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

[tarantino]

These photos by an early 20th century German gynecologist documenting naked children in artistic poses are a bit disturbing. I must say if they were in color and of modern children, they would only be found in the dark corners of the internet.
Der Körper des Kindes und seine Pflege

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

It's all three, and to some extent it can be ascribed to "Japan" because almost all of it originally comes from there. But I should be more specific as to what I mean: Manga drawings are an important part of Japanese culture

Is deviance culture? Are sub-cultures even culture?

I am not picking on your personally here but a statement such as yours rather reflects an outsiders view and the outsider view of Japan is strangely distorted and myopic ... and, of course, ignores completely all the difficult, complex and boring stuff which makes up the norm. I would say most Japanese would define it as entirely "not-Japanese".

I thought it significant that the image we were discussing actually turned out to be German fetishisation of a Japanese "culture", a typical trend within Orientalism in the Western.

BTW, Isn't Erik Moellester from Germany too? Personally, I think the Germans have some f-ed up attitudes particularly towards 'sex and race'.

These figures are for the US ... 70 percent of all internet porn traffic occurs during the 9-to-5 workday

Children and Internet Pornography

Average age of first Internet exposure to pornography 11 years old
Largest consumer of pornography boy in 12-17 age group ----------------- Here are your core Wikipedians
Largest consumer of Internet pornography male 35 - 49 age group ----- Here are your core Wikipedians
15-17 year olds having multiple hard-core exposures 80%
8-16 year olds having viewed porn online 90% (most while doing homework)
7-17 year olds who would freely give out home address 29%
7-17 year olds who would freely give out email address 14%
Children's character names linked to thousands of porn links 26 (Including Pokemon and Action Man)
100,000+ websites offer illegal child pornography

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Let's look at this from a different angle ... in the US, at least 27% of girls and 16% of boys will be sexually abused before the age of 18. (Finkelhor, et. al., "Sexual Abuse in a national Survey of Adult Men and Women," Child Abuse & Neglect, (1990) Vol. 14 p. 19.). There are about four million child molesters in the United States ... twice the population of Arkansas. (U.S. Department of Justice, 1985.)

Society, in general, is aware of this. It tries to put policies and procedures in place to stop it and protect against it.

Would an anonymous website like the Wikipedia be 'more likely' or 'less likely' to attract an harbor such individuals? No challenge on that ... the answer is 'more'.

OK ... why should the Wikipedia do 'less' than society as a whole about such problems? The answer why the Wikipedia does less is that it is over run by such individuals, the current system protects them and makes doing anything about it nigh impossible ... and why should it come down to private individuals to have to dedicate their personal time to doing so!?!

It is incredible when you think about it ... and meanwhile Jimmy "Bomis-Babes-wasn't-a-porn-site" Wales keeps racking in the $10,000 from the corporations.

Dear Corporations ...

You want to know the secret of how to make workers work for longer and for free and save hiring Jimmy Wales?

Its easy ... allow your workers to stick up their amateur porno pictures all over their work place and promote their chosen kink..

[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.

[carbuncle]

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.

Exactly.

[thekohser]

What is it about Wikipediots that they can't seem to understand that something or another that says it is "not a policy or guideline itself" is not somehow a "a long-held, zero-tolerance policy"?

Wikipediots do seem to have repeated trouble with the word "not".

[Kelly Martin]

What is it about Wikipediots that they can't seem to understand that something or another that says it is "not a policy or guideline itself" is not somehow a "a long-held, zero-tolerance policy"?

All "policies" and "guidelines" on Wikipedia mean whatever whoever is invoking them at the time want them to mean, to the extent that they can get away with it.

Playing Wikipedia is much like playing Mao with a dealer who lies at will about the rules and throws out anyone who catches him in a contradiction. Most people won't play Mao twice with a dealer like that, which leaves me with the conclusion that Wikipedians are crazy.

[Jon Awbrey]

What is it about Wikipediots that they can't seem to understand that something or another that says it is "not a policy or guideline itself" is not somehow a "a long-held, zero-tolerance policy"?

All "policies" and "guidelines" on Wikipedia mean whatever whoever is invoking them at the time want them to mean, to the extent that they can get away with it.

