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

[SirFozzie]

Is, has been, will be.

[Somey]

Well, good for them. The current wording does tend to suggest they're more concerned about false (and public) accusations than they are about actual pedophile activity, but to be fair, there may very well be a greater likelihood of false accusations than actual pedophile activity.

The issue of supervision/monitoring of adult-child interactions isn't addressed, nor the issue of underage administrators dealing directly with porn content (on WP and on Commons), but as many of us have been suggesting, that may be something that has to be imposed on them from the Foundation (assuming the WMF is interested in actually doing something about these things, as opposed to simply making statements to the press).

And, of course, there's nothing in the policy about what to do with actual WP content that may support the pro-pedophile "agenda," but maybe they don't need to explicitly spell that out...?

[Subtle Bee]

Is, has been, will be.

amen.

[Subtle Bee]

Well, good for them. The current wording does tend to suggest they're more concerned about false (and public) accusations than they are about actual pedophile activity, but to be fair, there may very well be a greater likelihood of false accusations than actual pedophile activity.

The issue of supervision/monitoring of adult-child interactions isn't addressed, nor the issue of underage administrators dealing directly with porn content (on WP and on Commons), but as many of us have been suggesting, that may be something that has to be imposed on them from the Foundation (assuming the WMF is interested in actually doing something about these things, as opposed to simply making statements to the press).

Nothing's changed, nothing's been addressed. It was already de facto practice to ban self-indentified pedos, now it's "policy". Pedophiles are ordered to stay underground (and the Sun commanded to rise first thing tomorrow morning). Problem solved, but only if it's the problem of public relations.

And, of course, there's nothing in the policy about what to do with actual WP content that may support the pro-pedophile "agenda," but maybe they don't need to explicitly spell that out...?

I'm impressed you could type that out without spleening your own keyboard.

[Somey]

I'm impressed you could type that out without spleening your own keyboard.

You have to get a splenectomy before you can be an admin here on WR, so it's not really that impressive...

Thing is, though, what are they supposed to do? They'll never be able to agree on the specific issues involved, like what to do with all the "child-like" manga drawings or the so-called "historical" photos of naked children on Commons, nor will they ever be able to do anything other than edit-war over specific instances of textual content that supports the pedophile "POV" - the community is completely hopeless in that regard. Those things will have to be imposed from somewhere else, and the WMF is likely to be hopeless too.

We know there are people who want to do the right thing over there, but I just don't see how they can succeed over this kind of opposition. In the meantime, you have to try to be positive, commend them for what little steps they do take, and hope that as they blithely hold their noses over their big public cesspool (the ones who aren't swimming in it, that is), they don't bring the rest of the internet down with them.

Then again, maybe that would be a good thing...

[Subtle Bee]

We know there are people who want to do the right thing over there, but I just don't see how they can succeed over this kind of opposition. In the meantime, you have to try to be positive, commend them for what little steps they do take, and hope that as they blithely hold their noses over their big public cesspool (the ones who aren't swimming in it, that is), they don't bring the rest of the internet down with them.

I had to include your metaphor, it's the greatest yet! (Sorry VoC, wherever you are). But I don't think you have to be positive, and I'm not much of an incrementalist when it comes to the fundamentals.

Thing is, though, what are they supposed to do? They'll never be able to agree on the specific issues involved, like what to do with all the "child-like" manga drawings or the so-called "historical" photos of naked children on Commons, nor will they ever be able to do anything other than edit-war over specific instances of textual content that supports the pedophile "POV" - the community is completely hopeless in that regard. Those things will have to be imposed from somewhere else, and the WMF is likely to be hopeless too.

Well, since you kind of asked, here's what they're supposed to do. Jimbo should unilaterally establish a non-consensus committee of lawsharks to make considered decisions on a case-by-case basis, and pay them if he has to. He should stake his withering reputation on its adoption, because if he can't get that through he might as well bail now anyway and write a book (a real book!). They can weasel with appeals and complaint departments to appease "the community", but for once just do what's right and draw the damn line. GodKing.

And then eventually it could creep over into BLPs, and most of us can go home.

[EricBarbour]

Well, good for them. The current wording does tend to suggest they're more concerned about false (and public) accusations than they are about actual pedophile activity, but to be fair, there may very well be a greater likelihood of false accusations than actual pedophile activity.

Judging simply from past activities, I feel safe to infer that such false accusations will be misused
by certain admins to ban people they are having disagreements with. After all, how many times have you
seen SPIs, or checkuser functions, abused in order to make an excuse to ban an innocent user?

