Disgruntled Ex-Wikipedia Guy, Larry Sanger, Accuses Wikipedia Of Distributing Child Porn

from the desperate-much dept

Thu, Apr 29th 2010 6:29am — Mike Masnick

It's no secret that Larry Sanger is no fan of Wikipedia. He's often credited as being a co-founder of the site, though some dispute this. He was involved in the creation of Nupedia, Wikipedia's predecessor, which was more of a traditional expert-edited online encyclopedia. While many involved in Wikipedia these days downplay his role there, Sanger has made a pretty compelling case that he was heavily involved in the early days. Either way, since he left, he's gone way out of his way to distance himself from Wikipedia, while setting up a competitor (again, an expert-edited encyclopedia) that doesn't get much usage. Every few months or so, he seems to find some way to pop up in the news, often using his connection to Wikipedia as the hook for why the press should cover his competitor, which appears to get almost no traffic whatsoever.

His latest tactic is really pretty low. SimonTek points us to a Fox News article all about Sanger calling on the FBI to investigate Wikipedia for distributing child porn. While Fox of course plays up Sanger's Wikipedia credentials, they leave out the fact that he has been working on a failed competitor for years (they mention the company name, but not that it's a competitor). They also leave out much of the animosity between Sanger and Wikipedia.

This story actually got some attention a few weeks ago on Slashdot, where many commenters, rightfully, took Sanger to task. Sanger responded to the criticism by arguing a few points, saying that he was required by law to report his findings to the FBI. To some extent, on that point, he is correct, though it is an issue with the law that focuses on criminalizing even those who accidentally run across questionable material, rather than focusing on those who create and purposely distribute the material (the real problems). However, he does appear to go somewhat out of his way to publicize this claim. He could have just alerted the FBI and been done with it... but he republished his letter to the FBI on a mailing list. That certainly raises some serious questions.

On top of that, his complaint is not about actual photographs of child pornography, but drawings. Indeed, the courts have found that even such depictions count as child pornography -- though many people find that arguable about whether or not a made up drawing exploits a child in any way.

The real problem, of course, is that this (like so many arguments over this stuff) takes away from the real issue: which is stopping those actually responsible for child pornography. Attacking Wikipedia is not the answer and does little to help the issue -- especially when the attack comes from someone with a long history of animosity towards the site, and a failing competitor. Why not focus those resources on actually dealing with the real problem? Wouldn't we all rather that the FBI is focused on actually stopping those involved in the production of child pornography than wasting time going after Wikipedia? Part of the problem is certainly with the way the law is structured today, but it does seem that Sanger went out of his way to try to broadcast this attack when that absolutely was not necessary.

He makes it even worse in the Fox story by claiming that he was doing this to alert educators that Wikipedia is dangerous for school children. That's flat-out ridiculous. For the most part, it is not. It's quite unlikely that anyone is going to accidentally stumble onto those drawings on Wikipedia -- and they're equally as likely to find similar (or worse) stuff elsewhere. To call out all of Wikipedia as being unsuitable because of this is clearly going way too far.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: child porn, larry sanger, wikipedia

131 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

NAMELESS.ONE, 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:35am

FOX unNEWS
ya everyone believes fox news these days
its as bad as getting life stories form myspace and faceplant er facebook
and while many i know do not use facebook htere are SOME reasons why everyone will say this is a bit over board like that rolling stones album cover

see in canada if you get bad milk from a store thats proven to have been shipped bad in past you'd sue the store then the store sues up the chain, now you go right for the gusto cause

SO should not the rolling stones be charged with kiddy porn and sent to prison? I do not think its there intent to distribute child pron but the controversy and picture is explicit enough to have people like this guy in the novel make accusations PERHAPS a html tag that can blur stuff like a image map might help?

AND i bet if the rolling stones got charged this issue would really heat up.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 10:05am
  
  Re: FOX unNEWS
  *this is off topic.
  
