Wikimedia Confusion Swirls In Wake of Porn Charges

Contridictory stories are circulating after Fox News's pursuing of Wikimedia Foundation for hosting pornography reportedly resulted in Jimmy Wales personally removing some pornographic material from its servers, then giving up his special editing privileges under pressure. Fox News reported that Wikimedia is "in chaos"; this report was picked up by VentureBeat and others. Wales denies that there is any chaos (any more than usual, that is) at Wikimedia. The Fox News report apparently relied on a single unnamed source, and Wales said, "They don't even bother to contact me before publishing nonsense." The background: on April 27 Fox News published an exclusive report about porn on Wikimedia servers, then followed up by contacting organizations that had donated to Wikimedia to ask them what they thought about it. In the aftermath, Wales took a position in support of purging porn from Wikimedia Commons. This all started when estranged Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger contacted the FBI with an allegation of child porn on Wikipedia.

Comments

Internet Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, good. Seems like we haven't had a proper internet war since Usenet vs. Scientology or vi vs. emacs.

Oh well, at least the right people usually win. What would've happened if Scientology or emacs had won?

Re:Internet Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientology or emacs had won

emacs did win :P

Re:Internet Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

You want a good war?

FSM vs IPU.

Re:Internet Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientology or emacs had won

emacs did win :P

only as a operating system. for text editing, VI iMproved wins

Re:Internet Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

I could see that, maybe, if you didn't have to become acquianted with the manual to do something as basic as, say, entering text.

Re:Internet Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

When I start emacs, I don't even get a place to type text. Just a menu offering a bunch of ways to get help. The help screen uses completely separate (+unintuitive and severely limited, I might add) keybindings. The opening menu mentions something about "visit new file", which not only sounds like some sort of Microsoft Bob jargon for thinking good thoughts about one's day, but also, as a special bonus, when selected it opens a little prompt at the bottom that says "Find file: ~/"

At least with vim, if you try to treat it like a sane editor, it is very likely to start working accidentally.

Re:Internet Wars

[HopefulIntern]

The true genius sticks to pico/nano.

Re:Internet Wars

[Docboy-J23]

C'mon. Mod parent off topic. You fucking dorks and your irrelevant loyalties.

Re:Internet Wars

[tehcyder]

At least with vim, if you try to treat it like a sane editor, it is very likely to start working accidentally.

Than which there can be no higher praise.

Re:Internet Wars

[icannotthinkofaname]

I threw the manual into a supernova, because I disagreed with it.

(mods, please tell me I'm not the only slashdotter who's seen the Doctor Who episode "Amy's Choice".)

Re:Internet Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, if you start emacs like most people do, by clicking on a text file or typing 'emacs filename' then you have an editor open that will allow you to edit exactly as you would expect, without knowing that you need the magic key before you can start editing.

Re:Internet Wars

[jedidiah]

vim is by no stretch of the imagination a "sane" editor. It isn't even recognizable as an editor at all.

That's rather the whole problem with vi(m). It is something that was barely appropriate for it's purpose when it was first created and was quickly DUMPED by that creator.

vi was a bad hack to suit a particular set of limiting conditions much like the first version of MS-DOS.

Everyone else moved on. The original author is just shaking his head. Probably regrets the whole thing.

The idea that "it's standard" like some demented variation on Lotus123 is the only thing that keeps it going.

Re:Internet Wars

[Bugamn]

Hey, that's how I started using vim for coding C:

nclude

Re:Internet Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

Ends in sex.

Re:Internet Wars

[K. S. Kyosuke]

What would've happened if Scientology or emacs had won?

Well, Scientology would start using Emacs to oppress the world with their lawsuit and Richard Stallman would be very sad.

Re:Internet Wars

[severoon]

Well, let me just air the following uncontroversial opinions:

• Usenet
• vi
• Wikimedia

-ducks & covers-

Honestly, this looks like a case of sour grapes to me. Wikimedia has a process for alerting the editors to illegal content and getting it removed right away. Surely Sanger knows this. Instead he writes a letter to the FBI because, uh oh, he's implicated by having viewed it! Ahem. BS.

Re:Internet Wars

[omarius]

Seconded. And I'm flattered!

Re:Internet Wars

[rtfa-troll]

I think a true genius could remember what they are working on.

http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed.msg

Re:Internet Wars

[fractoid]

I could see that, maybe, if you didn't have to become acquianted with the manual to do something as basic as, say, entering text.

You're making a common mistake and conflating ease-of-use at beginner level ('novice-friendliness') with ease-of-use once the program is mastered. An average user with no special training will be far more productive in nano than in either vi or emacs. I've only met two or three master-level vi users, but what they can do with a few cryptic keystrokes is boggling.

Another good example of this is Blender - the interface is unlike anything else, and requires a fair bit of familiarity before you can do *anything*. This is exacerbated by the fact that 99% of tutorials are written assuming you know the basics, and so for a true beginner you can pretty much replace every step of every tutorial you find with a picture of rageguy screaming "how the FUCK do I do that?!" Once you find the hotkey cheat sheet and learn the basics, though, the interface is surprisingly intuitive.

Re:Internet Wars

[fractoid]

The idea that "it's standard" like some demented variation on Lotus123 is the only thing that keeps it going.

Actually, vim is a video game for people with hacker-brains. We use it because it's fun, not because it's necessarily more efficient. It's like a cross between Notepad and a cryptic crossword puzzle.

Re:Internet Wars

[fractoid]

I want videos of ALL of it.

Re:Internet Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

You can win with a long weapon, and yet you can also win with a short weapon. In short, the Way of the Ichi school is the spirit of winning, whatever the weapon and whatever its size.
  -- Musashi

Re:Internet Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

I could see that, maybe, if you didn't have to become acquianted with the manual to do something as basic as, say, entering text.

Sorry, but Scientology is entirely unsuited to text entry. And don't even get me started on its memory allocation flaws.

You have to wonder

[bky1701]

... if Sanger saw this sort of thing coming.

It has long been known to anyone who ever tried to contribute to Wikipedia just how much off the books power Wales has. Those who spent a particularly long amount of time there might remember the whole birth date fiasco, which basically pinned Wales against himself, much to the confusion of his many disciples.

Sanger has to know Wales even better. It wouldn't be much to assume that he might have expected this sort of reaction. Indeed, this situation really threatens Wikipedia's standing as non-bias (specifically, censorship-free) and open, at least among those who didn't already know better. Could this be the straw that breaks Wikipedia? Did Sanger expect this?

Re:You have to wonder

[Trepidity]

I'm guessing Sanger certainly hoped for some sort of media frenzy. He's spent the past eight years since he quit working on Wikipedia mostly trying to trade off the fact that he used to be involved in it.

Re:You have to wonder

[rtfa-troll]

Normally, if you want to report a crime, you do it with an off the record quiet message to the authorities, which allows them to try to actually catch the people committing the crime in the act. Normally, if you want to get a project you are related to to stop doing something you worry might be a crime, you first contact the people responsible; especially those you believe aren't involved, and try to get them to do something about it. If, as it seems, Sanger went to the media first of all then that speaks volumes about his motivation.

Having said that; Wales is probably an okay guy, but his position in Wikipedia has been totally inappropriate since his personal life and finances intruded on the project. Once Wikipedia set its self up as an independent foundation all his power should have been derived from some clear democratic process in that foundation. The stupid thing (and the one which shows that he's a completely inappropriate person for the role) is the fact that he could probably have quite easily got himself elected president of the board or something and then none of the arguments against him would be nearly as effective. What Sanger has done may be a bit late, but it's definitely one of the strongest hopes of strengthening the Wikipedia project.

Re:You have to wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is there mention of any crime? So far I've only seen an accusation of hosting porn.

Re:You have to wonder

[GigaplexNZ]

This all started when estranged Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger contacted the FBI with an allegation of child porn on Wikipedia.

Emphasis mine.

Re:You have to wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to say, that I never found anything on Wikipedia unless I looked for it. Go figure..

Re:You have to wonder

[digitig]

You never clicked the "Random article" link, then?

Re:You have to wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

"the straw that breaks Wikipedia"

Oh you are one of THOSE people, everything else you say is discounted by anyone with an ounce of sense, no strike that , a gram of sense.

Re:You have to wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure that the "porn" in question was a couple of ALBUM COVERS that were sold openly in the 70's in both the US and Britain.

To allow those albums to be sold openly in record stores for DECADES and then later decide that it is worthy of being classed as the worst offense that humans have ever committed seems a bit, well, like the puritans are taking back the world.

Re:You have to wonder

[Protonk]

Considering that he's been making these kinds of comments on various subjects for a few years, no I don't think Larry saw it coming. I'm always amused by the deference granted to Sanger. He left a successful albeit chaotic project to form a total failure. He didn't fail because he lacked startup funds or media attention (he was funded and the newspapers ate up the Citizendium breakoff). He failed because he misjudged the nature of the internet--badly. What makes you think he has some grand strategic vision?

Re:You have to wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, not that I recall. I have the following in a static homepage on my local filesystem since some years and never go to the front page:

<form action="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search" id="searchform">Search Wikipedia <input id="searchInput" name="search" title="Search Wikipedia [f]" accesskey="f" value="" type="text"></input></form>

For light reading, I prefer novels..

Re:You have to wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless if he knew or not, he's probably very happy with the result of his actions right now. He publicly accused Wikipedia of an extremely heinous crime, knowing full well his claim was bullshit AND that he could have done something ELSE to get his voice heard, such as posting to the mailing list. He saw an opportunity to try and damage Wikipedia and he took it because he has no regard whatsoever for the hard work of the contributors.

In earnest, fuck you Larry Sanger.

ps: I'm not a Wikipedia contributor myself, though I briefly have been in the past. Not that one needs to be able to tell that the claims are nonsense.

Re:You have to wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely it can't be simply that, because the Virgin Killers page is still there, along with Annabella Lwin, aged 14.

Re:You have to wonder

[xaxa]

The other "child porn" was woodcuts, drawings etc. of adolescents/children. None of it is particularly erotic, all of it was of historical interest. It's still there, in the Pedaphilia category on Wikimedia Commons (the most NSFW bit is the "Pedaphilia" title and the URL).

I saw a similar woodcut in a history textbook at school when I was 14. I can remember the teacher reading out the associated court transcript, including the statement from a young girl who'd been raped by the owner of the factory she worked at. It was significant because it was around the time children's rights were improving in the industrial revolution.

Re:You have to wonder

[JustOK]

Normally, if you want to report a crime, you do it with an off the record quiet message to the authorities

wtf? off the record???

There's that bit about being able to face your accuser.

I think you might be thinking of "confidential"

Re:You have to wonder

[pipatron]

Normally, if you want to report a crime [...]

There's that bit about being able to face your accuser.

If it is a crime, the accuser is the state.

Re:You have to wonder

[commodore64_love]

Nudity is not the crime.

Possession of photos of the nudity is not the crime.

The involuntary sex is the crime, and the man who did the act is the criminal. Get it straight. I'm sick and tired of seeing people get arrested for victimless crimes (like smoking weed while watching Star Trek at home - no victim? No crime).

Re:You have to wonder

[JustOK]

wut?

Re:You have to wonder

[DerekLyons]

It has long been known to anyone who ever tried to contribute to Wikipedia just how much off the books power Wales has.

Which he has, very publicly, given up at least (IIRC) three times.

Re:You have to wonder

[edremy]

Saw it coming? He's doing everything he can to make it happen.

Larry's been sending a bunch of emails to at least one mailing list I subscribe to (EDTECH) breathlessly discussing the legion of kiddie porn images on Wikipedia and how teachers need to ban all access to Wikipedia.

The actual teachers, on the other hand, are mostly telling him to go away- they're already used to handling porn and other "forbidden" stuff in the classroom and it's simply not a big deal.

I don't know if he's really, genuinely worried or if this is just a lever to hurt Wales, but frankly it's kind of annoying. (I'm not a big fan of Wales either, but Larry's so obviously grinding his axe here he's not converting me at least)

Re:You have to wonder

[pnewhook]

Society needs to issue a restraining order preventing the word "fox" from coming within 50 words of "news". Helps prevent confusion.

