whats up with the Google news feed? Most of the links no longer work. Wikisposure's campaign has shown little activity since last year, which is surprising given Larry Sanger's FBI letter and Fox coverage.

[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

[The Wales Hunter]

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

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

[GlassBeadGame]

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

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

Given the two layers of pseudonyms involved good luck with that even if an error was made. I think he should get an apology and clarification. But once again Wikipedians will make this about their grievances not their responsibility to deal with the pedophiles. With the knowledge that this (re-focus on their grievances) you would think there would be a very high standard of fact checking before running the story.

[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.

[Selina]

Wow, Fox news got something right for a change...

Glad this is finally going public, took damn long enough! There's been loads of discussion on this for years...

[Peter Damian]

The discussion on Jimbo's talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo#Fox_News_report is bizarre. The main line of reasoning is that Fox News is right wing and bad, ergo everything in the article is false. No one seems actually to have read the article. The claims in the article are as follows

1. Chat room posts show efforts by pedophiles to use Wikipedia. This is correct, as anyone who visits the chat room (boychat) can verify.

2. Message boards include links to Wikipedia articles that 'need to be edited'. This is easy to verify.

3. (Quoting von Erk) Pedophiles have campaigned to push their POV on Wikipedia. Absolutely true. I myself earned a block for opposing their point of view. Or rather, for saying perfectly true things that were deemed 'personal attacks'.

4. (Quoting Sue Gardner) 'Wikipedia has a zero tolerance policy' - that is the one thing that is clearly false, but then they are quoting Sue Gardner.

5. A series of recent postings from the message board itself, which I can verify are true.

6. Some three-year old postings from Girlchat.

7. Mention of Wikipedia's critics (horror!). True: Wikipedia has critics.

8. The claim that the NAMBLA article has links to the NAMBLA site. True.

9. A quote from Hemanshu Negam, who works in IT security.

10. The claim that 'anyone can edit Wikipedia'. Surely not?

11. A claim about a post on Boychat by a user called 'Squeakbox'. Also perfectly true. There is such a user who names himself after the Wikipedia user (who is clearly not the same person, but anyone can give themselves an anonymous user name - that's the whole problem with anonymous user names).

12. Wikisposure has identified many convicted pedophiles who have been Wikipedia users. True. Many have been kicked off, but they just return under different user names. True. There is even one who was called 'Dominique' who returned calling themself 'DominiqueEncore'. Clever eh? Well none of the admins spotted it.

13. More claims by Nigam, who is co-chairman of President Obama's Online Safety Technology Group.

In summary, I feel that FOX, apparently having found no legal support for claims that Wikipedia distributes child pornography, is now criticizing us because we allow the description of well-known pedophiles and pedophile political organizations. But it's all too clear that pretending the issue doesn't exist has never done anything to protect children. Wnt (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No, read the article, idiot. The criticism is that Wikipedia allows outbound links to pedophile propagandist organisations and message boards.

Fox News cites Hemanshu Nigam of SSP Blue, who — they say — speaking of the articles Pedophilia, NAMBLA, Child sex tourism, Sexual objectification, Child erotica, and Simulated child pornography, said that "These Wikipedia articles, edited and shared by pedophiles, are nothing but guideposts to get them aroused". I think that a brief examination of any of these articles refutes this outright.

Read the guy's biography, idiot. http://sspblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2010...-Nigam-Bio-.pdf

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 26th June 2010, 6:55pm

[GlassBeadGame]

The discussion on Jimbo's talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo#Fox_News_report is bizarre. The main line of reasoning is that Fox News is right wing and bad, ergo everything in the article is false. No one seems actually to have read the article. The claims in the article are as follows

1. Chat room posts show efforts by pedophiles to use Wikipedia. This is correct, as anyone who visits the chat room (boychat) can verify.

2. Message boards include links to Wikipedia articles that 'need to be edited'. This is easy to verify.

3. (Quoting von Erk) Pedophiles have campaigned to push their POV on Wikipedia. Absolutely true. I myself earned a block for opposing their point of view. Or rather, for saying perfectly true things that were deemed 'personal attacks'.