Playing Wikipedia is much like playing Mao with a dealer who lies at will about the rules and throws out anyone who catches him in a contradiction. Most people won't play Mao twice with a dealer like that, which leaves me with the conclusion that Wikipedians are crazy.

It's Official —

WP:WAC
Wikipedians Are Crazy

Jon

[thekohser]

The DJ weighs in, after saying "I looked into this."...

Jana should be ashamed that he labels himself as a journalist. He is not worthy of being in the profession. —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 12:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

With that level of scrutiny, Wikipedia can consider this another notch in its "more accurate than Britannica" belt.

[Somey]

This is only tangentially related to the thread, but I was looking at Netflix earlier today and noticed that a Frontline documentary DVD called "The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan" releases this week. It documents the practice of "bacha bereesh," whereby rich Afghani men (mostly warlords and opium kingpins) abduct and sexually enslave young boys, forcing them to wear women's clothing and dance for them, etc. Apparently this has been going on for centuries, though it's illegal and has been for quite some time. However, there's no Wikipedia article about it - just a mention in the article LGBT rights in Afghanistan (T-H-L-K-D). That, however, links to this article, which is a bit more disturbing, IMO.

My question is, why on earth does WP carry an article like Pretty boy (T-H-L-K-D) at all, if not to support (if not encourage) pedophilia? At best it's an Urban Dictionary term, hardly an encyclopedia subject. And note that the original version had a significantly different meaning than the current one.

"Zero tolerance" indeed!

[Peter Damian]

Answering some of Larry’s questions:

# On the identity of pedophile (called 'SPA' on Wikipedia) editors.
## A look at an older version of the 'Pedophile Article Watch' page is a hoot, as nearly all of the members have since been banned as SPA's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=263998150
## AllStarEcho, identified in Wikisposure is still editing. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...r%3AAllstarecho ,
## Tyciol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tyciol was blocked in April 2010, after I privately emailed Ryan Postlethwaite. Note it takes a banned user such as myself to force this, Wikipedia has no 'self regulating' mechanism it seems. But Tyciol is still unblocked on Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:...ibutions/Tyciol where he involved in work on many dubious images, and even more astonishing on Simple Wikipedia http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C...ibutions/Tyciol where many younger users congregate. This edit http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti...ev&oldid=482934 , though old, is quite worrying.
## Haiduc ('the rebel') is famous here on Wikipedia Review, not blocked until Feb 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Haiduc Feb 2010,
## Jonathan King, yes, that Jonathan King, often edits his own article on Wikipedia, see this discussion here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...his_own_article June 2009 , I have a list of his sockpuppets, such as user:Oopsie Poopsie.

See also Phdarts on talk page PEd http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=218611523 June 2008. Mention Wikipi-tan.

## Another Solipsist is an interesting one, blocked in June 2008), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...notherSolipsist , interesting as he was involved in recruiting minors into adminship roles, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=221886627 , and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._adminship/Ryan , where he supports the candidacy of a 13 year old admin. “Would anyone vote for anyone that couldn't read? I certainly wouldn't, regardless of the candidate's age. Despite the implications of your analogy, no one's arguing that you should vote for a child by virtue of their being a child -- that's ageism, too. But if you don't vote for a five year old, it should be because they can't read [etc.], not simply because they're five. The point is to judge others as individuals, not members of a group. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)”. I.e arguing , in a way that is creepily familiar, that you can’t define maturity by age, and that if someone is ready for being a Wikipedia administrator, it is OK for them to be a Wikipedia administrator. As usual, I was the one who was blocked for complaining about this.

# Regarding their agenda: as the Fox article correctly says, internet chat boards are used to plan ways of putting across their point of view. The agenda consists of a series of arguments aimed at ‘normalising’ pedophilia which are mostly versions of the fallacies of definition and equivocation. For example they rely on the academic definition of 'pedophilia', meaning the proclivity but not the practice, to argue that pedophiles do not harm children. They argue that pedophilia is not 'abusive', again arguing from a different meaning of 'abusive'. They prefer the term 'pederasty' to 'pedophilia'. See the many articles on the varieties of pederasty.