Re:You have to wonder

[Stenchwarrior]

Did you actually look at the pictures in that link? There are all sorts of "erotic" and NSFW displays! Particularly where the one where the drifter is just finishing up with the little girl who is clearly dead...

Re:You have to wonder

[pnewhook]

He's right. If you accuse someone of murder and it goes to trial, you are not listed as the plaintiff - its the state who is the accuser.

Also you can report a crime off the record. You can use anonymous tip lines. Of course the tip has to be proven with other facts if someone ends up being charged.

Re:You have to wonder

[subanark]

I tried the good 'ole Random article. Didn't see anything remotely pornographic for about a dozen articles... finally came up with a book cover featuring the side view of a naked adult male (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crystal_Horde). Seems like the vast majority of Wikipedia is not about, or even borderline related to sex (of course you can make anything related to sex if you try hard enough).

Re:You have to wonder

[JustOK]

state acts on behalf of the people, and if the charges are the result of civilian "complaints" to authorities, then the source of the allegations is open to the court and the defense.

Anonymous does not mean off the record.

Re:You have to wonder

[TheCarp]

heh and I tend to be of the opinion that that concept is about where criminal justice and good ideas parted ways. Certainly, in the case of a murder or other area where a victim can't speak for themselves (dead, brain damaged, etc) we are left needing that to be the case. I can't think of many other cases where that seems like a good idea.

I mean, that concept is why we have a problem here in MA with BDSM clubs. Its a crime to hit someone, and the state is the plaintiff... so even if the person wanted to be hit, asked you to hit them, hell, even if they begged for it... its still a crime to do it.

-Steve

Re:You have to wonder

[Teancum]

The real power that Jimmy Wales had was the power of the purse strings. He originally was the one that paid the bills and hired the staff, all of that coming from his own pocketbook.

Unfortunately for Wales, that era has passed by long ago and there is no way that a single person, even somebody with funds on the order of Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, could keep the Wikimedia Foundation going. Jimmy Wales certainly is no Bill Gates in terms of fiscal resources.

The real issue now is what residual authority that Jimmy Wales really has within the community, and how pissed off that community has become over this issue. It is notable that the community has "voted" with a 4:1 ratio to have the "founder" flag removed from the account of Jimmy Wales at this point too. If he decides to use this authority again in any meaningful way, I am quite certain that will be the end of his involvement with the Wikimedia Foundation in general.

For myself, I hope that he does continue within the community and that no matter what is going to happen from this point forward that his opinion will certainly carry substantial weight. The problem is that he now has to participate in the projects as a normal user and participant, and can't make unilateral decisions in a god-king role. If he wants to see something like porn removed, he needs to work with the community debate process to see that it happens. That is perhaps a bit tough for him to give up, but it will also be healthier for the Wikimedia projects in general. He certainly bit off more than he could chew by taking on the Commons community.

Re:You have to wonder

[Teancum]

What should be noteworthy here is not really the involvement with Wikipedia, which has dealt with the temper tantrums of Jimmy Wales for some time, but it is the other sister projects that are starting to get fed up with him. Wikiversity has been through a recent tail-spin in particular when because Jimmy Wales didn't get his way a threat to shut down the entire project was put forward. The whole issue of porn played itself out not on Wikipedia but on the Wikimedia Commons, and the debate over if he should remain happened on Meta. It is mostly these other groups of related projects that are starting to push back, and that is what has become part of the more visible conflict that has happened in the past month or so.

Jimmy Wales was the chairman of the board of trustees (essentially the president) and did wield some executive authority from that position for awhile, but even that was something he gave up a few years ago with the election of a new chair. His current position, as such as it is, is as an unelected member of the board of trustees based upon historical reasons than any real justification for being there. Perhaps there is a role for unelected members of the Wikimedia board of trustees, but there certainly is plenty of other people's money on the line now and this scandal may have some long term impact on the foundation governing body.

On the whole, I think this whole incident will in the long run make for some healthier projects as it does show that no one single person ought to have the kind of authority that Jimmy Wales tried to wield here, and that the community isn't happy that it was used in that manner even if the motives were somehow noble.

Re:You have to wonder

[Chirs]

"...smoking weed while watching Star Trek at home - no victim? No crime."

The victims are the people who have to pay more for their taxes or health insurance to cover the increased costs of paying for treatment of the various diseases caused by smoking. (Cancer, etc.)

I agree it should be legalized though...at least then the external costs could be properly included in the price.

Re:You have to wonder

[pnewhook]

Yes state acts on behalf of the people, but the state does not need a complaint from the people to act on a murder charge. Plaintiff is always the state.

What do you mean by saying he does not mean off the record? That's what he said.

Re:You have to wonder

[donaggie03]

I think the difference between "anonymous" and "off the record" is subtle but very important. If a complaint is "anonymous" then a record of the complaint is taken, but the identity of the complainer is kept secret. If a complaint is "off the record" then the both the identity of the complainer and the fact there was even a complaint is kept secret.

So how does this effect real life? An anonymous complaint can be taken to a judge as grounds to get a search warrant to find other evidence of a crime. An off the record complaint cannot usually be used for much.

Re:You have to wonder

[halcyon1234]

(like smoking weed while watching Star Trek at home - no victim? No crime).

Depends. Is it Star Trek V? If not, we're cool.

Re:You have to wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, kind of depends if you shot someone for the weed and ripped Star Trek from pirate bay....

Re:You have to wonder

[rtfa-troll]

I agree with you about the BDSM, but in my opinion that's more a matter of what is the law than the way the crime is prosecuted. However there plenty of instances apart from murder where this makes sense:

• Where the victim is a young child unable to make a clear decison themselves
• Where the victim might be initimidated
• Where the criminal is rich and might buy off the victim
• Where the victim is embarassed

There are many reasons to prosecute crime, but one very important one is to protect the next potential victim, stopping the criminal after the first crime. That person can't be represented by the existing victims.

Re:You have to wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Because people have a desire to posses and view photos of the nudity, people will make the photos of the nudity. Just like with the war on drugs the government goes after the people who consume the photos in hopes to 1) lessen demand and 2) find a way to track and identify the producers. While not very effective in the "war on drugs", it can be effective in battling child pornography because when you find the consumer it is much easier to track the producer. While busting some guy for smoking weed on his couch while watching Star Trek may be trivial in taking down a drug ring, busting a guy with images of child pornography may give investigators the material and links to track down and prosecute the people who exploit children.

Re:You have to wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, no, it doesn't depend. Even if you shot someone for the weed and the Star Trek is pirated, smoking the weed while watching Star Trek still shouldn't be illegal.

Re:You have to wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

While we're at it, let's charge people higher insurance for drinking diet soda (increased risk of cancer), for not eating the exact, perfectly portioned meals formulated for their body needs (chances of obesity, other various digestive tract risk factors), and people who use cellphones excessively. (increased brain cancer). When people start taxing those, then i won't complain about getting busted for weed and startrek.

Re:You have to wonder

[commodore64_love]

>>>The victims are the people who have to pay more for their taxes or health insurance to cover the increased costs of paying for treatment of the various diseases caused by smoking

By that reasoning, the government should be able to tell you to stop eating hamburgers, fries, et cetera. Also they should be able to limit your intake to just 2000 calories.

BUT I prefer to live in freedom, not slavery.

Re:You have to wonder

[DaleSwanson]

Its a crime to hit someone, and the state is the plaintiff... so even if the person wanted to be hit, asked you to hit them, hell, even if they begged for it... its still a crime to do it.

How do they handle boxing then? Does it have an explicit exemption? Or is it just a matter of ignoring it because it is more socially acceptable?

Re:You have to wonder

[fractoid]

Exactly, although I disagree with the use of the war on drugs as an analogy, because the actual production of drugs can be done without causing harm to any person.

If there is enough demand for a particular type of media, then a supply will rise to meet that demand. When creating said media necessarily involves committing a crime (especially something as serious as rape or murder) then possession of the media is tantamount to complicity in the crime. Prosecuting anyone owning such material makes it easier to catch the actual perpetrators of the crime.

I can agree with this, as far as it goes. Where it gets very sketchy in my mind is where, as with the drugs example, the production does no harm to any actual person. There was a bill introduced a while back which was going to (or maybe does?) criminalise cartoon and fictional depictions of underage sex. This crosses the line into thoughtcrime, as far as I see it - a guy sitting alone in a room drawing loli-pron isn't doing any harm to anyone.

Re:You have to wonder

[rtfa-troll]

Just to be absolutely clear about this. Sanger has made it very clear that it's not the album covers he was interested in, but some actual representations of sexual assualts on children. The question is, since these aren't photographs, whether they are protected free speech in the USA, but apart from that he probably is in some sense right about the legal position. The Grandparent has clearly not bothered to read the various articles at all some of which link to extensive discussions on the subject and deserves to be trolled. (having said that, I accept my moderation as a troll in this case even though I think these particular moderators should a) go read the articles too and b) get a sense of humor)

Re:You have to wonder

[orngjce223]

By that logic, your post is illegal, too.

*ducks*

Re:You have to wonder

[RockDoctor]

He failed because he misjudged the nature of the internet--badly.

He overestimated the ethics and intelligence of the average person. He thinks that (on average) people are better than they (on average) are. Sad, but not particularly surprising.
Maybe I should revise "people" in the above to "people who have access to the Internet" - may well be more accurate.

Re:You have to wonder

[sjames]

I really have to wonder about the "guardians of morality" who look at a picture of a child that is simply nude and see porn. Just exactly what is it running through their minds that says porn. It seems that perhaps they doth protest too much.

Re:You have to wonder

[TheCarp]

> However there plenty of instances apart from murder where this makes sense:

Ok yes, there are a few, I am not sure about plenty. However, I do think it would be reasonable to say that, at the very least, there should be onus on the state to show, in each case, that this case is one where such an exclusion should apply.

> Where the victim is a young child unable to make a clear decison themselves

Yup, tho, I might add "And the alleged perpetrator is the child's legal guardian"

> Where the victim might be initimidated

might be? Not sure how I feel about might be. It smacks way too much of "I know whats best for you". At some point, is there really a victim if there is nobody who is willing to stand up and make a complaint? Who is the state exactly to be second guessing people? The only real solution that I see for intimidation is to offer to protect the person from intimidation. If thats not enough then, at some level, why doesn't silence imply consent?

> Where the criminal is rich and might buy off the victim

Settlement out of court. Case closed. I don't see how this is the states problem.

> Where the victim is embarassed

Again, at some level you really are going far too far into "we know whats best for you" territory. I think part of this is, I don't recognize a duty to stop all evil in the world. Not being a party to evil is more important than stopping evil as it exists. If someone stands up and asks the state for help, then I have little problem with the state helping.

When nobody asks for, or even wants help... well... I don't tend to thank people who "help me" by doing things that I ask them explicitly not to do. In fact, it perplexes me, but several people have been extremely distraught when I chewed them out for it. "But I was trying to help you".

In the end, I don't care how big or how powerful you are, a person who doesn't want help can't be helped, I don't support efforts to help such people.

-Steve

Re:You have to wonder

[TheCarp]

Thats a good question. Actually, I believe the "no hitting" thing actually comes under "domestic assault" laws. I would have to look, but its entirely possible that either its legal to hit people that you don't live with or otherwise have a romantic involvement with. (I note, martial arts classes often train students to hit eachother and learning to "take a hit" is as much a part of the training as learning to hit)

Its also possible that there are specific regulations for boxing and other sports that categorizes it as something other than assault. So in short, I would have to look. A FOAF who runs a BDSM "play space" reports that the police interpretation of the law (or at least, how they claim to enforce it) is that they make a distinction between a person who is free to walk away and someone who is restrained. So... you can tie up your lover or beat them, but not both. Of course, that was verbally communicated by police officers to her, and is NOT a statement by the AG or a legal decision.

-Steve

Ignorance of the Masses

[BoldAC]

"Though he remains the president of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wales is no longer able to delete files, remove administrators, assign projects or edit any content, sources say. Essentially, they say, he has gone from having free reign over the content and people involved in the websites to having the same capabilities of a low-level administrator."

Ignorance of the Masses => Democracy

Will we actually notice any changes?

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Anonymous Coward]

Will we actually notice any changes?

