It's official: no pedo, At least, Jimbo says so; others debate Options

[papaya]

Depending on whom you believe, WP:PED is either being considered for elevation to policy, or already is.

This post has been edited by papaya: Wed 30th June 2010, 5:44am

[Peter Damian]

Now Jimbo says it's policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=371845302

I posted about it here

http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/07/truth-in-ten-minutes.html

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 5th July 2010, 6:39pm

[tarantino]

Now Jimbo says it's policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=371845302

Wikinutjob Kameraad Pjotr says "Wales has nothing to say here, nor has the Wikipedia Arbcom. And frankly, if WMF makes this kind of rulings, one wonders whether they are capable of running this website altogether. Kameraad Pjotr 19:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)"

He's followed this up with the unblocking of Tyciol, so this doesn't appear to be a policy that is enforced.

[GlassBeadGame]

Now Jimbo says it's policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=371845302

Wikinutjob Kameraad Pjotr says "Wales has nothing to say here, nor has the Wikipedia Arbcom. And frankly, if WMF makes this kind of rulings, one wonders whether they are capable of running this website altogether. Kameraad Pjotr 19:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)"

He's followed this up with the unblocking of Tyciol, so this doesn't appear to be a policy that is enforced.

Free Kulture ubber fanatic Dcoetzee weighs in:

I've already mentioned on en:Wikipedia talk:Sexual content my strong opposition to any policy that blocks users solely because they "self identify as pedophiles" (on the theory that a moral pedophile who does not act on their fantasies or engage in advocacy should be permitted to participate). However, I would support universal cross-wiki blocking of persons pursuing or facilitating relationships with minors. I could go either way on advocacy - sometimes POV pushers do okay on Commons, since it's hard to push an agenda through uploading images alone - while other times they go on making a nuisance of themselves. (Clarifying edit: I know nothing about this particular user and have no opinion on whether they should be blocked - more concerned with general policy questions.) Dcoetzee (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess once they actually have sex with children (or "facilitate relationships as he NPOV's it) Mr. Coetzee is willing, presumable with great regrets, get rid of them. But merely saying you're a pedophile... what the the hell no biggie to him. He also seems to openly acknowledge the extent of the pedophile POV pushing are "making a nuisance of themselves", even in his eyes. Of course uploading pedophile pics is always good with him.

[thekohser]

Free Kulture ubber fanatic Dcoetzee weighs in:

I've already mentioned on en:Wikipedia talk:Sexual content my strong opposition to any policy that blocks users solely because they "self identify as pedophiles" (on the theory that a moral pedophile who does not act on their fantasies or engage in advocacy should be permitted to participate). However, I would support universal cross-wiki blocking of persons pursuing or facilitating relationships with minors. I could go either way on advocacy - sometimes POV pushers do okay on Commons, since it's hard to push an agenda through uploading images alone - while other times they go on making a nuisance of themselves. (Clarifying edit: I know nothing about this particular user and have no opinion on whether they should be blocked - more concerned with general policy questions.) Dcoetzee (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess once they actually have sex with children (or "facilitate relationships as he NPOV's it) Mr. Coetzee is willing, presumable with great regrets, get rid of them. But merely saying you're a pedophile... what the the hell no biggie to him. He also seems to openly acknowledge the extent of the pedophile POV pushing are "making a nuisance of themselves", even in his eyes. Of course uploading pedophile pics is always good with him.

Unbelievable.

I've notified the press, as well as the British National Portrait Gallery.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Unbelievable.

I've notified the press, as well as the British National Portrait Gallery.

It is the only thing that can be done ... and it is all cumulative ... just keep pressing buttons until we hit the right ones.

I am working on some leading feminist authors and spokespeople right now ...

And I suggest one ties it to specific individuals names. There is no point talking about "the Wikipedia" because "the Wikipedia" does not exist. It is the people that exist, so take it right back to them ...

"Jimmy Wales of the Wikipedia ..."
"Sue Gardner of the Wikipedia ..."
"Erik Moeller of the Wikipedia ..."
"Michael Snow of the Wikipedia ..."

They attempt some bogus legal defence to disassociate themselves from their responsibilities. That is all it is. Bogus ... putting the impossible onus on others to cut through the legal Gordian Knot to get to them.

Well, forget it ... let ordinary people who are not sucked in by all that decide. Put their human face on it all. Name the names.

