The Problems with Wikepedia--child pornography and inaccuracy [Archive]

View Full Version : The Problems with Wikepedia--child pornography and inaccuracy

sharingwisdom

04-23-2010, 10:05 PM

Wikipedia Campaign - Wikisposure (https://www.wikisposure.com/Wikipedia_Campaign)
Wikipedophilia - ChildLaw Blog (https://www.childlaw.us/2010/04/wikipedophilia.html)
About two years ago, rumors started floating around about Wikipedia's involvement with child pornography and the pedophile agenda. First there was a row about this image on Wikipedia depicting child nudity. Then there was the long-standing allegation by Perverted Justice that: Pedophiles have long sought to use Wikipedia to justify and promote their agenda. They organize together in order to create Wikipedia accounts and then seek to use Wikipedia's all-inclusiveness to promote their point of view. When pointed out, Wikipedians themselves often don't believe that there is an organized campaign to subvert the user-edited encyclopedia in order to promote the pedophile agenda.

Well now these allegations have risen to a new level. Last week, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger reported the site's parent organization to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, saying he believes the Wikimedia Commons "may be knowingly distributing child pornography. "
<o:p> </o:p>
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CJudy%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style> </style>H-Net Discussion Networks - Re: Wikipedia (was Re: Let teachers override the filters) (https://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=EDTECH&month=1004&week=a&msg=oh60TKAnthvEwBjcWNxxSg&user=&pw)= <o:p></o:p>
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CJudy%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} pre {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section</style>All, you may be interested to know that I (Larry Sanger) just reported the Wikimedia Foundation to the FBI. Here is what I sent to them:<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>I really regret having to report this, but I feel I must. My name is Dr. Larry Sanger and I am widely known as co-founder of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia project. I have long since departed the organization, over disagreements about editorial and management policy. I have also since founded a more responsible project, Citizendium.org, and a teacher-edited non-profit directory of preK-12 educational videos, WatchKnow.org.

Given my position of influence on matters related to Wikipedia, though I'm no longer<o:p></o:p> associated with it, I feel I have a moral obligation to make the following report. The language of 18 USC §1466A makes it sound like I have a legal obligation as well, so here goes.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>

I believe Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/), (https://commons.wikimedia.org/%29,) owned and hosted by the California-based Wikimedia Foundation, may be knowingly distributing child pornography. The clearest instances I found (I did not want to look for long) are linked from [deleting link; it's a category about pedophilia] and [link deleted; it's a category about something called lolicon]. I don't know if there is any more, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is--the content on the various Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia<o:p></o:p> and Wikimedia Commons and various others, are truly vast.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> You can see on [the history of the category page] that the page has existed for three years.

Considering that Eric Moeller, a high-level Wikipedia manager, is well known for his views in defense of pedophilia (https://mashable.com/2008/05/08/erik-moeller-pedophilia/), (https://mashable.com/2008/05/08/erik-moeller-pedophilia/%29,) surely the existence of this page must have come to the attention of those with the legal responsibility for the Wikimedia projects.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> In my non-lawyer's opinion, it looks like this violates 18 USC §1466A(2)(A).<o:p></o:p> United States Code: Title 18,1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children | LII / Legal Information Institute (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1466A.html)

Perhaps the defense of this will be that the depictions are exempted due to §1466A(2)(B), i.e., the Wikimedia Foundation may argue that the images have some artistic value. I guess that's for you and maybe the courts to decide.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> There are probably many copies of such images online. If there is a reason to hold the Wikimedia Foundation, however, is that they purport to be a reliable source of information.

Moreover, a recent discussion on EDTECH, the educational technologists' list, indicates that some school district filter managers are not filtering such smut from the view of teachers and students. See:<o:p></o:p> https://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=lx&list=EDTECH&user=&pw=&month<o:p></o:p> =1004 It was actually in response to comments on that discussion that I decided to look into this situation myself.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I don't envy the FBI the task of regulating the seedy underside of the Internet, and I doubt this is very high on your list of priorities. But I want to be on the record stating that this is wrong and should be investigated.<o:p></o:p>

Erik Moeller and Defenses of Pedophilia (https://mashable.com/2008/05/08/erik-moeller-pedophilia/)
The story in question is Wikimedia Deputy Director Erik Moeller, his recent hiring at Wikimedia, and his continued self-defense of statements generally indicating that pedophelia is something that’s less than evil.
<o:p> </o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Emerald: Article Request - Comparison of <it>Wikipedia</it> and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles (https://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=B5971624ED12D3D4BFBFFC762150B834?contentType=Article&contentId=1674221) <o:p></o:p>
Wikipedia's accuracy rate has been questioned.
Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles
Findings – The study did reveal inaccuracies in eight of the nine entries and exposed major flaws in at least two of the nine Wikipedia articles. Overall, Wikipedia's accuracy rate was 80 percent compared with 95-96 percent accuracy within the other sources. This study does support the claim that Wikipedia is less reliable than other reference resources. Furthermore, the research found at least five unattributed direct quotations and verbatim text from other sources with no citations.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Wikipedia:General disclaimer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer)
Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information. "

"However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields."

"Wikipedia is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors or engage in casual peer review, they have no legal duty to do so and thus all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever."