Quite possibly. There have been many instances when Wikipedia's "consensus" (explicitly not democratic) decision-making completely failed and Wales stepped in as "the king" to make the final decision.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[tokul]

"Though he remains the president of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wales is no longer able to delete files, remove administrators, assign projects or edit any content, sources say. Essentially, they say, he has gone from having free reign over the content and people involved in the websites to having the same capabilities of a low-level administrator."

If something belongs to somebody, they always have more privileges than low-level wikipedia admin. Do you really think that he can't restore his super privileges, if he really wants too?

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[The Hatchet]

What is next, removing anatomical drawings from textbooks because *gasp* BOOBIES?! */gasp*

Seriously, porn is a part of our reality, whether we like it or not, removing it from encyclopedias is like pretending it doesn't exist. Ignoring reality is almost as bad as EVERYTHING that I have seen to date on Fox. Sickening.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Trepidity]

In the other direction, though, Wales has not in recent memory had unlimited use of any of those powers in practice. He had some bits set that gave him a bunch of admin privileges, but if he ever tried to use them, as he did here, you can see what the result would be: he was reverted and forced to back down. So I don't think the removal of bits is a particularly important change; then, as now, his primary power is soft-power.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Anonymous Coward]

"Though he remains the president of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wales is no longer able to delete files, remove administrators, assign projects or edit any content, sources say. Essentially, they say, he has gone from having free reign over the content and people involved in the websites to having the same capabilities of a low-level administrator."

Uh... on Wikipedia, the capabilities of a low-level administrator include being able to delete files, assign projects and edit content. And yes, he can still do those things too.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[bjourne]

Your memory must be very short. Wales usually gets involved in a small number of conflicts which become landmark cases that everyone has to adjust to. It was his votes that forced the removal of the autofellatio photos and decided that the vagina and clitoris photos were to sexual. Previously, he has even been involved in the Palestine conflict, pruning some articles he thought were "unbalanced." Plus, let's not forget the time he tried to purge the "co-founder of Wikipedia" status from Larry Sanger.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Protoslo]

That isn't the case in the United States, home of the Wikimedia foundation. Wikimedia's statement about this matter implies that there will be no policy (or content) change.

On the topic of allegedly illegal materials on Wikipedia and our projects: The Wikimedia Foundation obeys the law. In the weeks since Sanger’s published allegations, the Wikimedia Foundation has not been contacted by the FBI or any other law-enforcement agency with regard to allegedly illegal content on any Wikimedia projects. Our community of volunteer editors takes action to remove illegal material when such material is brought to its attention. The Wikimedia Foundation is proud of the Wikimedia editors who zealously work to keep the projects free of illegal material. If and when we are informed by law enforcement agencies of illegal content that has not already been removed through self-policing, we will take quick action to delete it.

Any other position would be giving in to Sanger's terrorism, so this is a relief.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Trepidity]

Early on, yes (and I've been around since then, too). My comment is mostly referring to the past five years. The autofellatio and Sanger-editing incidents were in 2005, and incidentally, he didn't prevail on the latter one. The Rachel Madsen incident happened in 2007, and he did pretty much the opposite of prevailing on that one.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[mikael_j]

What laws? Please cite the relevant laws or stop spreading misinformation.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Jesus_666]

Seriously, porn is a part of our reality, whether we like it or not, removing it from encyclopedias is like pretending it doesn't exist. Ignoring reality is almost as bad as EVERYTHING that I have seen to date on Fox. Sickening.

Breasts aren't pornography. Penises aren't pornography. The naked human body is not pornography. And yes, at least the more well-known pieces of classical art aren't pornography even if they depict things very much illegal today. You can have all of that on Wikipedia without it ever being pornographic.

I've looked at what Sanger complained about. I've looked at my fair share of obscure Wikipedia articles. I've never encountered anything you could reasonably describe as pornographic. Yes, there were various organs and at one point I stumbled across a photo series depicting an ejaculating penis (appropriately enough illustrating the article about ejaculation) but none of that was pornography.

Yes, someone might probably derive sexual stimulation from some of the pictures. The same applies to pictures of animals. That doesn't mean that zoos are peep shows.


Neither is pornography evil nor is everything involving bare primary or secondary sexual features pornography. Man I wish the United States would just hit puberty already and get over their paralyzing fear of sex.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Jesus_666]

Actualy, couldn't Wikimedia now sue Sanger? There should be some kind of defamation lawsuit in it for them if they can prove that his allegations were unsubstantiated.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[commodore64_love]

And even if those "pieces of classical art" were pornographic, that's no reason to censor them. It's not going to harm your little kid. You taught them to read the book "Everybody Poops", a rather disgusting act, so surely you can teach them "everybody procreates" too.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[pipatron]

You can't defame a company.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Protoslo]

He didn't say anything that was necessarily outright factually incorrect, so it would be tough to prove libel against him in the U.K., much less the U.S.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Enderandrew]

It depends. Technically, it would be libel, not defemation. And "public figures" are somewhat immune to libel. That is why tabloids can say a witness saw Tom Cruise gutting puppies and not get sued. John Bobbit was in the tabloids, and he tried to sue them for libel, saying they lied about it. A judge ruled that John Bobbit has become a public figure.

If you can prove "actual malice", then you can still sue for libel. But that has proved to be pretty hard. I believe there has only been one case in history where a celebrity successfully sued a tabloid, for instance. Carol Burnett's parents were killed by a drunk driver, and she runs a charity geared towards drunk driving awareness. A tabloid reported she was drunk in public, and she proved that not only was the article full of lies, but it cost her charity financially. The damages proved there was malice, and thusly the basis for her suit.

If Wikipedia donations plummet over this affair, then perhaps they can prove malice and damages.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[PopeRatzo]

Breasts aren't pornography. Penises aren't pornography.

Tentacles are kind of pornography. A little bit. If done well.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[c0lo]

Neither is pornography evil nor is everything involving bare primary or secondary sexual features pornography. Man I wish the United States would just hit puberty already and get over their paralyzing fear of sex.

They did... long time ago, during 1960-es (just rent the "Hair" movie).

But... well.. d'you know the difference between a little boy and an old man? The former thinks his willy's just for peeing, the later is damn'd sure about. I reckon after a certain age he's so sure that he'd happily preach his truth quite aggressively.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Anonymous Coward]

you know, not every place is the USA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

not that I know, of any laws like that, but with india and china up in the list, chances are high.

and it has already been established that web publisher are liable in every country they do publish their content (google vs italy, pirate bay vs the rest of the world)

now go hide under an american rock while we discuss this matter.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Anonymous Coward]

not that I know, of any laws like that, but with india and china up in the list, chances are high.

So, again... What laws?

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Anonymous Coward]

In Australia, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Content Services) Act of 2007, just to cite the most restrictive common law country
then you have laws banning sales of legal films to underage people, like in in italy (18), canada (19), austria (16). Finland has two categories, softcore allowed on over-15 and hardcore to over-18

and as a closing comment, in china it's illegal all together, both distribution and possession, as in india, which pretty much closes the argument.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither is pornography evil

Pornography destroys relationships. I mean, aside from the fact that it corrupts men and exploits the unfortunate, how do you think it makes a girl feel to know her "lover" watches porn? That he fantasises of women more attractive than herself? Why is it that guys have to hide porn from the missus? How would you feel, as a woman in this society, being constantly bombarded with overly sexual themes everywhere you look, telling you you're not skinny enough and your body is ugly, and then you find your partner looks at porn? Why don't you ask a few? I'm not a woman so I don't know for sure but I have been told it is degrading and would make you feel rotten, unwanted, and completely worthless.

You might have heard stories on TV before of relationships destroyed by porn, but I have personal experience with this. A guy I know struggles with porn. It wasn't that way when he first started going out with his girlfriend. He wouldn't look at it all day, but it was more than occasional. His girlfriend found out and gave me his computer so he couldn't use that (it was the only thing he used it for). She later found him using the WiFi to look at porn on his phone, so she disconnected their cable. How do you think she feels? This girl isn't a prude, she's not religious, she'll openly talk about sex, she's just a normal girl. He says she never wants to have sex with him, well I bloody wonder why! How the heck could she? She'd be conscious the whole time that he'd prefer some sex slave girl with big tits who waits for him in the bedroom all day long just so he can satisfy his selfish desires.

I have no problem with the rest of your post. I am not a prude and can appreciate art and images used for demonstration. But pornography is a different story. It's time to face the music, buddy: pornography is a fantasy that a selfish man (or sometimes woman) indulges in because he doesn't have to put up with the person attached to the vagina. It's easier to enjoy yourself over some pixels and then turn the video off than it is to invest your time, emotions and life in relationship with a real girl. And that's what porn is, the easy way out. Moderation? What are you trying to do, see how close to the fire you can dance without getting burned? Please, keep your denial and self-justification to yourself. You can make excuses to appease your conscience all you want but nothing you say will ever change the fact that looking at porn is one of the most selfish things a person can do.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Anonymous Coward]

oh nice, a -1 I didn't want to do the research so I'll mod this troll instead of arguing.

I should really quit searching for a meaningful discussion here.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[The Hatchet]

It is disgusting bastards like you that ruin the internet. Pornography does not ruin relationships. Not even close. I was just in a good relationship for 3 years, and looked at pornography the whole time without issue, the sex was alright (except she had no sense of beat or rhythm, but that applied to music too). It gives ideas and can enhance the sexuality of both members.

Now don't get me wrong, there is porn, and then their is internet-cheating. Internet cheating is certianly wrong by all means, because it is cheating.

Also, in order for a relationship to work with porn, a guy just needs to explain why its needed. It is by no means a replacement or divergence, it just releases spare sexual tension so that you don't spend every waking moment humping your partners leg when they aren't in the mood. Girls sometimes don't understand that, but I find a simple explanation clears things up. And a girl censoring a mans porn, will be restricting his total sex and drive him insane. She clearly is not making up for the lost stimulation, so he left. And porn is about eye candy, and it is a simple chore, sometimes a way to get a couple excited before the big act, or to get ideas, there is no desire for the girls in pornography, they are clearly morons, likely with several STDs and no personality. People have desires, and if they re not filled they can begin to interfere with life, and even lead to side-relationships. You clearly have no sense of what a real man uses porn for.

Also, I must note there has never been a single peer-reviewed study about pornography, its effects, or anything, so making so bold a claim about it because you had a friend that couldn't explain it to his women and a women who was greedy, and wanted a man that would hold himself up and suffer through boughts of extreme horniness wherever he goes and wait for HER in the bedroom all day, does not prove a damn thing about it in general.

Porn is not an easy way out, it is never as good as sex, but you can't have sex every time you get horny. Hell, if that happened to me, my ex-gf would leave me for begging to have sex 3 times a day. Instead, I used porn as an outlet so I didn't have to beg, and when we did it, it was that much better, because she was in the mood.

Considering these facts, how MANY men I know in relationships look at porn all the time, and manage very well, and how the few men I know that don't look at porn literally can't keep a girl more than a week before cheating. AND considering there is no scientific evidence for or against your points at all, the fact that you make them so strongly and ignorantly is absolutely fascinating. I mean seriously, if there are actually men out there that *WANT* the women in pornography, they are retarded. Most don't, it is just something to make masturbation easier so we don't go into the office or classroom ready to fuck the first thing we see with boobs. I am astonished by your one-sided closed minded foolishness, and your assumptions make no sense whatsoever.

How about you reinforce your points with solid logic, including some from the real world, and do not make such claims that it should be banned or removed without extensive scientific studies in the area, and especially don't do so when there is not a single study into it.

Also, Porn is not about fantasizing about insanely hot women, like I said before, there is no attraction to them, just some eye candy to get off to. Really, nobody wants those girls. Plus, the overly skinny ones are nasty, I am sorry, if you are a man that is attracted to anarexic girls with fake boobs and are 80 pounds, you might as well be a pedophile. I never hid my porn, felt no reason too, I had explained it sufficiently, and sometimes she would comment on it. Whatever morons are telling women to lose weight are certainly not on my side, I like my women shaped like women, not like little boys and girls. Men get bombarded by worse images. The female body is generally a beautiful thing, as long as it is less than 35% body fat,

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[The Hatchet]

I thought I had run into some that were articles about porn, describing different fetishes and giving brief photo examples. But again, there is nothing wrong with describing part of a culture. Leaving it out of an encyclopedia is literally like pretending it doesn't exist, and society loses A LOT when it pretends parts of it don't exist. Debates over the legality of things flounder because no evidence can be gathered because nobody will pay for it and blah blah blah. It is really terrible.