  I don't know why, nameless.one, but i have a damn hard time reading your posts. Its like there is just something not clicking. maybe it is the weird use of line breaks.
  Nothing against you, just something I have noticed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:37am

child porn is child porn, no matter the motivation. trying to come up with an excuse not to suggest authorities should ignore it is just wrong. the masnick fails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:49am
  
  Re:
  "child porn is child porn"
  
  Indeed, but it's questionable whether drawing of fictional children constitute child porn.
  
  The scarce resources available should be used to go after the creators of actual child porn that harms real children, not wasted on fiction.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:50am
  
  Re:
  "trying to come up with an excuse not to suggest authorities should ignore it is just wrong."
  
  A. Learn to communicate properly
  
  B. Mike said the law required him to report it to authorities, NOT on a mailing list
  
  C. Did you go to OSU? They're the only ones I know that have this assanine habit of putting the word "The" where it doesn't belong....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DS, 29 Apr 2010 @ 7:11am
  
  Re:
  Ok, define child porn.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 7:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Ok, define child porn."
    
    Or, for even more fun, universally define either "child" or "porn".
    
    You got to love people who try to boil ridiculously complex issues into black and white one-liners....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 8:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    usc 18, sections 2256 and 2257, with a side dose of section 2252. enjoy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 9:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      ONLY THE AMERICAN LAW COUNTS!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DS, 29 Apr 2010 @ 7:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ok, define "sexually explicit conduct", or "graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person".
      
      Does that include naked baby pictures? Does that include when someone takes a nude picture of themselves?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 8:08am
  
  Re:
  Interesting. So, you're saying the time-honored, literary classic "Lolita" is criminal? It would be wise to inform the libraries about this...as well as the millions of people who have read the book.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 8:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    the laws deal with images and not written word. written word mostly gets a pass as pure speech, and has yet to be attacked by the government in any meaningful way. dont confuse images with words, they are obviously very different.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 9:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What? I thought you said:
      
      "child porn is child porn, no matter the motivation. trying to come up with an excuse not to suggest authorities should ignore it is just wrong."
      
      Now you're adding an exception for written word? Which is it?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 10:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Incorrect. Any work of word that describes explicit sex where one or more of the participants is under the age of 18 is still considered child pron, and will still be prosecuted. In the US, at any rate.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - vivaelamor (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 5:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Incorrect. Any work of word that describes explicit sex where one or more of the participants is under the age of 18 is still considered child pron, and will still be prosecuted. In the US, at any rate."
        
        You better hurry up and report asstr.org then.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 8:22am
  
  Re:
  Tautologies are tautologies, too!
  
  You may have missed the part (you know, since you don't read the articles) where the FBI hasn't asked Wikipedia/media to remove anything. I imagine that the FBI know more about child porn than you, TAM.
  
  Then again, child porn is great, according to the industry you blindly shill for, so maybe you do know more.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 8:23am
  
  Re:
  Child porn is great!! Didn't you know that TAM Wormtongue?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 8:50am
  
  Re:
  trying to come up with an excuse not to suggest authorities should ignore it is just wrong.
  
  BUT
  
  The authorities did ignore it
  
  ", 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. "
  
  From the original article (update)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capt Obvious, 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:38am

Fox is not news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- senshikaze (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 10:07am
  
  Re:
  there could be serious arguments made saying that the rest of the industry isn't either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:57am

Different parts of the world have very different views on this subject. In Islam, China, India and South East Asia a boy and girl age 20 or so holding hands in public is considered by many to be unacceptable while at the same time child marriage which is considered to be a criminal offense in the West is considered to be acceptable.

http://www.al-islam.org/m_morals/index.htm

A THE BEGINNING OF SEXUAL LIFE

1 . BULUGH & RUSHD

Sexual desire is aroused in human beings at the age of puberty. In Islamic legal definition puberty (bulugh) is determined by one of the following:

1. age: fifteen lunar years for boys and nine lunar years for girls;
2. internal change (in boys only): The first nocturnal emission. Semen accumulates in the testicles from puberty onwards and more semen may be formed than the system can assimilate; when this happens, semen is expelled during the sleep. This is known as nocturnal emission wet dream or ihtlam in Arabic.
3. physical change: Growth of coarse hair on lower part of abdomen.