(!!, anyone?)

This is probably how Wikipedia will die. The "cabal" will strangle it with rules,
while ignoring said rules themselves. It will turn into Richard J. Daley's Chicago.
If it hasn't gotten to that point already.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 30th June 2010, 8:35am

[Moulton]

This is probably how Wikipedia will die. The "cabal" will strangle it with rules, while ignoring said rules themselves. It will turn into Richard J. Daley's Chicago. If it hasn't gotten to that point already.

"The police are not there to cause disorder. The police are there to preserve disorder." --Richard J. Daley

[Selina]

Nothing's changed, nothing's been addressed. It was already de facto practice to ban self-indentified pedos, now it's "policy". Pedophiles are ordered to stay underground (and the Sun commanded to rise first thing tomorrow morning). Problem solved, but only if it's the problem of public relations.

Exactly, this is pure slimy PR misdirection...

All this means is they will be doing the same insidious alterations to Wikipedia articles to push pro-paedophilia viewpoints on Wikipedia... usually ridiculously trying to leverage it with "historical precedent" constantly changing the word paedophilia to "pederasty" to make it sound less bad wherever they can, in the same way one could argue for bringing back burning at the stake. It's been known since 2006 that they have been doing this:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=206
...Only about a month after I moved Wikipedia Review to the new paid site here. (thanks to the neo-nazis that had taken control of the free forum) (Oh and although I didn't pay for it originally I was always the one that owned the actual account no matter how someone tried to later twist things by the way).
<---- Media, registered member #1 speaking here

And yes this has got me angry enough again to allow the endless black hole of Wikipedia's problems to take up my more valuable time (than a bunch of fat underage/middleaging nerd boys) at least for a bit, I really hope the media report the actual facts, Wikipedia do not intend to do anything about the subverting of articles by paedophiles that don't "name" themselves, and this is no change from what was already in effect whatsoever. Look at the HISTORY pages of actual articles and there you will see the real stuff, don't take the easy option of looking at user and talk pages most of them never "identified" in the first place because it better serves their purposes to just change as many articles as possible rather than using it as a social group, they already have those on other sites anyway like Fox News pointed out in the article.

...Using the less commonly visited 'Pederasty' articles to push their advocacy and change mentions of paedophilia to direct towards those paedophile-controlled "pederasty" articles where possible... It's like Orwellian newspeak.

This is not Wikipedia trying to do anything whatsoever other than try calm the media storm, very few actually "identified" as pedophiles in the first place and practically none talk openly in public with each other, they collaborate via the handy "Send email to user" button Wikipedia has always provided... What Somey said:

They'll never be able to agree on the specific issues involved, like what to do with all the "child-like" manga drawings or the so-called "historical" photos of naked children on Commons, nor will they ever be able to do anything other than edit-war over specific instances of textual content that supports the pedophile "POV" - the community is completely hopeless in that regard. Those things will have to be imposed from somewhere else, and the WMF is likely to be hopeless too.

We know there are people who want to do the right thing over there, but I just don't see how they can succeed over this kind of opposition.

* Note to Fox News ... the Wikipedia servers keep many images that have been deemed even too tasteless or pornographic for its public face which only administrators can access. There are no age limits, guidelines or identity checks for such admins.

Yeah, some of the users that ARE paedophiles are Wikipedia administrators who do all they can to support the rewriting of paedophilia/"pederasty" articles, but aren't stupid enough to say that they are.

Even now they are trying to argue that paedophilia should be allowed and preventing, as Somey said, any changes to make this actually stop the REAL issue of the articles being subverted (naturally paedophiles visit the named articles much more than normal people who don't find it a subject they want to read about much, it's the same reason all other Wikipedia stuff suffers from systemic bias, simply put why it's mostly America-centric):
_http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Pedophilia_

This just shows the hopelessness of Wikipedia. Individuals willing to lie, use misdirection, false identities and subtle, insidious changes over time to their "target" articles will always be at the top of their game - this applies to paid corporate "editors" or political issue lobby groups too. It really simply is a cesspit which will NEVER be unbiased on anything the least controversial.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Aw, man, this is a bit rough but I ain't got the time right now to fix it ... polish away boys. God knows you get enough practise. (You know the characters ... youngster do a google for bananas).

Yes! We have no pedophiles ...