There is a lot of simple nudity too, and I'm sure that would be hit by the censure too, despite it being no-pornographic.

I too hope we can, as a country, move towards a future when we are not all stuck with our heads barried in the sand, pretending everything is evil.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[mikael_j]

And in a lot of countries context means a lot in the eyes of the law, if you put the porn under "pornography" in an encyclopedia it's no longer considered to be for the purpose of sexually exciting the reader.

Not to mention that there are plenty of countries where pornography isn't illegal in any way, Wikimedia could just host files that could potentially upset prudes in those countries and be done with it, that way every page with such content could contain a neat little warning along the lines of "Your politicians are insane so we need to warn you that if you continue beyond this notice you may find yourself looking at pictures of the human body and perfectly normal bodily functions" for all users accessing their sites from countries where the human body is considered "naughty".

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Phoenixlol]

Sounds like your friend's girlfriend needs has some issues with her ego. I've seen a lot of porn in my day and it's never once been because I'd rather be doing that than banging my girlfriend. It was because she wasn't around or didn't want to. That she takes it so personally seems a little silly to me; millions of girlfriends out there know their boyfriends masturbate, if they don't, they're lying to themselves. It's something people do.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Anonymous Coward]

law is law. I agree that that particular law makes no sense. but that was not the first point and was never into discussion.

but if you want to stray over because you can't admit to have lost the argument and don't want to hide under a rock, go forth.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[fishexe]

Man I wish the United States would just hit puberty already and get over their paralyzing fear of sex.

This is really the wrong crowd for that sentiment. Many slashdotters decades past puberty still won't know what you're talking about. Get over fear of sex? As if.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Toonol]

He said there was child porn; there's not. It's hard to think of anything more defaming.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Toonol]

like it or not, laws require all content with that nature be on a certified textbook or under an age verification checkpoint.

No. Firstly, nudity isn't necessarily pornographic nor illegal. Even underage nudity isn't. Secondly, I don't believe there is any special legal status given to 'certified textbooks'. You can walk down to Barnes & Nobel and buy a textbook with images of graphic nakedness, even copulation, that is neither 'certified' nor contains the age verification. It's simply not necessary because those subjects aren't necessarily pornographic.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Jesus_666]

Well, most Slashdotters are only afraid of sex if it involves themselves and another person. Porn certainly doesn't apply unless you do it either very wrong or very right.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Jesus_666]

Minor nitpick: "Defamation" is a generic term for both slander and libel.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[ichimunki]

one of the most selfish things a person can do. Are you crazy? In a world where 16,000 children die of hunger every year, eating is the most selfish thing one can do.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Distan]

"...not the '''technical''' ability (because even here in English Wikipedia, I voluntarily foregoe it) - but I still have the unquestioned right to ban people from English Wikipedia if there is good cause.-- Jimbo Wales 19:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)"

Not only does he think that he has the "right", but he believes it is an "unquestioned right".

The foundation needs to act to sever Mr. Wales from the project. He is a loose canon.

IMHO, as a long time wikipedian, everything good about Wikipedia culture can be traced back to ideals that Sanger put into place. Everything toxic about Wikipedia culture can be traced back to bad examples set by Jimbo and his fetish for power.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[fishexe]

Well, most Slashdotters are only afraid of sex if it involves themselves and another person. Porn certainly doesn't apply unless you do it either very wrong or very right.

Ah, good point. For example, with hot grits and Natalie Portman.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that a James Bond joke?

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought having kids was the most selfish thing http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1648748&cid=32176672

Porn probably prevents some kids from ever happening.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Protoslo]

His statements to the FBI on his (allegedly) good-faith interpretation of the murky law on obscenity, though. All he really did was request that they investigate...

I agree that there is hardly anything more defaming than his blatant implications, but that's more of a problem with societal perceptions than the First Amendment.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Protoslo]

Help! I've dropped my copula and I can't get up...

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[kalirion]

I've looked at my fair share of obscure Wikipedia articles. I've never encountered anything you could reasonably describe as pornographic.

The charges were about porn on Wikimedia, not Wikipedia. You could very well have terrabytes of porn on Wikipedia without them showing up in a single Wikipedia article.

Re:Ignorance of the Masses

[Jesus_666]

Fair enough, although I have seen nonsensical complaints be brought against Wikipedia for showing oh-so-harmful perfectly legal album covers and the like. After a while it all runs together.

Fox News vs. Wikipedia

[Arancaytar]

I can't wait for Murdoch to get soundly trounced by the internet he hates so much.

Re:Fox News vs. Wikipedia

[sa1lnr]

Murdoch against porn?

http://www.page3.com/

Re:Fox News vs. Wikipedia

[xaxa]

Wikipedia against "child" (by USA standards, and the more recent British standards) porn

The Sun and other British tabloids have also provoked controversy by featuring girls as young as 16 as topless models. Samantha Fox, Maria Whittaker, Debee Ashby, and many others began their topless modelling careers in The Sun at that age, while the Daily Sport was even known to count down the days until it could feature a teenage girl topless on her 16th birthday, as it did with Linsey Dawn McKenzie in 1994, among others. Although such photographs were legally permissible in the United Kingdom under the Protection of Children Act 1978, critics noted the irony of Murdoch's Sun and News of the World newspapers calling for stricter laws on the sexual abuse of minors, including the public identification of released pedophiles, while publishing topless photographs of girls whom many other jurisdictions would legally classify as underage minors.[8] Controversy over these young models ended when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 raised the minimum age for topless modelling to 18.

(From Wikipedia)

Re:Fox News vs. Wikipedia

[nospam007]

We gave him all that Avatar money, so the wait can be long.

Re:Fox News vs. Wikipedia

[zardozap]

Fox reporting rumor and innuendo without fact checking? That would NEVER happen! Ok, I'm done being sarcastic now...

Re:Fox News vs. Wikipedia

[mdwh2]

The Sun are guilty of much hypocrisy - but sorry, doing something that is legal, and only illegal elsewhere is not one of them. It would be absurd as criticising the Wikipedia (hosted in the US) Virgin Killers article, because it might be illegal in places like the UK.

A better example would be, as you note earlier in your comment, the habit of certain tabloids focusing on celebrities approaching 16 (most notably the Daily Star, who did this on one page, and then on the opposite page they were slagging off the Brass Eye parody).

Re:Fox News vs. Wikipedia

[commodore64_love]

Nudity of a human body, whether that body is 60, 16, or 6, is not a crime. Every day (when it's warm) millions of people around the world run-around topless or naked on beaches, or in nudist camps. Many of them even take photos and stick them in their family albums. Civilization has not collapsed.

Re:Fox News vs. Wikipedia

[mdwh2]

Er Flamebait? Did Larry Sanger get mods points, or is a mod here seriously suggesting that papers and Wikipedia should be constrained by what's illegal in other countries, even if it's legal for them?

Re:Fox News vs. Wikipedia

[xaxa]

Unfortunately, what I wrote above the quote isn't what I was thinking, and isn't correct (if it even makes sense). I clearly wasn't concentrating. The comment certainly doesn't deserve a +4 moderation.

Re:Fox News vs. Wikipedia

[xaxa]

I agree 100%, I mixed up what I was writing (I wasn't concentrating).

Re:Fox News vs. Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

Semantics fail.

A crime is something the government in an area says is a crime, and in many areas, nudity falls under that umbrella.

Many things that are crimes are not wrong, and many things that are wrong are not crimes. What you're arguing is that nudity is not wrong. The distinction is *extremely* important, if you want to stay out of jail.

Total self-discreditation, Larry

[Anonymous Coward]

Larry Sanger totally and completely discredited himself by starting this allegation fiasco. From a pursuer of an alternative editing strategy (which, despite shortcomings, was addressing a real (or perceived as real) problem of content quality of Wikipedia due to editorial policy, he turned himself into a cheapshot troll that will resort to the dirtiest tactic possible to attract attention. Even if his allegations were genuine (which clearly they aren't, on numerous points of principle), he'll never be able to get over the sour grapes analogy which will forever become his soubriquet.

Even the minor PR damage caused to Wales (and I really think Wales was just looking for a reason/excuse to give up his adminship, as he was realizing "benevolent dictatorship" was no longer a fitting model for a project the scope and developmental maturity of Wikipedia) will not outweight the devastating damage to any professional reputation Sanger still had before this point.

Bye Larry. From a legitimate oppositioner to a resentful clown, all by a single, stupid, stupid decision. How sad.

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[Anonymous Coward]

hi jimmy wales ! nice to see you on /. how is life these days with no "special" privs ?

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[hairyfeet]

Actually I don't blame Larry at all, in this witch hunt anyone that goes for the CYA strategy is just showing they have a brain. I mean we are living in an age where a drawing, no matter how crude, and that involves no real children what so ever can get someone sent to PMITA prison depending on their location.

The simple fact is it has long since quit being about "protecting the children" and become a classic witch hunt where I doubt anyone is truly safe if they end up with a zealous prosecutor and a hang 'em high judge. Is that an elf in the game you are playing? Looks like she might be loli! Hell we are gonna have to have every single fantasy/Sci Fi book have a porn style "all models depicted or described in this work was over 18" in the front of the book just to keep from risking jail!

So don't blame the guy for CYA when it is the whole system that is completely fucked. I mean you can go to prison just for having words on a page nowadays, so just the fact that he accessed those pages on his PC without reporting them could have landed the guy a jail sentence. I mean, what would you have him do, keep a stack of HDDs handy so he can burn his drive every time he accessed Wikimedia, in case something got cached? If you don't like this horseshit, write to your elected officials and try to organize your fellow citizens to get the laws overturned. Of course you'll probably be labeled a kiddy fiddler by the MSM and have your place raided, but that's what happens when you have a witch hunt and why most people will go for a CYA in this crazy time.

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[Trepidity]

Somehow I doubt Sangers actually feared being prosecuted. I agree the laws are nonsense, but when something's being openly hosted and accessed by thousands of people, the most likely people to be prosecuted are those hosting it, and Wikimedia had not been prosecuted for hosting any materials despite having these up for a long time. That makes the likelihood of some random visitor being prosecuted quite small, and I find it unlikely Sangers really believed he was in danger of being prosecuted. More likely, he: 1) hates Wikipedia, so wants to do anything he can to bring it down; and 2) is a media whore.

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is the reason Larry reported Wikipedia?

There are many unreasonable laws in this world, but you cannot claim that you are calling attention to the bad law, when you report your competitor using a bad law. (Or to use an analogy, I cannot call a the cops on my neighbour after he pisses me off, and claim that I am showcasing unreasonable drug laws).

If he wanted to take a stand, he could do it on his own site.

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[Ethanol-fueled]

. Is that an elf in the game you are playing? Looks like she might be loli! Hell we are gonna have to have every single fantasy/Sci Fi book have a porn style "all models depicted or described in this work was over 18"

And an unfortunate side effect of that will be that women that are depicted will have bigger breasts and more "womanly" features, contributing even more insecurity to young women whose bodies have been deemed illegal.

Somewhat related - months ago on Slashdot, I told its readership that I would make a homemade Slashdot-themed porn video. Unfortunately, the woman I had in mind chose not to participate(sorry guys!) I have another willing lady, but she's very, um, short. Like four-foot-nine short. She has well-developed breasts and hips but seeing how poorly American law is interpreted, some self-righteous moralist would report me and I'd eventually be charged with "simulated sex with a minor" or some other bullshit charge after the FBI and ICE rummage though my house and interrogate my friends.

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[Anonymous Coward]

So don't blame the guy for CYA when it is the whole system that is completely fucked.

Uh, ok then. How about we simply criticize the guy for squealing to the police so he could get a plea bargain? Never mind the fact that its HIS FOUNDATION and that he promotes CENSORSHIP-FREE INFORMATION.

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[Protoslo]

You don't blame Sanger for being an unmitigated FUD-slinging asshole who is ostensibly using the law as his personal weapon, but who really knows that it doesn't matter that his charges have no legal merit as long as it gets him enough press?