4. (Quoting Sue Gardner) 'Wikipedia has a zero tolerance policy' - that is the one thing that is clearly false, but then they are quoting Sue Gardner.

5. A series of recent postings from the message board itself, which I can verify are true.

6. Some three-year old postings from Girlchat.

7. Mention of Wikipedia's critics (horror!). True: Wikipedia has critics.

8. The claim that the NAMBLA article has links to the NAMBLA site. True.

9. A quote from Hemanshu Negam, who works in IT security.

10. The claim that 'anyone can edit Wikipedia'. Surely not?

11. A claim about a post on Boychat by a user called 'Squeakbox'. Also perfectly true. There is such a user who names himself after the Wikipedia user (who is clearly not the same person, but anyone can give themselves an anonymous user name - that's the whole problem with anonymous user names).

12. Wikisposure has identified many convicted pedophiles who have been Wikipedia users. True. Many have been kicked off, but they just return under different user names. True. There is even one who was called 'Dominique' who returned calling themself 'DominiqueEncore'. Clever eh? Well none of the admins spotted it.

13. More claims by Nigam, who is co-chairman of President Obama's Online Safety Technology Group.

In summary, I feel that FOX, apparently having found no legal support for claims that Wikipedia distributes child pornography, is now criticizing us because we allow the description of well-known pedophiles and pedophile political organizations. But it's all too clear that pretending the issue doesn't exist has never done anything to protect children. Wnt (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No, read the article, idiot. The criticism is that Wikipedia allows outbound links to pedophile propagandist organisations and message boards.

Can you provide confirmation of (11)? This has been puzzling and would be good to verify. For myself I'm not willing to do research required if it means going directly to the pedophile sites. This wouldn't be the first time that you have done yeoman's service by going to some of the darkest corners of the internet. If it can be confirmed WP's Squeak Box and WR posters (including myself) would seem owe Jana Winters an apology rather than the other way around.

[Peter Damian]

Can you provide confirmation of (11)? This has been puzzling and would be good to verify. For myself I'm not willing to do research required if it means going directly to the pedophile sites. This wouldn't be the first time that you have done yeoman's service by going to some of the darkest corners of the internet. If it can be confirmed WP's Squeak Box and WR posters (including myself) would seem owe Jana Winters an apology rather than the other way around.

If you read an earlier post to this thread, you will see I provided a link to the very user. that is probably enough!

I think Jana Winters owes clarification on this. But not an apology. If I use my real name on the net, and someone copies it, I get very angry. But why shouldn't someone steal a stupid alias? What is there to steal?

-------------------------------

Some more about Nigam. This could be big. The guy clearly knows what he is on about, and he is an authority. It will be less easy for the Wiki-idiots to play this down. Well done Nigam. Respect.

A former sex-crimes prosecutor with the U.S. Justice Department, Nigam also served as director of consumer security outreach at Microsoft and was as an enforcement officer at the Motion Picture Association of America.

During his tenure at MySpace, Nigam was widely credited with helping the company shed its image as a dangerous place for kids. For years MySpace was under pressure from a variety of fronts including Connecticut and North Carolina attorneys general Richard Blumenthal and Roy Cooper, who claimed that the site was a haven for child predators. In 2008 MySpace signed an accord with 49 state attorneys general that lead to the creation of the Internet Safety Technology Task Force which, in January 2009, issued a report that the threat of predators was less than some had feared. I was a member of that task force.
http://www.safekids.com/tag/hemanshu-nigam/

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 26th June 2010, 7:01pm

[GlassBeadGame]

Can you provide confirmation of (11)? This has been puzzling and would be good to verify. For myself I'm not willing to do research required if it means going directly to the pedophile sites. This wouldn't be the first time that you have done yeoman's service by going to some of the darkest corners of the internet. If it can be confirmed WP's Squeak Box and WR posters (including myself) would seem owe Jana Winters an apology rather than the other way around.