There's a fruit store on our street
Run by a Florida Geek.
Who keeps naughty things at which to peak
But Companies pay him $70,000 to speak!

When you ask him anything, he never answers, "no".
He just "yes-es" you to death,
And as he takes their dough, he tells you ...

"Yes! We have no pedophiles
We have just pederasts in today!!
We have bondage and bitches, ball torture and anuses
All kinds of fruits and whores
We even have ripe old vintage porno,
A Fire Island meat rack or three, but

"Yes! We have no pedophiles
We have just pederasts in today!!
Yes! We have no pedophiles
We have just pederasts in today!!"

Business got so good for him that he did move San Fran bay,
"Send me Erik and Mike and Sue; I need help right away."
When he got them in the store, there was fun, you bet.
Someone asked for "little boy's ass"
and then the whole quartet
All did say:

"Yes! We have no pedophiles
We have just pederasts in today!!
Just try those copious ejaculations
Those swollen nuts or vagina
There ain't many muts like we.
We'll show you things that smell of herring,
Dark brown, and penetration bearing.
But Yes! We have no pedophiles
We have just pederasts in today!!"

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Wed 30th June 2010, 7:50pm

[Moulton]

(Moar Song Parodies!)

Youngster do a google for bananas.

You mean like this?

[Ottava]

I'm not impressed until they require an age verification before naked pictures are uploaded and make it so that parents and other groups can more easily filter out explicit content without having to ban the site completely.

[A Horse With No Name]

(Moar Song Parodies!)

Youngster do a google for bananas.

You mean like this?

[the fieryangel]

This page was created on Meta on June 29, 2010 by MZMcBride (T-C-L-K-R-D) Since then, it has been edited five times, the last edit being made yesterday :

? The following is a proposed Wikimedia policy. The proposal is under discussion. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".
←Policies and guidelines Pedophilia policy and guidelines
Shortcut:
PEDO
This page outlines the global policy surrounding pedophilia.

The Wikimedia Foundation has a zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia. Pedophilia advocacy, including self-identification as a pedophile, is strictly prohibited.[1]
[edit] References

1. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=...ards_pedophilia

[edit] See also

* w:Wikipedia:Pedophilia

Note the singular logic of using an EN:WP page as the proof of WMF policy. That's rather curious, at least in my mind...

The discussion page is even more...concise :

Unclear

This page was created by MZMcBride without community discussion, so I've tagged it as a proposal. The wording is unclear; you can no more ban paedophilia than you can ban schizophrenia or homosexuality. Please clarify the intention of this policy:

* to ban paedophiles from editing?
* to ban the promotion of paedophilia as an acceptable sexuality?
* to ban child abuse and child luring?

—Pathoschild 16:52:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to use the language now at the English Wikipedia's version of the policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=370984305
Thoughts? --MZMcBride 01:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No board statement. No discussion. Just these two arguing over two sides of the fence.

So, WMF board? Yeah, you! Is this policy or not?

It's time to make a clear statement about this and other child protection issues.

[Peter Damian]

Another very stupid discussion about the Koerper des Kindes here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim...hoto_in_Commons

Beautiful pictures, thank you for showing them. If you know of more of such tasteful, historical pictures in the public domain, please upload them to Commons as well! Fram (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

[...]

These commons categories have been thoroughly checked recently, and anything even remotely problematic has been deleted (and a lot of unproblematic pictures with it, but these have for the most part since been restored). The reason that these pictures survived is that they are not problematic at all. The supposed motives of the editors opposing you over this are irrelevant and rather prejudiced, as gays are not interested in children, pedophiles are. And gays are usually not interested in nude girls... And children seeing nude children is even less of a problem, they can see the same in the mirror every day. Fram (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"These commons categories have been thoroughly checked recently" - Where and WHO checks this images???? Jimbo suggested to delete such images for after the FoxNews discussions. X-romix (talk) 12:40 pm, Today (UTC+1)

I find your comments disturbing Fram. Perhaps that is just me though. Prodego talk 07:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

[...]

I disagree, whatever prurience is perceived is brought by the viewer. I would support having certain images non copyable so that they might not be misappropriated (a licensing legal nightmare, as well as a technical challenge, most likely) but remain visible to illustrate the encyclopedia, and thus remain a benefit to readers of a less delicate constitution than some. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever prurience is perceived is brought by the viewer?? If you find anything offensive, it's your problem. Really?

etc.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Fri 2nd July 2010, 6:16pm

[LessHorrid vanU]

Another very stupid discussion about the Koerper des Kindes here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim...hoto_in_Commons

Beautiful pictures, thank you for showing them. If you know of more of such tasteful, historical pictures in the public domain, please upload them to Commons as well! Fram (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

[...]