I doubt even Sanger himself would embrace such audacious apologism (in private).

Incidentally, exactly who was holding a gun to his head, forcing him to attempt to find every last bit of nudity-related material on Wikipedia? By his own account, he was unaware that Wikipedia was such a den of iniquity until he started scouring it for anything he could call porn while promoting his new (children's) website. Even if what you said about the law were true (it isn't that bad in the U.S., yet), how could you possibly defend him for throwing fuel on the fire? It is taking all of my willpower not to Godwin myself here. That's the sort of argument you are making.

I blame you for excusing Sanger's self-serving assault on free speech just because assaults on freedom are popular in the current political climate. It would be one thing to say that his actions are "understandable" (though I would still say it is complete bullshit to claim good faith on Sanger's part), but to claim that they are actually reasonable or even ethical? Your arguments themselves constitute an assault on free speech.

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[silentcoder]

You know... I went and read that link you posted about fictional writing, and with only a few small exceptions every single commenter was declaring that the punishment wasn't severe enough.
How sad.

Where would the law draw THAT line then ? Canada's law prohibits fictional writing about sex involving children... well I guess it's illegal to read Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliette in Canada then. Every single line in that play is a thinly veiled sexual refference, every single word they say is flirtatious and promising of sex. Juliette goes so far as to decry having to wait longer "to be enjoyed"... and according to the script... she is 12 years old.

Times change. In the 1600's a 12 year old girl was considered a grown woman and the average age of marriage was between 12 and 15 (you know that whole wait-till-you-marry idea must have been a LOT easier when that meant 2 years after puberty rather than about 20 like now) - point is.
By modern standards, Julliete was a child, way below the age of consent for just about any country. If we ban the stories this man had, we have to ban Shakespeare... well we wouldn't be first I guess.
Hell old Bowdler actually deemed himself justified to have the audacity to rewrite Shakespeare and remove the sex...

I didn't start my comment with "I hate childporn but..." - because it's a sign off the witch-hunt that everybody who shows a little reason in these matters feel the need to do that. Stallman spoke out against the witchhunt, and got a bunch of the Novellian New-breed OSS'ers calling him a paedohphile for it.
It seems humanity will never learn, witch-hunts are never just -and whatever atrocity leads to a witch-hunt, the one thing you can be sure of is that the witch-hunt will do nothing to reduce it. All it will do - is remove justice and freedoms from a whole lot of innocent people. My claim that censorship is never a good thing rest firstly on the fact that no matter how noble it's cause, it's never effective in any positive way - but it always has many negative effects.

Thank goodness I got to study Shakespeare BEFORE we Romeo and Juliette became illegal.

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[Protonk]

It's not CYA. Sanger hasn't been involved in wikipedia for almost half a decade. Sanger had hoped that his new project (Citizendium) would have taken off, but it didn't, so he spends his time making random comments about Wikipedia. Trolling and nonsense mostly.

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[Thiez]

Oh no! And we were so looking forward to this! :(

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[Anonymous Coward]

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/archive/t-564039.html

The article says, "The law defines child pornography as material whose "dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity" with someone under 18."

Who knew fictional someones had rights under the law?

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[Anonymous Coward]

Mismatched '('

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[tehcyder]

Where would the law draw THAT line then ? Canada's law prohibits fictional writing about sex involving children... well I guess it's illegal to read Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliette in Canada then. Every single line in that play is a thinly veiled sexual refference, every single word they say is flirtatious and promising of sex. Juliette goes so far as to decry having to wait longer "to be enjoyed"... and according to the script... she is 12 years old.

Yes, but there's no actual fucking on stage, so it should be OK.

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[silentcoder]

>Yes, but there's no actual fucking on stage, so it should be OK.

So a girl of 12 lying in bed dreaming out loud of her boy fucking her tomorrow is okay. At least some scholars believe that it was Shakespeare's intent to suggest she is masturbating while thinking about it - though of course hidden enough to pass the censhorship of the day. Several later stage productions show her in bed under the blankets with suggestive movements to reinforce this point. Even the 1996 movie with Leo DiCaprio very strongly hinted at the same thing.

But just as long as they don't actually show them fucking, the fact that everybody KNOWS they did doesn't matter...

I see your point. How do you get around inconvenient and obvious problems with a stupid law ? You find a stupid excuse to make it not apply to them.
Doesn't change the reality. There is clear suggestion of erotica and sexuality in Romeo and Juliette. Even without the "touching herself" interpretation of Juliette's lament the dialog and plot still makes it blatantly clear that they HAD their wedding night before they died.
So lets see where we get now. It's illegal to write about children having sex, but it's legal to write about children talking about having sex ?

Desk --- head...

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[Enderandrew]

It is an odd society that we live in, in which Harry Potter fan-fic is considered child pornography, even though no children were victimized.

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[Ed Avis]

If you read what Sanger wrote, he says that if you come across this material online, you are *required* to report it to the FBI, or risk being arrested yourself. Do you believe that this is not true?

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[DerekLyons]

Even the minor PR damage caused to Wales (and I really think Wales was just looking for a reason/excuse to give up his adminship, as he was realizing "benevolent dictatorship" was no longer a fitting model for a project the scope and developmental maturity of Wikipedia) will not outweight the devastating damage to any professional reputation Sanger still had before this point.

If it weren't for the fact that Wales seems to be coated in teflon, this should be major PR damage. He, supposedly, long ago abdicated as 'benevolent dictator'. He's given up his 'special powers' at least (IIRC) three times before.
 
Yet, time and time again he personally intervenes in Wikipedia and nobody comments on it.

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[Archangel Michael]

"can get someone sent to PMITA prison depending on their location."

This is the problem with ZERO TOLERANCE laws. There is no tolerance of anything even resembling whatever is unlawful. It isn't just Porn that is the problem.

When people get sent to jail for owning a firearm in a truck driven to school and parked on the street, or even a drawing of a gun, or popping Mike n Ikes or JollyRanchers, it is the EXACT SAME problem.

The counter problem is that too many people who don't know or want any lines drawn. It isn't just the right (porn) or the left(guns) that are the problem it is a people issue.

Zero tolerance laws are bad, because they always take away the better judgment of people and replace it with absolutes. This is how dictatorships take effect.

The problem is, there are enough people on both sides of things that like telling others how to live. And while I might not like having porn shoved down my throat every day, I know plenty of /.ers that do.

There has to be a balance somewhere, where breasts, penises and vaginas are allowed, but are appropriate for the audience.

In this case, Wikipedia should set a standard that makes it easy to see the images in question, if one wants to, while letting most people avoid even knowing they are there.

Finally, here's a test for everyone ... if it isn't porn and is there for "educational" purposes, why not pick some skanky old women (or men) be the models rather than young hot babes.

I call this the Goatse test.

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[gorzek]

Maybe I'm missing something, but why would ICE be involved in a porn sting?

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[Teancum]

While I would agree that Larry Sanger is trying to stir the pot up here, the real blame I give to Jimmy Wales is reacting to that controversy rather than simply letting the community deal with the issues and acting as a shield to the community rather than being a blunt instrument to stir things up and make a mountain out of a molehill here. If anything, the actions of Jimmy Wales gave force of authority and power to Larry Sanger than treating the guy like a crack pot.

Seriously, had Larry Sanger been treated as the completely irrelevant opinion that he should have been treated as, this whole "controversy" would have blown by without even so much as a note and certainly wouldn't have deserved repeated /. stories like it has. The issue over pornography and what qualifies as such on the Wikimedia commons is a long debated topic and this brief foray into the decision making process over what qualifies as "legal" or "illegal" is certainly not over. Most of Jimmy Wales' deletions have been overturned and much of the content supposedly removed has been restored... and that is by those within the community who are bold enough to take the initiative. It was the threats against admins who were brave enough to overturn these actions that in part led to the real problems facing Jimmy Wales right now.

As for Jimmy Wales wanting an excuse to give up authority.... I don't buy that for a second. The call to remove the founders flag actually happened before this incident over porn content, and if anything demonstrates that such arbitrary "god-king" powers are abusive. The abilities of the founder class of users (of which Jimmy Wales is currently the only user account with those privileges) have been stripped away merely to save face for Mr. Wales, as having that status completely removed would have perhaps been a bit to embarrassing to the guy and something not supported by the board of trustees.

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[Ethanol-fueled]

That's what I asked when I first[scroll down] started hearing about them. From what I understand, they're the guys who go scoop up the pedos who're caught with CP or hitting on 12 year old girls in chat rooms. Either way, the DHS smacks of the Gestapo.

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[unknownroad]

I am astonished and outraged at the story you linked about words on a page. I had heard about the drawing one before on /.. I am extremely disappointed with people who can't see that these cases are tantamount to convictions for thoughtcrime. There weren't any real victims. Granted, I don't condone the behaviour of these guys, but that does not give us the right to punish them for an idea. You cannot equate an idea that is not acted upon to a crime. It does not matter what the idea is. I am ashamed that this happened in my country.

From the linked article: "He must also provide a DNA sample for inclusion in a national criminal database and register as a sex offender for 20 years." For reading a book. Or technically just for possessing the book. I realize that this guy had a previous charge for possessing real (presumably) child porn, but that is irrelevant in assessing the criminality of the more recent conviction for possessing the stories. If a writer creates a story in which someone commits murder, is the writer (and their readership) just as good as a murderer? Of course not, and for some reason we have no problem accepting this kind of literature. In fact, it's commonplace. As soon as the topic of the fiction shifts to something uncomfortable and verging on taboo to even mention, it's as if our brains turn off and we can no longer see the situation for what it is.

That takes care of comparing fiction to fiction with different topics. To further illustrate the point, let's now consider fiction to nonfiction with a similar topic. If the author this time describes a historical event that involved the rape of children, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Nanking_(book) (a best seller nonetheless), are they just as good as child rapists? Once again the answer is obviously no. The works of fiction may have different intents than the factual account, but it is irrelevant. What matters is that they are all words on a page and that should not constitute a crime.

Re:Total self-discreditation, Larry

[unknownroad]

I read those comments too and am very disappointed at my compatriots for some of them. You're right about the witchhunt. In my other comment here I felt the need to include a token anti-child-porn remark precisely to redirect the witchhunt elsewhere. I shouldn't have had to. I wasn't playing devil's advocate for child porn, but by defending anything that's even remotely juxtaposed with that topic is a dangerous game because far too many people jump to conclusions. "Why do you want molesters and paedophiles to roam free? Are you one of them? You're either with us or against us!" A false dichotomy.

And so ends Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

Goodbye somewhat trustworthy and not so old friend. Apparently we hardly knew you.

Well, duh.

[Black Parrot]

"They don't even bother to contact me before publishing nonsense."

FOX is in the business of publishing nonsense.

Re:Well, duh.

[sznupi]

How much of an "accident" this story could have been anyway, considering views probably dear to many FOX faithfull? (just search for "porn" on those pages; too much to link to specifically or there are no article sublinks)

Re:Well, duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

FOX is in the business of publishing nonsense.

As much as I hate Fox News, Fox News really did nothing more than report what happened from the point of view of an outsider.

-Sanger reported to the FBI, "Wikimedia hosts child pornography!"
-Wikipedia freaks out and attempts to save itself when it realizes its own Co-Founder just hit the "Self-Destruct" button.
-Rebellion breaks out among the administrators.
-Fox News reports Wikipedia imploding as administrators fight whether or not to keep the "questionable" pictures.

Re:Well, duh.

[infinitelink]

The media in general is in that business, the up-side to having Fox around is that it's one side of the nonsense that gets to criticize the other, and vice versa. If you think there are many out there publishing anything but nonsense, then I would have you carefully examine your discernment, if you can.

Re:Well, duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I hate Fox News, Fox News really did nothing more than report what happened from the point of view of an outsider.

That's a nonsense excuse. It's like that "just sayin'" crap that's used to pretend an unfounded accusation was just an "innocent" remark.

BTW, I heard you like little boys too much. Just sayin' ...

Re:Well, duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard you like little boys

Reported to the FBI.
- Co-Founder of Slashdot

Re:Well, duh.

[dangitman]

the up-side to having Fox around is that it's one side of the nonsense that gets to criticize the other, and vice versa.