Since the sexual urge begins at puberty and as Islam says that sexual urge should be fulfilled only through marriage, it has allowed marriage as soon as the boy and the girl reach the age of puberty.

Now which view point Eastern or Western is correct may be debated and I will leave that debate to others accepting Rudyard Kipling viewpoint. "East is East and West is West and the two shall never meet."

The only thing new about multi-millennium long debate is the spillage on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 7:51am
  
  Re:
  Your listed definition of Islam and the actions of Muslums are two entirely different things. You should get a eye full of Frontline's "The Dancing Boys of Afganistan." Made me sick to watch.
  
  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/dancingboys/view/?utm_campaign=homepage&utm_me dium=proglist&utm_source=proglist
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Telephone Tuff Guy, 29 Apr 2010 @ 8:39am
  
  Re: Islam is a region or place in the world huh?
  My step mother is a life time follower of Islam aka she is a Muslim. I don't think that her daughter is kept by these definitions.
  It seem that we need to look at the paradigm of each society. I think that everyone believes that the exploitation of children is wrong so if that is the definition of child porn then we all agree that child porn is wrong we just need to decide on what exploits children.
  Watch making blanket statments. Seldom are they accurate.
  written but not reread
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cand, 4 Aug 2010 @ 9:14pm
  
  Re:
  it's east is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet. that's a terrible quote, full of literary digs and no truth to it whatsover.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bugmenot (profile), 6 Dec 2013 @ 7:49am
  
  Re: Anonymous Coward
  Dr. Coward:
  
  In your desperate need to appear and feel intelligent, you have overlooked important concepts. Master among them is the notion that facts are convincing and therefore, appealing. Your personal views are not convincing. Your argument is further diluted by your overt, questionless adoption of an external belief system.
  
  Do you even know what you are debating? At one time the topic was child pornography in the United States. Do you think you are helping us to understand human biology?
  
  "Semen accumulates in the testicles from puberty onwards and more semen may be formed than the system can assimilate; when this happens, semen is expelled during the sleep."
  
  The rote recital of written word conceived by others is invariably a primary symptom of one's intellectual deficit. Echoing another's justifiable beliefs brings question to the parrot's creativity. Echoing another's unjustifiable beliefs draws glaring attention to your shocking stupidity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
combatcarl, 29 Apr 2010 @ 7:03am

"It's no secret that Larry Sanger is no fan of Wikipedia" "Sanger calling on the FBI to investigate Wikipedia for distributing child porn" It's too bad being a douchebag is not a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- senshikaze (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 10:09am
  
  Re:
  it really should be.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Mother, 29 Apr 2010 @ 7:04am

Honestly
If I had any kind of public persona (as he does/has) and my name was in any way connected to child porn - even if it was an attempt to STOP it - I would go out of my way to connect the dots for the public. People tend to grab news in soundbites. It would be too easy for the name Larry Sanger + child porn to be conflated. At least that would be my fear. So yes, I would do my part to report something inappropriate and then I think it's perfectly understandable that I would communicate the facts to a core group, whether on mailing list or however most efficient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Mother, 29 Apr 2010 @ 7:04am

Honestly
If I had any kind of public persona (as he does/has) and my name was in any way connected to child porn - even if it was an attempt to STOP it - I would go out of my way to connect the dots for the public. People tend to grab news in soundbites. It would be too easy for the name Larry Sanger + child porn to be conflated. At least that would be my fear. So yes, I would do my part to report something inappropriate and then I think it's perfectly understandable that I would communicate the facts to a core group, whether on mailing list or however most efficient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 7:09am

Reminds me of
This kind of goes along the same lines of the idea "those who can't innovate, litigate".
His company has failed, so rather than try to be better, he will instead just try to make Wikipedia look evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 7:37am

and here i thought child porn was so bad because it exploits and traumatizes a child for life... i challenge anyone to prove a drawing is exploited or traumatized
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
minhaaj, 29 Apr 2010 @ 7:38am

Stupid
I think hes the only decent guy who had the courage to leave the digital hyde park that wikipedia has become. If you dont have the courage to appreciate people with strength, try to find better usage of your life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 7:44am