These commons categories have been thoroughly checked recently, and anything even remotely problematic has been deleted (and a lot of unproblematic pictures with it, but these have for the most part since been restored). The reason that these pictures survived is that they are not problematic at all. The supposed motives of the editors opposing you over this are irrelevant and rather prejudiced, as gays are not interested in children, pedophiles are. And gays are usually not interested in nude girls... And children seeing nude children is even less of a problem, they can see the same in the mirror every day. Fram (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"These commons categories have been thoroughly checked recently" - Where and WHO checks this images???? Jimbo suggested to delete such images for after the FoxNews discussions. X-romix (talk) 12:40 pm, Today (UTC+1)

I find your comments disturbing Fram. Perhaps that is just me though. Prodego talk 07:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

[...]

I disagree, whatever prurience is perceived is brought by the viewer. I would support having certain images non copyable so that they might not be misappropriated (a licensing legal nightmare, as well as a technical challenge, most likely) but remain visible to illustrate the encyclopedia, and thus remain a benefit to readers of a less delicate constitution than some. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever prurience is perceived is brought by the viewer?? If you find anything offensive, it's your problem. Really?

etc.

Yup. If you see a picture of a naked child, standing or sitting or generally just being photographed doing not very much and get a feeling of guilt or are offended by such a sight, then the problem is with you. Or at least the fact that you have allowed recent western society to so sexualise the naked form of a child that it engenders a response other than "so what?" If the child was in a provocative pose or was engaged in activity that is not appropriate to their age, then yes outrage and concern are appropriate responses. Not these pictures, though.

When people are smart enough to recognise the difference between an image of a naked child, and a presentation of a child as an object of material and sexual desire - regardless of what they may or may not be wearing - then there is a chance for our children to maintain their innocence until their hormones start taking effect.

[GlassBeadGame]

Another very stupid discussion about the Koerper des Kindes here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim...hoto_in_Commons

Beautiful pictures, thank you for showing them. If you know of more of such tasteful, historical pictures in the public domain, please upload them to Commons as well! Fram (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

[...]

These commons categories have been thoroughly checked recently, and anything even remotely problematic has been deleted (and a lot of unproblematic pictures with it, but these have for the most part since been restored). The reason that these pictures survived is that they are not problematic at all. The supposed motives of the editors opposing you over this are irrelevant and rather prejudiced, as gays are not interested in children, pedophiles are. And gays are usually not interested in nude girls... And children seeing nude children is even less of a problem, they can see the same in the mirror every day. Fram (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"These commons categories have been thoroughly checked recently" - Where and WHO checks this images???? Jimbo suggested to delete such images for after the FoxNews discussions. X-romix (talk) 12:40 pm, Today (UTC+1)

I find your comments disturbing Fram. Perhaps that is just me though. Prodego talk 07:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

[...]

I disagree, whatever prurience is perceived is brought by the viewer. I would support having certain images non copyable so that they might not be misappropriated (a licensing legal nightmare, as well as a technical challenge, most likely) but remain visible to illustrate the encyclopedia, and thus remain a benefit to readers of a less delicate constitution than some. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever prurience is perceived is brought by the viewer?? If you find anything offensive, it's your problem. Really?

etc.

Yup. If you see a picture of a naked child, standing or sitting or generally just being photographed doing not very much and get a feeling of guilt or are offended by such a sight, then the problem is with you. Or at least the fact that you have allowed recent western society to so sexualise the naked form of a child that it engenders a response other than "so what?" If the child was in a provocative pose or was engaged in activity that is not appropriate to their age, then yes outrage and concern are appropriate responses. Not these pictures, though.

When people are smart enough to recognise the difference between an image of a naked child, and a presentation of a child as an object of material and sexual desire - regardless of what they may or may not be wearing - then there is a chance for our children to maintain their innocence until their hormones start taking effect.

"Zero tolerance" means setting the bar a good distance from what is required to assure safety and protection. It means sacrificing other values and goals in order to achieve the end sought. This why for instance schools find themselves receiving criticism when a student runs afoul of a "zero tolerance" weapon policy by bringing in a toy gun and the school treats this (correctly) as a violation. The pictures reference while they have artistic merit and are not pornographic they also show clear indication of sexuality the children not merely preserving innocence. I would for instance feel (appropriate) concern if a school principal had his office decorated in numerous of these offerings. If WMF intends to in truth and fact pursue a "zero tolerance" you have to be willing sacrifice some content that would otherwise be seen as having significant value.