How is that an up-side? Partisan bickering is not what journalism is about. And this is exactly the trap that Fox has set for the media and its consumers - the "Fair and Balanced" nonsense contained in the idea that good reporting is all about finding two opposing extremes.

Re:Well, duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the site in question is http://commons.wikimedia.org , not Wikipedia at all.

Commons is a repository. It hosts millions of files for the different wikipedias, wikinewses, wiktionarys etc in all the different languages of the world. And yes this does include depictions on adult topics, simply because those belong in an encyclopedia/news article/etc too.

AFAICT fox news would like to see all kinds of things get removed, like 19th century artworks, line drawings for articles, as well as photographs. They've subtly shifted away from "child pornography" to "anything we might think is pornographic" you see.

Most of these are obviously not going to be removed. But even if they were, it would only be a fraction of a percent of commons.

If you'd like to see the detailed analysis:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058081.html

Re:Well, duh.

[Idiomatick]

Is conservapedia a joke site serious or a bit of both? I've always been curious. I imagine it attracts people serious about it and people that can't believe its serious and think it is hilarious.

Re:Well, duh.

[dave420]

The actual users of it think it's fantastically serious. Lots of people, though, laugh their asses off at it. As you can see from merely visiting it, editing it is a much harder endeavour, and all changes are watched very closely. It's retarded.

Re:Well, duh.

[Enderandrew]

Your analogy fails.

You're suggesting I can make up a lie, and end it with "just sayin'" and that is the same as a news agency reporting on facts.

If Fox News completely out of the blue said Wikipedia was full of child porn, then your analogy might hold water. But Fox News in this case is reporting on the facts that a formal accusation to the FBI was made by someone else.

I won't defend Fox News (or any overtly biased news source) on the whole. But in this case, they are reporting facts.

Re:Well, duh.

[couchslug]

"FOX is in the business of publishing nonsense."

Most of the American public believe, if not crave, such nonsense.

Fox is profitable because they affirm the cherished beliefs of their audience. They don't exist in a vacuum.

Re: Well, duh.

[Black Parrot]

Is conservapedia a joke site serious or a bit of both?

The Schafly geniuses are deeply involved, so at least some of them think it's serious.

I'd be surprised if there weren't plenty of trolls too, unless editing privileges are restricted to insiders.

Re:Well, duh.

[MRe_nl]

"They don't even bother to contact me before publishing nonsense".

That's what i think when i read wikipedia ; ).

Re: Well, duh.

[jandrese]

Conservapedia bans a lot of users for being suspected trolls, and rightfully so; but the problem is that it's almost impossible to tell the trolls from the real "contributors" like Schafly because the content of the posts is nearly identical.

Re:Well, duh.

[sznupi]

Nothing unusual about such confusion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_eponymous_laws#N.E2.80.93Q
http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Poe's_law
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law

Re: Well, duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's untrollable. I've tried. There are two reasons:

- They'll kick and IP ban someone at the slightest sign of trolling. They'll also kick and IP ban someone for violating the ideological purity standards, as decreed by the admins, primarily Conservative and Assfly himself. Even an honest editor, an actual conservative, would likely get banned eventually. The only way to stay is to make minor edits for months to earn their trust, and slowly work up. And never, ever disagree with an admin.

I was once kicked from there for posting the speed of light. Conservative believes that light actually used to travel trillions of times faster than it does today, but slowed down before we had the technology to measure it. That's why we can see things more than 6000 light-years agao, when the universe was only made 6000 years ago.

- Nothing you post - nothing, no matter how ridiculous - can be as crazy as some of their claims. Conservapedia, when I last checked, said that liberalism is a sign of demonic posession, Obama is both an atheist and a muslim, and ADOLF HITLER WAS GAY. Not making this up. That was on there. On an admin-locked article, to prevent reversion. Seriously. How could any troll possibly top that?

Re:Well, duh.

[infinitelink]

I understand hat "fair and balanced" does not mean "opposing extremes", but I was pointing-out that if you have one extreme, it's better to have another to call its bluff, and vice versa. This is the history of the world man: there's almost never such a thing as "neutral" journalism, even rarer to have anything but extremes, sensationalism, etc..: people have correctly discerned and exposed that for centuries, the media is anything but investigative. And with regards the language of "extremes", well, define it: in our day such terms are used of anything by anyone of something they don't like, just as "moderate" is used not only to mean either nothing or just pretended neutrality, but many times is applied to views and positions that are, historically, nothing less than excessive extremes.

Re:Well, duh.

[dangitman]

I understand hat "fair and balanced" does not mean "opposing extremes", but I was pointing-out that if you have one extreme, it's better to have another to call its bluff, and vice versa.

Ok, so what does that mean? Fox News is the only "extreme" news channel. All the others are basically moderate. So, are you saying we need some extreme-left news channels to balance out Fox News?

This is the history of the world man: there's almost never such a thing as "neutral" journalism, even rarer to have anything but extremes, sensationalism, etc..

There have been plenty of those around for quite a while: the BBC, PBS and NPR, New York Times, etc. Of course, nothing can ever be completely neutral, but organizations such as those do have ethical standards and try to investigate and report impartially.

Excellent trolling by Fox

[NicenessHimself]

Fox have successfully created a news story from nothing; the ringing up of donors is a classic. Whatever you think of Fox's agenda, they did what they do very well on this one!

Re:Excellent trolling by Fox

[Enderandrew]

If Fox failed to try and contact anyone from Wikipedia for a quote, then that is irresponsible journalism. You should try to gather all the information possible before reporting. But if I was a news editor and I got a confirmation that someone did file a formal charge with the FBI on child pornography, that constitutes a valid story. Failure to report such a story can also be construed as editorializing the news.

Re:Excellent trolling by Fox

[CmdrPorno]

You mean I can donate to Fox News? How did I miss out on this incredible opportunity?

Re:Excellent trolling by Fox

[Anonymous Coward]

re: FOX 'News' : the word pander comes to mind.

To Be Expected

[DarkDespair5]

As soon as censorship is mentioned, media coverage (pro and anti) will jump in the fray. Not good for an organization committed to facts (in principle, anyway), not controversy. Fox and "family" groups will always contend Wikipedia is not going far enough regardless of anything they do. What I see happening (unfortunately) is the de-sexualization of topics (i.e. stick figures for examples and clinical language for descriptions) now that this can of worms has opened. This will inevitably lead to a loss of information, as Wikipedia's rabid destruction of lists and articles on rare subjects has told us time and time again.

Re:To Be Expected

[spire3661]

Wikipedia is not committed to facts. The David Rhodes media blackout proved that wikipedia is political and not an unbiased resource. We simply want facts from wikipedia, nothing more, nothing less.

Re:To Be Expected

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right that Wikipedia's administrators can distort the truth. The ideal of an unbiased encyclopedia is marred by biased people. Hence the 'in principle' qualifier ;)

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, theory and practice are different." - Albert Einstein

Re:To Be Expected

[dangitman]

We simply want facts from wikipedia, nothing more, nothing less.

That's not possible from any source. The creation of "facts" is always a subjective and fraught process.

What child pornography?

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, we're supposed to take both the accusation by Sanger and the determination by the FBI at face value (if any is coming at all!), without verifiable evidence.

I know Wales has legitimate criticisms which can be leveled against him, but this feels more like a personal vendetta than anything substantive.

Fox "News"

[DerKlempner]

Fox News reported that Wikimedia is "in chaos"

Hello, pot; it's me, kettle!

against cp

[somethingtoremember]

Deal with child pornographers by kicking them out of your community and make sure they're not welcome back. Do everything you can to make sure their actions and their viewpoints are totally unwelcome. Child porn is a hideous crime. But the internet wasn't the start and deleting it from there won't be the end of it. Some people abuse the service. It's not the service, it's the users. It's obvious this wasn't Sanger's or wikipedia's fault, or for that matter FOX. The internet routes around faults, after all. IMHO, Wikipedia and Wiki Media Commons are still not /open/ enough. 3 all the language translations, and open knowledge will still have its faults, but this sort of thing is really old. AT was taken down. Be glad for that!

Re:against cp

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do not judge lest ye be judged!" That's a verse from a book that I never read (and do not intend to) but those are some wise words. I always wondered how guilty are those that judge others.

My opinion on this sort of story is: Do not shield anyone from the reality, especially not children! They ought to know what's out there and how the world works in its entirety. I never understood people who think otherwise.

Re:against cp

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are these "child pornographers" that you speak of? Those who have erotic thoughts involving children? Those who read erotic stories involving children? Those who watch erotic anime/read comics involving children? Those who watch erotic photos involving children? Or those who have erotic relations with children?

And in each case, what is the degree of eroticism involved? The mere suggestion of sex? The suggestion of a naked child body? Or the explicit kind? Is the eroticism artsy or is it vulgar? If there is a child involved, is it willingly or not? Is the child happy or is it in pain? Is the child before or after puberty? How old? 12? 15? 17? And so on...

You seem to forget that all those that you label "child pornographers" are people, like you and me, and deserve to be treated as such, and not to be put under a label. Even if they are different than the usual socially repressed representative, are you sure they deserve punishment for just the association with child porn? Don't group them together, treat each case individually and examine it without prejudice.

Re:against cp

[Anonymous Coward]

And in each case, what is the degree of eroticism involved? The mere suggestion of sex? The suggestion of a naked child body? Or the explicit kind? Is the eroticism artsy or is it vulgar? If there is a child involved, is it willingly or not? Is the child happy or is it in pain? Is the child before or after puberty? How old? 12? 15? 17? And so on...

I think there is no reason for child erotica - meaning nudity without sex acts - to be illegal at all. And after 14, anything goes. Pervert? No, realist. Or even the opposite, idealist -- expecting the laws to conform to REAL LIFE, rather than mad religion-based prudish standards.

Re:against cp

[quickgold192]

Child porn? There were no children involved. There were *drawings* that were *supposedly* intended to be children. There are 20-year-olds who look like 12-year-olds. Why can't they just label these pictures "20-year-old-sex! (wink, wink)" Who's to say what the artist intended?

I mean, Australia can still outlaw them, but I don't think anyone else can.

Re:against cp

[tehcyder]

You are a moron. Most people refrain from raping babies because it is abhorrent, unnatural and immoral by any sane ethical judgement, not because they are "socially repressed."

Re:against cp

[xelah]

You missed out 'How out was the perpetrator? The same age as the victim? Or even the same person? Was the perpetrator in a relationship with the victim, or even married?'.

People love labels, don't they? Then it's easy to insist 'we clamp down on child porn', by increasing the penalties and broadening the definition. Then, in your head, everyone with the label attached can be guilty of what you consider representative of the label without you ever stopping to think what you're actually making happen at the other end of the justice system.....like teenagers going to prison for sexual activity with each other.

Re:against cp

[xelah]

And now you and the original AC are guilty of doing exactly what he's criticizing. In extremis, it leads to this sort of thing: Two 17 year olds sending each other pictures => child pornography according to law => 'paedophile' label => raping babies => eject them from our society forever. Maybe someone accused of that is genuinely guilty of raping babies, or maybe guilty of something much less, or guilty of something criminal but non-abusive, or maybe not guilty at all....but you can't get over your idea of the label for long enough to want to find out or assess the quality of the law and its response.

Re:against cp

[Enderandrew]

I'm a parent. I loathe those who victimize children on any level. But humans have sexual fetishes. As a society, we deem sexual fetishes involving children to be outside the social norm, and even vile. I get that. But to an extent, we can't help having fetishes. Furthermore, we have a vicious double standard at play here reviling people who lust for children, while daily marketing children as sexual icons.

What is the difference between a 16 year old Brittany Spears selling herself as a sexual icon, and child pornographers looking at "barely legal" porn of 18 year old girls trying to look younger? Both are legal and accepted in society, because apparently no actual victimization of children occured.

Pushing these people out of your community just means they have to drive a little further to get to your kids. It is an idiotic concept that does nothing to protect children. It is burying your head in the sand, not trying to understand or solve the problem.

The solution lies with studying the condition, perhaps treating it with drugs/therapy, or perhaps finding harmless analogs. For instance, if they can only be sated by watching porngraphy with children, then allow them to watch anime depicting children. That is really no different than "barely legal" porn, in which the illusion of children is created, but no children are harmed.