Where does this Wikipedia image fall in terms of the law? And does it belong in an encyclopedia? How about this one? Or this one? Or this? Where do you draw the line?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DS, 29 Apr 2010 @ 7:10pm
  
  Re:
  There is no way I'm going to click those links. It must be images of children getting brutally raped, and because you know what the links are to, you must be one of the perverts who get off on such sick behavior. I am now obligated to alert the FBI to your behavior.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 8:12am

and here i thought child porn was so bad because it exploits and traumatizes a child for life... i challenge anyone to prove a drawing is exploited or traumatized
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 8:30am

Re: Re: Re:
the relevant section is USC 18, section 1466a
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 10:39am
  
  Re: Re: Re: Re:
  Relevant to what? You fail to explain what you're talking about.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Mother, 29 Apr 2010 @ 8:50am

Honestly
If I had any kind of public persona (as he does/has) and my name was in any way connected to child porn - even if it was an attempt to STOP it - I would go out of my way to connect the dots for the public. People tend to grab news in soundbites. It would be too easy for the name Larry Sanger + child porn to be conflated. At least that would be my fear. So yes, I would do my part to report something inappropriate and then I think it's perfectly understandable that I would communicate the facts to a core group, whether on mailing list or however most efficient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 10:24am

"On top of that, his complaint is not about actual photographs of child pornography, but drawings. Indeed, the courts have found that even such depictions count as child pornography ..."

Not necessarily. See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gregory Kohs (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 10:33am

Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
Here are the facts:

The Wikimedia Foundation is a tax-exempt 501-c-3 organization. It draws in over $10 million in annual revenues, though by putting much of that in the bank, its "program expenses" account for only 41 cents of every revenue dollar. (Look at their latest Form 990 filing, if you doubt this.) Most bona fide charities try to maintain program expenses ratios north of 80%, to demonstrate that they are actually serving their charitable mission. So, the Wikimedia Foundation is doing about half the job they should be.

If you look at the top 100 images accessed by users on the Wikimedia Commons site, you'll find that sex and porn dominate the list:

http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/top

Notably, we see...
#5 Category:Shaved genitalia (female)
#6 Category:Vulva
#11 Penis
#12 Category:Female genitalia
#13 Category:Ejaculation
#14 Category:Sex positions
#16 Category:Vagina
#17 Category:Erotic
#18 Category:Oral sex
#19 Category:Masturbation
#21 Category:Penis
#22 Category:Female masturbation
#23 Category:Sex
#25 Category:Male masturbation

So, somebody explain to me how we've gotten to this point, where a sex and porn image server is granted tax exemption. Is it merely a coincidence that Jimmy Wales's business just prior to co-founding Wikipedia was operating the "Bomis Babes" adult photography site?

Masnick, I'm sorry, but you're without a clue on how deep this goes. Let me know if you're interested in talking sometime about how Jimmy Wales reacted when I pointed out to him the potentially illegal child photography on his Wikia, Inc. servers that were hosting a "Spanking Art" wiki.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Any Mouse, 29 Apr 2010 @ 10:43am
  
  Re: Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
  Why does the fact of human sexual curiosity make a publicly-edited online encyclopedia a 'sex and porn image server'? Are you so prudish and narrow-minded that having FACTS at your fingertips frightens and/or disgusts you? Crawl back into your hole and leave the real world to the rest of us, please.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Any Mouse, 29 Apr 2010 @ 10:44am
  
  Re: Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
  I also note that your linked site is in competition with Wikipedia, as well. Another conflict of interest? Hmmmmm?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gregory Kohs (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 11:07am
    
    Re: Re: Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
    Okay, I've adjusted the outbound link from my real name. I see that you're hiding behind the name "Any Mouse". Typical scenario that a pro-child porn proponent would hide from accountability, while someone brave enough to point out simple facts (that Wikimedia Commons is used MOSTLY to publish and distribute sexually-themed images) uses his real name. Oh, and Wikimedia Commons is not an "online encyclopedia" -- you're confusing it with Wikipedia. I am also not prudish and narrow-minded, as I've enjoyed quite a few prurient activities in my day. I just don't recall ever going to a tax-exempt strip club or rented a tax-exempt X-rated video. Per usual, you Wikipediots entirely miss the point.
    