# On administrator tolerance of their activity. There is at least one case where, as this conversation makes clear, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222250643 (June 2008) where it is clear that a group of SPA’s had access to a sympathetic administrator who was able to block an ‘SPA unfriendly’ account [link omitted as it incriminates the admin involved] . By and large I don’t think there is any cabal. The problem (as DogBiscuit clearly explains above) is that where the principles of ‘Assume Good Faith’ and of preventing SPA POV come into conflict, AGF is always given priority. Also the principle of ‘anyone can edit'.

-----------------------
[edit]

I forgot this. Also, can anyone find the link to a long discussion on the WMF forum about whether pedophiles should be banned on the spot?

Apologies if this is already well-known or was mentioned here before, but I'm just noticing it for the first time.

Mike Godwin wrote in August 2009 about how he would jump to the defense of any WMF'er who was accused of pedophilia.

Hi, this is Mike Godwin, and I am the general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation. I want to gently suggest that accusations about pedophilia may easily be taken as defamatory and actionable in court. Although I would not bring such an action on behalf of the Foundation, I would certainly cooperate with any individual at the Foundation who believed that unfounded accusations damaged his or her reputation. I can assure you that there is no philosophical disposition at the Foundation generally to promote child sexual abuse, and no one here has ever been charged (much less convicted) of any such crimes. Please be aware that some individuals here (and elsewhere on the project) would take damage to their reputations very seriously, and it is our policy here to help our staff members in any efforts they make to protect or repair their reputations.[[User:MGodwin|MikeGodwin]] ([[User talk:MGodwin|talk]]) 19:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's worth noting, but no WMF'er has actually taken action against any of these potentially "defamatory and actionable" claims about pedophilia and the WMF, probably largely because they realize what an embarrassing trove of child-exploitative evidence any defendant would have to bear witness against the plaintiff.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 28th June 2010, 8:29pm

[Kelly Martin]

The problem (as DogBiscuit clearly explains above) is that where the principles of ‘Assume Good Faith’ and of preventing SPA POV come into conflict, AGF is always given priority. Also the principle of ‘anyone can edit'.

This is only true if the point of view being forwarded is not incompatible with Wikipedia's house point of view. For example, note the large number of single-purpose accounts that have been blocked for espousing positions on anthropogenic global warming or on intelligent design which are incompatible with Wikipedia's editorial policy on these issues. Accounts (single-purpose or otherwise) used to forward "unapproved" points of view are aggressively suppressed.

If a single-purpose account is not suppressed, it is reasonable to conclude from that that Wikipedia's editorial policy includes at least tolerance, if not active acceptance, of the point of view being forwarded by that single-purpose account.

[dogbiscuit]

This is only true if the point of view being forwarded is not incompatible with Wikipedia's house point of view.

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.

Of course there are other sub-topics that have different histories - I think the American POV of Wikipedia culture tends to give it a leaning towards being pro-Israeli for example, and the Global Warming may be related to the pseudo-scientific background of all those IT geeks who think they are scientific experts (speaks an IT geek who is not a scientific expert). Generally though, Wikipedia adores a rebellious geek.

[thekohser]

My question is, why on earth does WP carry an article like Pretty boy (T-H-L-K-D) at all...

Judging from the article's edit history, I would say its purpose may be to prove once and for all just how bad an article could be if left primarily to the editorial whims of IP addresses and Wikipedia bots:

* (cur | prev) 03:42, 16 June 2010 Jack67855 (talk | contribs) (869 bytes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 10:28, 10 June 2010 SmackBot (talk | contribs) m (827 bytes) (Date maintenance tags and general fixes: build 420:) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 21:16, 4 June 2010 124.168.89.76 (talk) (821 bytes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 21:10, 4 June 2010 124.168.89.76 (talk) (789 bytes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 13:12, 4 June 2010 90.184.229.107 (talk) (776 bytes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 22:46, 25 May 2010 Discospinster (talk | contribs) m (720 bytes) (Added {{unreferenced}} tag to article using Friendly) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 09:33, 21 May 2010 122.107.75.80 (talk) (689 bytes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 14:21, 16 May 2010 122.107.75.80 (talk) (676 bytes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 14:21, 16 May 2010 122.107.75.80 (talk) (711 bytes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 16:07, 30 April 2010 ClueBot (talk | contribs) m (636 bytes) (Reverting possible vandalism by 209.232.151.235 to version by FrescoBot. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot. (609730) (Bot)) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 16:07, 30 April 2010 209.232.151.235 (talk) (849 bytes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 16:06, 30 April 2010 209.232.151.235 (talk) (777 bytes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 13:23, 11 March 2010 FrescoBot (talk | contribs) m (636 bytes) (Bot: links syntax) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 20:10, 7 February 2010 Trivialist (talk | contribs) (659 bytes) ({{unreferenced|date=February 2010}}) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 09:32, 23 January 2010 116.76.2.142 (talk) (623 bytes) (NPOV / Original Research) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 16:13, 4 January 2010 AYousefzai (talk | contribs) (1,139 bytes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 16:01, 4 January 2010 AYousefzai (talk | contribs) (1,037 bytes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 18:38, 20 December 2009 173.52.19.109 (talk) (766 bytes) (typo edit) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 22:23, 26 October 2009 Beccabarros (talk | contribs) (767 bytes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 22:22, 26 October 2009 Beccabarros (talk | contribs) m (697 bytes) (i added a few more examples) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 02:27, 21 July 2009 Ccacsmss (talk | contribs) (555 bytes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 04:04, 27 May 2009 70.234.103.220 (talk) (613 bytes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 19:09, 19 May 2009 87.59.172.154 (talk) (1,257 bytes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 19:09, 19 May 2009 87.59.172.154 (talk) (1,262 bytes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 19:04, 19 May 2009 87.59.172.154 (talk) (1,154 bytes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 06:34, 17 April 2009 66.176.208.101 (talk) (613 bytes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 06:29, 17 April 2009 66.176.208.101 (talk) (615 bytes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 06:20, 17 April 2009 66.176.208.101 (talk) (462 bytes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 06:11, 17 April 2009 66.176.208.101 (talk) (484 bytes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 06:04, 17 April 2009 66.176.208.101 (talk) (437 bytes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 15:00, 11 December 2007 BOTijo (talk | contribs) m (56 bytes) ({{R from other capitalisation}}) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 13:37, 9 April 2007 Mel Etitis (talk | contribs) (24 bytes) (redirect)

## Another Solipsist is an interesting one, blocked in June 2008), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...notherSolipsist , interesting as he was involved in recruiting minors into adminship roles, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=221886627 , and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._adminship/Ryan , where he supports the candidacy of a 13 year old admin. “Would anyone vote for anyone that couldn't read? I certainly wouldn't, regardless of the candidate's age. Despite the implications of your analogy, no one's arguing that you should vote for a child by virtue of their being a child -- that's ageism, too. But if you don't vote for a five year old, it should be because they can't read [etc.], not simply because they're five. The point is to judge others as individuals, not members of a group. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)”. I.e arguing , in a way that is creepily familiar, that you can’t define maturity by age, and that if someone is ready for being a Wikipedia administrator, it is OK for them to be a Wikipedia administrator. As usual, I was the one who was blocked for complaining about this.

I've heard a rumor that it's believed that AnotherSolipsist is the alternative account of a Wikimedia Foundation staff member.

[Milton Roe]

Of course there are other sub-topics that have different histories - I think the American POV of Wikipedia culture tends to give it a leaning towards being pro-Israeli for example, and the Global Warming may be related to the pseudo-scientific background of all those IT geeks who think they are scientific experts (speaks an IT geek who is not a scientific expert). Generally though, Wikipedia adores a rebellious geek.

A nonreligious liberal geek who is familiar with computers, but may not actually have a full-time job. He's not married. He can't afford to move out of mom's rent-controlled appartment in New York City, anyway. Or perhaps is stuck in the student dorm.

Of course, this cannot describe but a fraction of WP's U.S. editors, but it's a good litmus. If you take the probable political and social views of the hypothetical young male metrosexual above, that's more or less the WP "house view."

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

[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.

[danielaword]

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/

: http://www.google.co.uk/gwt/x?source=m&u=h...Wql5TNAQ&wsc=yq
: SAD BUT TRUE WIKIPEDIA, NO WONDER IT'S CALLED WIKIPEDOIA!THE SOURCE FOR PEDOS!