No one wants to defend pedophiles because they are so reviled, but these laws demanding pedophiles live outside of towns is pretty damned unconstitutional. Most of these laws are retroactive (ex post facto) and also constitute double jeopardy. But why the hell should anyone care about upholding the Constitution?

Re:against cp

[xelah]

I think there is no reason for child erotica - meaning nudity without sex acts - to be illegal at all. And after 14, anything goes. Pervert? No, realist. Or even the opposite, idealist -- expecting the laws to conform to REAL LIFE, rather than mad religion-based prudish standards.

I think you have to consider ability to consent a little more. A picture can last a long long time....to varying extents children need to be protected from making (or being talked in to) poor decisions which may negatively affect them for life. I don't think that two 14 year olds exchanging naked pictures with each other in a non-abusive consensual way should be met with criminal penalties because that's not an effective way to increase the welfare of children. (A 14 year old with a hidden camera should be a criminal, just like an adult would be, and treated like any other child accused of a crime). Permitting adults to talk under 18-year-olds in to posing for commercial photographs, or to publish them, is a rather different matter.

Re:against cp

[TheCarp]

You know, if I had any artistic talent at all, I would probably respond to all this by drawing up a picture of a child be graphically anally penetrated by "Uncle Sam" with the words "No Child Left Behind" tattooed on his cock, just to help test (and illustrate) how ridiculous these laws can be. (of course, I would be cowardly hiding behind free speech through political satire....)

Actually.... I guess it could be done in stick figures and labels. I mean, is a stick figure is meant to represent a 10 year old boy, and another stick figure represents a man raping that child... is that child porn? What about a picture of a guy stroking his hard on, while looking at a catalog of children's toys? I mean.... seriously!

And as I type this.... I did a quick google search and find.... I am.... just not that original... http://stickfigurechildporn.blogspot.com/2008/12/here-is-template-for-stick-figure-child.html

I guess all the good ideas really are taken.

-Steve

Re:against cp

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anything goes" meaning pics of sex acts is ok; people this age often DO have sex after all. Not meaning that hidden camera naked pics, or other abusive behavior, is ever acceptable in the production of adult content, regardless of the age of the models. Also, I'd concur that parental approval and supervision would be a requirement.

Re:against cp

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... a while back I attended a lecture by one of the British guys who had been imprisoned by Americans in Guantanamo (and before that in Egypt which was much worse, according to him) for a long time without even having been charged with a crime. The lecture was very good, the guy didn't try to paint a black and white picture and didn't even focus that much on his own suffering. The important message he was trying to get across is that putting labels on people id very harmful and cruel. Whether it's "terrorist", "comunist" or "pedofile", it's best to think twice before condemning anyone.

Read my Pussy Lips... Porn is normal. Porn is OK

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

No one will die, if Wiki has a few porn images.

Fox News, Cheerleaded an illegal war that resulted in over a million + dead.

Porn > War

Porn > Fox News

Porn > All Religions

Porn = Normal.

Wiki... Do your porn thing baby.

Or, in other words...

[SanityInAnarchy]

[citation needed]

In particular...

[VTI9600]

Fox News's pursuing of Wikimedia Foundation for hosting pornography reportedly resulted in Jimmy Wales personally removing some pornographic material from its servers

...the pages about "Whale Jimmies" and "Jimmy's Whale" just had to go.

Next target

[gmuslera]

Medical books, specially pediatric ones, if they show any picture of the topic of the book.

Re:Next target

[Renraku]

All people in possession of one of these books should be jailed pursuant to the set of child pornography laws. Teaching pediatrics is only for filthy perverts who should be hung by the balls and shot! Anyone who has a child actually come out of their body should also be imprisoned for rape. Emergency room personnel who witness a child being treated should be jailed as well.

Re:Next target

[korean.ian]

It's a good start, but you need to go further. People who have sex with the intention of making children should be re-educated. they're clearly sick.

Re:Next target

[Jesus_666]

In addition, all children should be jailed for providing one of the key ingredients of child pornography. In fact, since they still continue to do so in jail, they should all receive capital punishment.

Re:Next target

[Enderandrew]

Is it Coppertone? Isn't there a sunscreen bottle that features a dog pulling down the bikini bottom of a little girl, revealing her butt?

Child pornography found on every grocery store shelf!

Re:Next target

[shutdown -p now]

Obligatory Monkey Dust Paedofinder General sketch.

Re:Next target

[Hurricane78]

Actually I think this would be a very good idea for those disease-riddled (religious schizophrenia) areas. It would prevent reproduction, and stop the insanity pretty quickly. :)

Beware the rolling snowball

[MoeDumb]

Hysteria can bring down a civilization.

Re:Beware the rolling snowball

[couchslug]

"Hysteria can bring down a civilization."

Let's not (any more) confuse the Bible-thumping US with "civilization". What we need is a nuclear exchange with Iran, so the arch theists of the world can kill each other in droves.

Re:Beware the rolling snowball

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why we frown on females enjoying sex.

Re:Read my Pussy Lips... Porn is normal. Porn is O

[interkin3tic]

The summary is a bit inaccurate, which is okay considering the original charges appear to be inaccurate, or rather completely wrong, as well. But Fox news was accusing* wiki of hosting -child porn- not just regular porn.

*accusing here in the sense of "finding one anonymous source willing to say what you want to broadcast to the world and then quoting them." Some people find this more credible than if Fox news were to just say it outright "We accuse Wikimedia of hosting child porn and to prove it we are going to repeat that a few times."

Contradictory stories my ass...

[Anonymous Coward]

...More like Fox News published a story with one anonymous source that didn't say anything significant, and kdawson decided to take it seriously for some bizarre reason.

even though...

[Spaham]

I really like america on many topics,
this is an example of why I'd never be able to live there, and what I loathe the most about this country...

exactly

[commodoresloat]

according to the article, the "pornography" at issue were all drawings, some under the "pedophilia" category and others under the "lolicon" category. All cartoon images, it seems, and all descriptive of the subject matter they're supposed to illustrate. It's an encyclopedia.

The problem is that there's a guy in jail for lolicon in the US so Sanger figured he could get Wikipedia in trouble by calling the FBI about it. I mean, can you believe this guy? "I’m going to sound really old fashioned, but I felt that it was my duty." Yeah right.

Re:Christian conservatives, I have a message for y

[Anonymous Coward]

Christian conservatives, I have a message for you

I'd like to quote the immortal words of Jon Stewart to address christian conservatives:
Go fuck yourselves! Yeah, yeah, oooohhhh ... Go fuck yourselves!

Oh and while we're at it: please stop fucking underaged boys. Thank you.

Fashionable to hate on Wikipedia

[DrXym]

Wikipedia has always spats, disputes and disagreements that can be inflated into news but considering the number of people involved is that surprising?

I suspect that Fox & others like to pour hate on it because it's easy and cheap to do so. There is always someone with a a bruised ego (e.g. perennial cry babies like Larry Sanger) and with so many disputed articles, it's not hard to sensationalize some angle. In the case of Fox I think they are also motivated to pour hate on the site because (despite its flaws) does strive for impartiality, citation and a neutral point of view. It's also free.

Re:Fashionable to hate on Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, wikipedia stands for the kind of knowledge Fox and its "scene" loathe: scientific, or at least an attempt to that. Let's not forget that Fox is the voice of the conservative, religious right with all their censorship agendas. Would you trust an encyclopedia edited by GW Bush? Didn't think so. Yet that's what they strife for.

Fox News?

[Max Threshold]

Seriously, Jimbo? You let yourself be used as a political pawn by Fox News? Does anyone care about the drivel Fox News spews?

Wait, scratch that. A lot of people care.

Does anyone who matters care about the drivel Fox News spews?

Re:Fox News?

[SharpFang]

The Electorate.
It definitely matters to those who matter.

Fox News for me from now on

[alexibu]

I think I will be obtaining all my information and forming my world view based only on Fox News from now on where i can be sure to not encounter any pornography.

Fox 'News'

[unity100]

rupert murdoch's shit. the channel which defended itself with not being a news channel, but 'opinionated entertainment' in court when sued for FALSIFIED news and lies.

really, such a channel which itself says we are not a news channel, but keeps on spewing falsifications and lies can stay open only in america, and through the power of money.

Sounds about right.

[_0rm_]

Sounds like Faux News making a big deal about rumors and gossip.

This demonstrates that...

[couchslug]

...any insufficiently moderated forum will turn into 4chan.

Re:This demonstrates that...

[Jesus_666]

Fox News is a forum?

You should use konqueror

[mangu]

In the konqueror browser the same effect can be achieved by putting "wp:what to search" in the address.

Re:You should use konqueror

[Idiomatick]

In FF you have a custom search bar and you can makes them into prefix search terms as well (for the awesomebar). I've always left it at wikipedia since the awesome bar searches google (and my homepage has a google search bar on it.

Re:You should use konqueror

[drewhk]

In Opera, you can just rigth click on the Wikipedia search box, and assign a letter to it -- like w. Then you can search Wikipedia when you type in your URL bar:

w [search term] ;)

Re:You should use konqueror

[Anonymous Coward]

FF has the exact same thing (I believe stolen from Opera).

Re:You should use konqueror

[PopeRatzo]

w [search term] ;)

Do I need to include the emoticon?

Re:You should use konqueror

[manicb]

Yes. Nobody really understands why. If you use the wrong emoticon you get several pages of heavily-compressed LOLcats.

Re:You have to wonder, not

[jopsen]

Indeed, this situation really threatens Wikipedia's standing as non-bias (specifically, censorship-free) and open, at least among those who didn't already know better. Could this be the straw that breaks Wikipedia?

No... It might hurt your feelings if you hold Wikipedia to be a divine entity... However, wikipedia is a made up of Humans, and AFAIK we're pretty good to fail... That doesn't mean that wikipedia can't correct it.. It's not as if, Wikipedia is suddenly starting to support censorship all over the line... Just that maybe Wales, didn't think his every move fully through... Or that Fox will say what ever the **** they think will make people continue to watch their show...
By the way, to say that wikipedia is in chaos, based on a statement from a single unnamed source... is bad press ethics... Seriously do we even want to discuss something that low...

Did Sanger expect this?

Does it matter and do we really care... :)

Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas

[mangu]

One has to wonder how much Fox News has been influenced by Jimmy Wales' former lover.

Re:Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas

[pipatron]

Wow.. she seems like a "nice" girl..

The Hear Say site rules...

[3seas]

As Wikipedia is a "Hear-Say" Site, any porn must have been posted or found elsewhere and under a compatible license. Otherwise those posting are violating Wikipedia rules.

Don't nobody claim its not a hear-say site, because by its own rules that is exactly what it is.

With this in mind, Wikipedia may be guilty, and even guilty of biased and unfair articles, but they are not the originating source.
In fact there is a trace as to who or what IP posted such.

What this means is that if Wikipedia is busted and charged with crime then it means anyone who wants to do you harm all they habe to do is get "illegal conmtent" on your personal system and then call the authorities.

Being setup and entrapped is dangerous game, where the authorities acting on such enough or in a big way (as can happen here) can really undermine such authority in the public's eyes.

And who has motive to do something like this?

Fighting the competition

[SharpFang]

While main focus of Wikipedia are historical articles about things that happened in the past (and either passed away or continue to exist and function), both Wikipedia main page and Wikinews have a high quality recent news - independent, free, ad free, from all over the world, with no corporate control, in essence everything Fox is opposed to.

So attacking Wikipedia is simply attacking the competitor.

Serious FUD by OP

[RichiH]

Jimmy Wales personally removing some pornographic material from its servers

Did OP see the images? I looked at every single one directly after Sanger went to Faux News and while _some_ of them were definitely sexual in content and _some_ of them depicted adults forcing themselves onto children, they were not pornographic. We are talking age-old black-and-white prints. The best approximation I could come up with is http://www.gedichte-lyrik-poesie.de/Busch_Das_Bad_am_Samstagabend/Wilhelm_Busch_Bad_am_Samstagabend.gif (I forgot the name of the artist who did the images in question). Linked pic actually shows bare skin and is a _lot_ more detailed and refined than the works in question, though. Go figure.

then giving up his special editing privileges under pressure

Wrong again. Wales removed some special rights from the Founder group which he has anyway by means of being a Steward. The Founder group has one member and was created after Wales left the board proper. Go figure.