I was again shocked to hear that this issue of pedophilia (and other extreme sexual agendas, such as normalising hard core amateur pornography within "educational" media targeted at children) came up years ago and the Arbcom covered it all up telling folk not to engage but just come to them.

Again, this is SO typical of cultic-like religious behavior ... we had an identical situation with the Brahma Kumaris when their child sex abuse scandal came up. What the cult prioritised, what its primary instinct to do were, was not made amends to the victims or ensure punishment for the abusers ... but to keep face attempting to make sure that in no way could child sex abuse and their name be connected.

Screw them. Pin the tail on the donkeys in public for all to see.

[i]Moderator's note:

Split off 98 posts from this thread to "Ottava's Views" thread in In Tar Pit. Some posts were close calls. There was discussion about age of consent that at first seemed semi-relevant but after much repetition seemed ancillary to the "Ottava's Views" portion.

Well done ... a difficult and heroic job to do.

[Jagärdu]

As horrible as pedophilia and child sex abuse are I have a hard time seeing how Wikipedia and activities on Wikipedia are seriously contributing to either, or really ever could for that matter. Are there pedophiles on Wikipedia trying to push their POV? Clearly. Name a group of people with an agenda and they are present on Wikipedia trying to push their POV. But this means taking on their POV pushing just like any other. I for one am not in favor of blocking people who admit to being pedophiles openly. In fact all such people should be encouraged to be open about this so that we know who they are and can keep their POV editing in check. Proposing to ban them will only mean that we never know who they are and have a harder time sorting out the subtle POV pushing that some of them may be engaged in. This seems completely impractical.

That said, in terms of pornographic or possibly pornographic images Wikipedia is like the National Geographic version. I can't imagine any serious deviants of any kind hoping to use Wikipedia to disseminate pornographic imagery. That simply makes little to no sense when the internet is filled with all kinds of dark holes where various filthy garbage can be posted and viewed with much more security. This whole business seems to have more of affinity with moral panic than anything else. Again, I don't say this because the subject matter of this mess isn't serious business, because it is, but I simply don't think it's this serious of a business on Wikipedia. However, people want to think it is, and want to get their panties all in a bunch over it and feel like if they can make Wikipedia safe then they've done something to protect the children. Wrong. No children will be saved by anything done on Wikipedia in relation to all of this. There are much more productive ways to keep your kids safe than pretending like a policy page on Wikipedia is going to help.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu: Tue 6th July 2010, 7:47pm

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

That said, in terms of pornographic or possibly pornographic images Wikipedia is like the National Geographic version. I can't imagine any serious deviants of any kind hoping to use Wikipedia to disseminate pornographic imagery. That simply makes little to no sense when the internet is filled with all kinds of dark holes where various filthy garbage can be posted and viewed with much more security.

Ha.

Whereas National Geographic might have done a nice line in "native women" for adolescent boys a few decades ago, I am fairly sure they don't do all the hard core amateur pornography the Wikipedia specialises in.

Look down the list of top 100 pages view, RichieX's contributions, search for autofellatio, goatse, the swollen, bolted or electrocuted ball sacks, the outright pedophiliac stuff we have removed and all the rest of it ... honestly, if the National Geographic do it ... animations included ... I will buy you a life time subscription.

As for the "why", sure, but all those dark hole are not aimed at children and called encyclopedias.

I think thought what most of us have realised by the time we reach here is that the porn and extreme sexual agendas are not the cause of the problem but merely a symptom.

Look deeper ...

[Jagärdu]

Whereas National Geographic might have done a nice line in "native women" for adolescent boys a few decades ago, I am fairly sure they don't do all the hard core amateur pornography the Wikipedia specialises in.

Look down the list of top 100 pages view, RichieX's contributions, search for autofellatio, goatse, the swollen, bolted or electrocuted ball sacks, the outright pedophiliac stuff we have removed and all the rest of it ... honestly, if the National Geographic do it ... animations included ... I will buy you a life time subscription.

As for the "why", sure, but all those dark hole are not aimed at children and called encyclopedias.