[LessHorrid vanU]

Another very stupid discussion about the Koerper des Kindes here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim...hoto_in_Commons

Beautiful pictures, thank you for showing them. If you know of more of such tasteful, historical pictures in the public domain, please upload them to Commons as well! Fram (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

[...]

These commons categories have been thoroughly checked recently, and anything even remotely problematic has been deleted (and a lot of unproblematic pictures with it, but these have for the most part since been restored). The reason that these pictures survived is that they are not problematic at all. The supposed motives of the editors opposing you over this are irrelevant and rather prejudiced, as gays are not interested in children, pedophiles are. And gays are usually not interested in nude girls... And children seeing nude children is even less of a problem, they can see the same in the mirror every day. Fram (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"These commons categories have been thoroughly checked recently" - Where and WHO checks this images???? Jimbo suggested to delete such images for after the FoxNews discussions. X-romix (talk) 12:40 pm, Today (UTC+1)

I find your comments disturbing Fram. Perhaps that is just me though. Prodego talk 07:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

[...]

I disagree, whatever prurience is perceived is brought by the viewer. I would support having certain images non copyable so that they might not be misappropriated (a licensing legal nightmare, as well as a technical challenge, most likely) but remain visible to illustrate the encyclopedia, and thus remain a benefit to readers of a less delicate constitution than some. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever prurience is perceived is brought by the viewer?? If you find anything offensive, it's your problem. Really?

etc.

Yup. If you see a picture of a naked child, standing or sitting or generally just being photographed doing not very much and get a feeling of guilt or are offended by such a sight, then the problem is with you. Or at least the fact that you have allowed recent western society to so sexualise the naked form of a child that it engenders a response other than "so what?" If the child was in a provocative pose or was engaged in activity that is not appropriate to their age, then yes outrage and concern are appropriate responses. Not these pictures, though.

When people are smart enough to recognise the difference between an image of a naked child, and a presentation of a child as an object of material and sexual desire - regardless of what they may or may not be wearing - then there is a chance for our children to maintain their innocence until their hormones start taking effect.

"Zero tolerance" means setting the bar a good distance from what is required to assure safety and protection. It means sacrificing other values and goals in order to achieve the end sought. This why for instance schools find themselves receiving criticism when a student runs afoul of a "zero tolerance" weapon policy by bringing in a toy gun and the school treats this (correctly) as a violation. The pictures reference while they have artistic merit and are not pornographic they also show clear indication of sexuality the children not merely preserving innocence. I would for instance feel (appropriate) concern if a school principal had his office decorated in numerous of these offerings. If WMF intends to in truth and fact pursue a "zero tolerance" you have to be willing sacrifice some content that would otherwise be seen as having significant value.

The WMF do have a serious "zero tolerance" attitude to paedophile activism, which I became aware of when I received an explanatory email from Fred Bauder while he was still the WMF legal rep. As far as I am aware it still holds, the attempts to rationalise relationships between children and adults by reference to (often Greek) antiquarian practices and portray the paedophile as the victim of their nature are quickly removed and referred to the office. The issue here is some pictures made when studies of naked children were considered to be the epitome of innocence, rather than how it is now often regarded. Those examples, firstly the solo youth is not paedophile in nature since there is obvious secondary sexual characteristics (pubic hair). Secondly, a couple of youths standing in an awkward manner, are also likely post pubescent - but the image seems a little hazy around the obvious indicator. I also cannot perceive anything close to erotic in that image - it looks like they are trying out for a clothing catalogue by staring meaningfully into the middle distance, shame they forgot to put on the comfortable pants and cardigan combination that usually goes with such stances...

[GlassBeadGame]

The WMF do have a serious "zero tolerance" attitude to paedophile activism, which I became aware of when I received an explanatory email from Fred Bauder while he was still the WMF legal rep.

I'm just a member of the public who read where the WMF Executive Director said they have a zero tolerance policy. I ought to be able to rely on the representation of their ED. So irrespective of any user generated content I say they have a "zero tolerance policy." Not an "attitude" but a "policy." I don't believe Fred ever acted as the legal counsel for WMF or even had the appropriate license to so during the relevant period.