So yah, the "Wikimedia Confusion" does exist, at least in the mind of OP. Instead of posting, he should have read up on the matter, though. And please stop calling those images porn. They are not. And by talking about 'porn' unopposed, Sanger, Faux and the other people with a personal agenda win by default.

PS: Even though the Wikimedia Foundation is based in the USA, the world is not and can not be bound by US conservative morals. Laws yes, morals no.

PPS: I hope they move to Iceland.

Non-Quotable Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

"...Fox News Reported Wikimedia is 'in chaos'..."

I went to the RTFA, but did not see the story report Wikimedia 'in chaos' verbatim, but rather, a shakeup.

Perhaps the submitter works for Fox News too?

Re:Non-Quotable Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

"...Fox News Reported Wikimedia is 'in chaos'..."

I went to the RTFA, but did not see the story report Wikimedia 'in chaos' verbatim, but rather, a shakeup.

Perhaps the submitter works for Fox News too?

Try again:

When asked who was in charge now, the source said, “No one. It’s chaos.”

Conflict of Interest

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget that Sanger's report to the FBI accompanied his annoucement of a competeing service. There was nothing altruistic or righteous in that self-serving move.

If ignorance were really bliss, the world would be filled with euphoric people.
Journalism is no longer about truth at all.
Sensationlism and lies sell, especially when they have been doctored up just right.
The more narrowminded and intolerant the mind, the "dirtier" basic natural human actions like sex and excretions are.

Speech *we* can't control?

[OwP_Fabricated]

It's guess corporations and politicians have started to see the futility in trying to edit Wikipedia to their choosing, so now it's time to move on to outright destruction. And hey, it looks like there's a petty closet case with inside access that could be usable!

Sanger's Message to the FBI

[viralMeme]

Let's not forget that Sanger's report to the FBI accompanied his annoucement of a competeing service. There was nothing altruistic or righteous in that self-serving move

Where does it say that? The only link is to a deletion page on Wikipedia

Sanger's Message to the FBI.

And NBC and CNN are not deceptive liars?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you remember the NBC shot of a black man at an Obama rally with an assault rifle, that NBC zoomed in purely on his back so that his skin colour couldn't be seen, and created a feature report on white fundamentalists racists with weapons intimidating black voters?

Or the CNN use of the "evidence" against George W. Bush, on the sole and single basis on an anonymous piece of paper which even the most basic validation checking would have revealed to be a forgery? (the formatting was identical to the latest version of Word, while they said the document was from decades back on a military typewriter)

Your convenient omission of the deceptiveness, bias and active political campaigns of the other major news channels is sickening and disgusting.

I include a description of the specific cases because deceptive liars often want people to forget about their past. The worst you can do to them is remind everyone of what they have done.

Re:You have to wonder, not

[timmarhy]

wikipedia is unbiased? HAHAHAHA!!!! just take jimbo wales as a prime example. the guy and his cronies insert their own bias EVERYWHERE.

NUDITY IS NOT PORNOGRAPHY

[commodore64_love]

Judas Priest people. Are you gonna start making pigs wear clothes, and babies cover their nakedness (ohnoes!). "Because God created it, the human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and its beauty." - Pope John Paul II

THIS is not pornography: (Although it is not safe for work.) It is Homo sapiens in his natural state. And that is all the wikipedia shows - it does Not display pornography.
http://www.domai.com/

Re:NUDITY IS NOT PORNOGRAPHY

[paiute]

It is Homo sapiens in his natural state.

Don't go there expecting to see much naked his.

Re:NUDITY IS NOT PORNOGRAPHY

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're doing it wrong.

Re:You have to wonder, not

[pipatron]

By the way, to say that wikipedia is in chaos, based on a statement from a single unnamed source... is bad press ethics...

Perhaps... Fox News is in chaos?

Editor in Charge

[Herkum01]

Sounds like they hired J. Jonah Jameson to run their news network. I guess they did not realize they guy came from a comic book instead of a role model from journalism school.

Oh Please

[Anonymous Coward]

"Wikipedia's standing as non-bias (specifically, censorship-free) and open"

Wikipedia is NOT "non-biased" and is definitely not open. It is a cesspool of political agendas, with each article guarded by fanatical, mouth breathing, mother's basement dwelling losers.

Just try to edit anything remotely controversial and it is immediately reverted by some admin who claims POV violation, even though the entire article is POV.

Even none political stuff is often screwed up by ignorant and self righteous editors who "know" something is not true.

Let them fight. Hopefully wiwkipwedia will go the way of the Dodo bird.

"Contridictory"?

[Abcd1234]

Really? A spelling error in the *first word of the article summary*? Fuck, why the hell do we even have "editors" around here if this kind of shit slips through...

Fox News at work

[Senior Frac]

Ah yes. Fox News redefines "newsmaking." Why wait around for newsworthy things to happen when we can manufacture it with very little effort?

Illustrations are now Pornography?

[itomato]

It's not Bomis they're talking about.

Shameless "News" organizations deserve yearly review by an independent panel with congressional oversight to see that standards are being adhered to. It worked for Comic Books, why not schlock T.V?

Drawings - no matter how 'realistic', are still drawings - typically crafted by one hand without the benefit of life study.

In chaos ... no ... really?

[BitZtream]

Look, I don't think very highly of Wikipedia. Its not an authoritative site (and they know it) unfortunately normal people just don't get that and its very annoying, but lets look at the main fact here.

Its a site that can more or less be edited by anyone ... chaos is a given, anyone who expect or thinks otherwise is an idiot.

It is in chaos and will remain that way until it gets locked down.

I accept that, when I see an article with blatantly biased information or something weird, I check the history for the page. With that I can generally figure out the BS from the more accurate information.

Its nice that people think we're living in the world of StarTrek where everyone does things 'for the greater good of humanity' but that just isn't reality and anyone who thinks it is has completely lost touch with the real world.

That doesn't mean the site has no value, it just means you have to be aware of its faults as well as its strengths if you want it to be useful.

Fox News Nazis

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody who watches fox news and believes a word they say is a complete and utter moron. They are a propaganda arm of the extreme right wingnuts. Enough said.

If this isn't proof that Fox will report anything

[fishexe]

...I don't know what is.

Respond in kind

[TooManyMirrors]

I say we act like Fox News and ask the loaded questions too. Here's my headline: Did Fox News "journalists" upload their child pornography to Wikipedia? Autonomous source wants to know. [citation needed]

Link to pornography at Wikimedia

[Okian Warrior]

All of the imagery linked to Wilhem von Gloeden in wikimedia is pornographic. In fact, it's kiddie porn, erotic, and intended to be that way.

At the same time, it's art and has substantial historical value.

It was done at a different time, when different laws applied, and outside the US.

I'm a father and a grandfather, but I also like to think of myself as progressive and liberal about these issues. There is no victim here, even if the images were modern there would be no victim. No victim means no crime, right?

Personally, I'm conflicted about these images. What do others think?

Re:Link to pornography at Wikimedia

[Jesus_666]

Since I don't subscribe to the notion that any form of erotica involving minors will turn people into child rapists, I see neither a victim nor a reason to demonize the images.

Routinely handled at Wikipedia

[Animats]

On the English Wikipedia, this was an issue, and it was dealt with through Wikipedia's usual mechanisms. Someone ran a program to make a list of images actually used in Wikipedia. Others went down that list, and put most of those images through "deletion review". Each one was voted on; most of them were restored. Images that nobody asked to have restored remain deleted. Essentially all the historical images were restored. Some of the junkier stuff was voted off the island. That all took place within a few days, and wasn't particularly contentious. On Wikipedia, this is now a closed issue. On Commons, which is administered by different people, there's still a discussion going on.

Understand that you can upload images separately to Wikipedia or to the Wikimedia Commons. If you upload an image to Wikipedia, and it's not currently used in an article, it will be automatically deleted after a few weeks. So if others delete the image link in the article, and it stays deleted, after a while, the image file is deleted too. Commons, though, has a policy that "by custom the uploading of small numbers of images for use on a personal Commons user page is allowed." Some people try to use Commons as if it were Flickr, and if they don't overdo it, that's tolerated. A few people uploaded their porn collection. That seems to be the cause of the difficulty.

Complicating this is a system which automatically moves images that have been on the English Wikipedia for a while to Commons, changes the links to point to the copy on Commons, and deletes the copy on Wikipedia. This is intended to make images available to all the other language versions of Wikipedia, rather than having a separate copy for each language version. The assumption has been that nothing that went through that move would ever be deleted from Commons. When some images moved via that process were deleted, many Wikipedia editors were very bothered. Automatic movement of images to Commons was shut down for a while. There isn't a way to determine if an image on Commons is used on any wiki (there's a way for each wiki, but no global backlink search.). So automatically separating single-user personal stuff from images used in real articles is not currently implemented. I suspect that will be fixed.

On the governance side, it was pointed out that Wales isn't the head of the Wikimedia foundation any more. He's just a member of the board of directors. If he wanted to do this through the board, he can call a board meeting and try to get them to pass a resolution to change policy. He didn't take that route. As others pointed out, if anybody else did what Wales did, they'd be blocked. The general consensus is that Wales was out of line. Wales gave up some privileges, and the issue isn't even active in the dispute resolution system.

All in all, this was well handled. Wikipedia has had far worse disputes.

Wikipedia is Fair and Balanced, Fox is not.

[FrankHS]

Fox is not a news station but more like a tabloid with a little news thrown in for cover. I don't take what they say seriously.

I use wikipedia often and find it to be a very useful resource. On the whole, wikipedia does a much better job of being "Fair and balanced" that Fox news ever did.

Someone said "I may not be able to define porn but I know it when I see it". I do too and wikipedia isn't porn. It is much farther from porn than the typical TV commercial.

Fox News

[uvajed_ekil]

So now we're supposed to take something seriously when the cited source is Fox News? Way back in the 1980's, this would have been like believing what was published by The National Enquirer, The Star, and Penthouse Letters.

Isn't that the definition of FOX?

[Hurricane78]

and Wales said, "They don't even bother to contact me before publishing nonsense."

1. Uuum, Jimmy, that’s the whole point of FOX News.
2. Uuum, Jimmy, you know, in the real world people don’t have to run their output trough you for approval to the “Wales” version of reality.

Citation needed

[g01d4]

In the 1600's a 12 year old girl was considered a grown woman and the average age of marriage was between 12 and 15

More like 25-26

Re:Citation needed

[silentcoder]

Cultural values are regional. Marital Age is a cultural value. The exact quote in Shakespeare reads: "Younger than her are happy mother's made".
In South-Africa between 1652 and 1800 few people married older than 17, that was the boys - for girls 16 was about the latest.

And I checked your link... where do you find the idea that Juliette was Dutch then ? Nor was she "Western European". Also it's not England. It's set in Verona (that's in Italy) some two centuries earlier.

My point was about the fact that Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliette, under it's OWN included text, would be illegal under this law. Whether Shakespeare was right about how often women married at age 12 is completely irrelevant to the discussion too - HE wrote about a 12-year old girl getting married and having sex, and described it as typical.
The law in Canada bans the greatest love story ever written - you've done nothing to discredit my claims in the least, though you were an interesting distraction for the 5 minutes it took to follow up on your claims.

Wikipedia Porn

[Baseclass]

I sent an email to Wikipedia regarding this issue. Their response seems canned but encouraging.

Thanks for your email. Wikipedia remains dedicated to providing an encyclopaedia free from censorship, and that includes topics some might consider inappropriate (after all, if we were to censor things based on the idea that somebody, somewhere, might find it inappropriate, we'd never write anything). While we are not censored by default, we must consider our legal responsibilities; there were some worries that we may violate the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act with the collection, which is what led to the spate of image deletions. We remain dedicated to our original goal, and will (usually) keep images if they prove helpful in an encyclopaedic context. Thank you for your message of support for Wikipedia Yours sincerely, Oliver Keyes

Paedomanteau

[bfree]

Is Paedogeddon a Malamanteau?

Fox porn

[UnixUnix]

Frankly, every time I watch Fox News I get the distinct impression I _am_ watching porn. Bad porn, at that.