OK point taken. National Geographic was a poor example to use when you get down to some of the darker holes that are actually on Wikipedia. However, your second point is what I wonder about more generally. It seems to me that much of the discussion isn't about what actually does reach children, but more generally about what lies hidden in the depth of Wikipedia, its servers and its publicly accessible areas. Children don't exactly go to Wikipedia and start digging in Commons for dirty pictures -- though I also agree that there is no reason for any clearly pornographic images to be hosted by Wikipedia. But back to the actual children ... there are much easier places on the interwebs for them to find that junk, and they are going to go to these places rather than an encyclopedia 99 times out of 100. Now is there any encyclopedic value to entries like autofellatio? I think maintaining content like this is a lose lose situation for Wikipedia, but I think its more about how people view Wikipedia than anything else. There maybe other much darker holes out there but Wikipedia shouldn't be one of them. I get that point. I do.

So I guess what I'm wondering is what kind of credible information is out there on how Wikipedia content has actually adversely effected various sub populations, like children. The reason I find the new study on controversial content so ridiculous is that it isn't an actual study on controversial content and the impact of that content, but instead clearly the kind of unscientific effort that precedes a PR campaign. The other issue that people ought to keep in mind is that given the anonymity granted to editors at Wikipedia it is pretty much impossible to keep any type of person from editing. A policy that simply says ... pedophiles need not apply ... is purely PR and nothing more.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu: Tue 6th July 2010, 9:16pm

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

The reason I find the new study on controversial content so ridiculous is that it isn't an actual study on controversial content and the impact of that content, but instead clearly the kind of unscientific effort that precedes a PR campaign. The other issue that people ought to keep in mind is that given the anonymity granted to editors at Wikipedia it is pretty much impossible to keep any type of person from editing. A policy that simply says ... pedophiles need not apply ... is purely PR and nothing more.

It might be worth people looking at the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 to get some ideas of how things should be done and state laws relating to the same.

Thank you, and please do not think my response was in anyway hostile. To be honest, after years of editing I had no idea this stuff actually existed because I had no reason to go there ... once my eyes were opened - as Larry Sanger wrote of his acquaintances - I was utterly shocked. Especially to discover all the war zones and connivances that I had experienced in other aspect (cult religion, nationalism etc) were at full strength across the entire sexual agenda.

One aspect I refer back at this point is that the Wikipedia is NOT as it attempts to present itself ... an internet host hosting self-published material ... but it is a 501 c registered NPO.

Within NPO/labor laws, the minimum age for volunteers is generally 14. By 8th/9th grade most youth are considered capable of carrying out many service activities without adult supervision. That does not include maintaining a amateur hard core porn collection both written and visual.

Child labor laws apply to youth volunteers, so youth under the age of 18 are subject to other restrictions may apply, depending upon the child labor laws of the state.

What also of 'background checks' of adult volunteers? Even long timers. Bona Fide charities are advise re-doing background checks at regular periods.

Who has ever heard of the Pornopedia doing so ... to the contrary, Jimmy Wales himself has blithely employed and supported both identity fraudsters and financial criminals.

Any volunteer’s refusal to grant the authorization to do a background check would be a red flag to any bona fide organization. Wikipedia's position ... protected anonymity.

What insurance is that for volunteers, can volunteers receive any compensation for issues arising from Wikipedia work? Laughable to even consider ... they are unpaid and strangely voluntary slaves to the project, many due to their own addictions, and without any rights or staking holding at all. If the Wikipedia is a miracle ... it is a miracle how they get away with it and have done so for so long.

Thank you for your sensible and clear comment on the current bogus "consultation" with one of Sue Garnder's old cronies from CBC. Again ... it would be laughable if it was not so pitiful. What we are waiting to see if what the Foundations REAL message is, the message they want HIM to deliver as an "outsider" ... and how much it is costing them.

One suspects they would have been better just sending the money to "that girl in Africa for whom it is all for", to quote Jimbo. But, no, if given a choice, they chose a straight, white, middle age man from a wealthy developed nation to give it too. I mean ... what even happened to that Indian feminist they buttered up just a few months ago? Has the PR value of her involvement evaporate already?


This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Wed 7th July 2010, 5:00am

[Jagärdu]

Child labor laws apply to youth volunteers, so youth under the age of 18 are subject to other restrictions may apply, depending upon the child labor laws of the state.

I've never understood why Wikipedia embraces underage volunteers the way it does. I feel like every so often there is a drama storm generated by some teenage admin who was doing just fine for years until finally his age caught up with him, he got bored and decided to prank the encyclopedia. One wonders how "fine" this person was really doing all along. Of course I mean no disrespect to the teenage volunteers who do not act out like this, but the policy regarding children clearly needs to be thought through a bit better.