The problems with Wikipedia are:
1) There is no guarantee its information is correct.
2) Its editors are anonymous and may be biased about the topic they are writing about and may be unqualified to write encyclopedia articles.
3) There is inconsistent or no fact checking, depending on the article.
4) The rules of wikipedia at times are used to control article content and delete other content from strong sources.
5) Experts working on certain topics in wikipedia may be derided and discouraged from contributing to certain articles.

Therefore, one is probably better off reading a peer reviewed encyclopedia or journal article, due to the potential for reading inaccurate information and a slanted or biased article.

Tars

04-24-2010, 03:12 PM

Couple of things about this posting - well, maybe three things - OK, well, at least four:

1. You neglected to include the source for this little diatribe. An opinion piece disparaging the accuracy and practices of Wikipedia, with no reference to the piece's source? Tsk tsk. Glass houses... Always post the original article's source, please, including URL. Thanks!

2. Alleging that "the California-based Wikimedia Foundation, may be knowingly distributing child pornography" is offered by a person who "long since departed the organization, over disagreements about editorial and management policy". Odds are fairly high that it's just a sour grapes smear piece from a disgruntled person who lost out in an intra-company power struggle. Also he happens to be a person who has a business that is in competition with Wikipedia.

3. If it's important, always double-check facts, and use multiple sources for verification. This applies to any source, not just Wikipedia. By its nature, Wikipedia is going to have some factual errors, lies, exaggerations, and just plain weird nonsense.

One might as well condemn FaceBook because there are no doubt pedophiles who use it. Same thing for YouTube, MySpace, Craigslist, or the web in general. It would be just as easy, and just as erroneous to say, "don't visit Sebastopol, because there may be someone there who may have some artwork that some people may think is pedophiic."

I use Wikipedia all the time. The value I see in it is that it often offers much more current information about subjects which might be interesting to me, but which editors of more traditional reference publications might not deem important enough to include. If it's a subject for which it is important to get it right, I search other sources to corroborate.

:2cents:: This is a shallow little piece, whose sole value is as an example of how not to address a perceived problem.

sharingwisdom

04-25-2010, 02:39 PM

I gave resources...did you read them?

"Erik Möller was recently elevated to Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation which controls Wikipedia. In 2000, long before his Wikipedophilia days, Möller gave a speech in Nuremberg entitled “Kinder sind Pornos” which means “children are pornography.” Even in Google’s rough translation, the gist is clear enough: Möller argues that nonviolent child pornography does no harm."

" And he has a rather curious definition of pedophilia:
"Again, someone who sexually abuses a minor is not necessarily a pedophile (”exclusively” ”attracted” to ”preadolescents” — emphasis on every word), but may simply be acting out of opportunity. The title “pedophiles and pederasts” is redundant — pedophilia ”includes” pederasty. This does not in any way mitigate the definitional problems of this article."

You can use whatever sources you want and believe what you want. I, myself, would rather use other sources anyways, so it's funny that you told me to do this, though you'll stick with Wikipedia. And I have found inaccuracies in Wikipedia as well a purposeful deletions of certain topics.

Couple of things about this posting - well, maybe three things - OK, well, at least four:

1. You neglected to include the source for this little diatribe. An opinion piece disparaging the accuracy and practices of Wikipedia, with no reference to the piece's source? Tsk tsk. Glass houses... Always post the original article's source, please, including URL. Thanks!

2. Alleging that "the California-based Wikimedia Foundation, may be knowingly distributing child pornography" is offered by a person who "long since departed the organization, over disagreements about editorial and management policy". Odds are fairly high that it's just a sour grapes smear piece from a disgruntled person who lost out in an intra-company power struggle. Also he happens to be a person who has a business that is in competition with Wikipedia.

3. If it's important, always double-check facts, and use multiple sources for verification. This applies to any source, not just Wikipedia. By its nature, Wikipedia is going to have some factual errors, lies, exaggerations, and just plain weird nonsense.

One might as well condemn FaceBook because there are no doubt pedophiles who use it. Same thing for YouTube, MySpace, Craigslist, or the web in general. It would be just as easy, and just as erroneous to say, "don't visit Sebastopol, because there may be someone there who may have some artwork that some people may think is pedophiic."

I use Wikipedia all the time. The value I see in it is that it often offers much more current information about subjects which might be interesting to me, but which editors of more traditional reference publications might not deem important enough to include. If it's a subject for which it is important to get it right, I search other sources to corroborate.

:2cents:: This is a shallow little piece, whose sole value is as an example of how not to address a perceived problem.

Tars

04-25-2010, 09:56 PM

I gave resources...did you read them?

Nope. Suggest in future give the exact URL of the article you're quoting.

You can use whatever sources you want and believe what you want.

Thank you, I will.

I, myself, would rather use other sources anyways, so it's funny that you told me to do this, though you'll stick with Wikipedia.

Oops! sorry! I meant only to suggest, not tell.

And I have found inaccuracies in Wikipedia as well a purposeful deletions of certain topics.

Ha HA! not to mention Britannica, The New York Times, or any number of other more...reputable sources.

Thank you for sharing with us that an alleged pedophile works for Wikipedia (which also has a reputation). Noted. We'll each do with that information what we see fit.

Can we move on? What's next?

LenInSebastopol

04-27-2010, 09:34 PM

Take him to Bodega Head and see if the pedophile can fly with a rock around his neck.