If you read an earlier post to this thread, you will see I provided a link to the very user. that is probably enough!

I think Jana Winters owes clarification on this. But not an apology. If I use my real name on the net, and someone copies it, I get very angry. But why shouldn't someone steal a stupid alias? What is there to steal?

Thanks I missed that post. I'll take your word for the link. My apologies to Jana for doubting her. This shows how strong the "Fox can't do anything right" narrative that WP drums upon. It has even her fans second guessing her accuracy without good reason. Let me say again that her work on WP has been on the whole excellent.

[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.

[Theanima]

Fox News may well be right here, but it's a shame such a shitty news corporation like them are reporting this information. True it may be, it's difficult to find it credible.

[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.

[Cedric]

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.

I think the revelation that there are actually two SqueakBox's involved in this story is significant, if for no other reason it shows how much the pedos hate WP SqueakBox. Thanks to Peter for that; also, I agree with him that what appears to be called for here is a clarification, not an apology. Such news will probably not be greeted with joy by WP SqueakBox ("Good Squeak"), but he does need to know that the BoyChat SqueakBox ("Evil Squeak") is out there.

I am also relieved that my first impression appears to be correct that Jana Winter really did a solid job on this piece. This is so overdue, even if it comes originally from Fox.

[CharlotteWebb]

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.

Still, not a bad pun.

11. A claim about a post on Boychat by a user called 'Squeakbox'. Also perfectly true. There is such a user who names himself after the Wikipedia user (who is clearly not the same person, but anyone can give themselves an anonymous user name - that's the whole problem with anonymous user names).

Can you provide confirmation of (11)? This has been puzzling and would be good to verify. For myself I'm not willing to do research required if it means going directly to the pedophile sites. This wouldn't be the first time that you have done yeoman's service by going to some of the darkest corners of the internet. If it can be confirmed WP's Squeak Box and WR posters (including myself) would seem owe Jana Winters an apology rather than the other way around.

Case 1: impostor B claims to be A, whilst A cites harassment and denies being B.
Case 2: A is B claiming to be A, whilst A cites harassment and denies being B.

In what way would these be distinguishable?

[CharlotteWebb]

Ha! I've read the Tweets of the man behind the Wikipedia Squeakbox - won't [link] 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.

Ah yes, now I see it:

All the so called #Leftist strides have made #society
considerably worse #rewarding #laziness failure while
#punishing #success hard #work

Do these word-links grow like weeds or do users put them there?

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

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.

Still, not a bad pun.

Thank you.

Yah, such are the limitations of internet discussion ... please note the nick I was giving him was "The Child" because I think issues relating to "The Child" and sexuality will become a determining factor in his life. -ster is a common suffix come sobriquets. Or in the case of the Wikipedia 'cum sobriquets'.

My feeling is that unless Sue "we-have-zero-tolerance-for-looking-at-all-this-porn-so-we-just-let-them-get-on-with-it" Gardner, Erik and the rest of them finally do something right, their careers are going to be tarnished by this forever more. Sue, as a woman, might escape by making a dramatic volte face and jumping ship ... if she does it soon ... a guy like Erik might forever be marginalised. Locked in a backroom of the Pornopedia for life.

I was actually giving a nod to the work of the good Dr. HS Thompson whose seminal work included a character called 'Charger Charlie the Child Molester'. Now, Charger Charlie was not a child molester either but the name kind of stuck.

So, just to clarify, it was ... Erik 'The Child' Moellester? And another seriously dubious decision of Team Jimmy Wales to hire the guy.

What the Wikipedia Foundation is doing is making collective decisions about what 'The Child' is ... and moellestering it.

Yes, to quote that phrase so hate by them "... what about the children?" ... the Pornopedia is targeting with their extreme sexual advocacy and a system that allow pedophile activists to reincarnate online time and time again.

Bear in mind that many of the admins who are left to police these individuals and materials are children themselves.