    Thank you for underscoring the legitimacy of my complaint, "Any Mouse".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Elsie, 29 Apr 2010 @ 11:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
      Right, now it's just your whiny blog that you haven't posted to for months, instead of your craptastic wiki full of bot-generated spam that gives it the meager Google rankings it has.
      
      And then the ad hominems come out. Just because a comment is anonymous doesn't make it less relevant. In fact, you're an excellent example: a person going under their real name who nonetheless manages to be a total douche.
      
      Your argument is silly. The "most-viewed" images tend to be the catty ones, but there's millions of excellent images that don't get as many views individually but collectively far outweigh the stuff with nudity. Or in other words, nice try with the lies, damned lies, and statistics.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gregory Kohs (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 11:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
        Elsie, you seem smart. Could you explain why the Wikimedia Foundation qualifies as a 501-c-3 charitable organization?
        
        If I endeavor to launch an "educational" website featuring pornographic images, may I also charter a business as a non-profit 501-c-3 around it, and drawing my salary from the tax-deductible donations I receive?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        romeosidvicious (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 12:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
        The explanation is easy and simply put: Their intended use is not to provide pornography and they also fulfill their intended use. It unscrupulous people use it host pornographic images then the blame is not on Wikimedia but on those using it incorrectly. Unless they are notified, which I know happened in the case of the possible child pornography, they are not even legally liable under the Section 230 safe harbors. It is obvious that you have a bone to pick with the Wikimedia folks as you are blind to the simple argument that they provide a service with a specific intent and the public tries to use it in a different manner than they intended. It is likely they have reviewed the use and concluded that the actual public service they provide and its ease of use matters to them less than some silly pornography. To me, and just to me, it seems that either you are a prude who wants to get rid of all pornography or you are building strawmen. Furthermore pornography, regardless of your moral views, is considered to be protected by the first amendment. Coming from the argument that way you cannot discriminate against them for 501-C-3 status as it would be government censorship.
        
        Your arguments are easily exposed for their truths and as strawmen. Your fight against Wikimedia may have justifiable basis and I make no assumptions one way or another about that but this attack is frankly childish.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gregory Kohs (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 12:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
        So, am I to understand that it is a coincidence that Jimmy Wales' immediate prior source of income before Wikipedia was hosting a site that 'The New Yorker' once described as hosting "lesbian strip-poker threesomes"?
        
        And, is it a coincidence that the Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation is a self-appointed expert in "zoophilia", so much so that he could add paragraphs of material to Wikipedia, without so much as a citation (other than a "wiki-link" pointing to Peter Singer) directing the reader to a more reliable source than his own mind?
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&diff=next&oldid=845413
        
        You Wikipediots will bend, twist, and contort yourselves and your positions so that nothing could POSSIBLY be wrong with how the Wikimedia Foundation governs what it publishes. I choose to be more skeptical of their mission.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        senshikaze (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 1:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
        dude. you are putting alot of thought into a basically useless argument. besides, since when was sexuality not in an encyclopedia?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Elsie, 29 Apr 2010 @ 3:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
        Yes, it is just a coincidence. If you feel the need to spin it one way or another, you could also look at it in the good sense that he got out of the softcore porn business and went into the free encyclopedia business. I think that's laudable!
        
        And again with the disingenuous claims… the edit you're pointing to is from 2003, back when there was not much of a focus on citing sources. Or the lovely attempt at associating the guy with zoophilia. I fixed nonsense on a fetish article once, does that mean I suddenly have the fetish? No. Writing about anuses doesn't make you an asshole.
        
        As for your last bit, let me paraphrase that back to you: "You idiot, you'll bend, twist, and contort yourself and your positions so that everything POSSIBLE is wrong with how the Wikimedia Foundation governs what it publishes." And that's what you've been doing in this very thread. So pardon us if we don't take you seriously.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 9:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
        I like how with every new link you choose, you prove your irrelevance even more.
        
        Thanks for saving me the time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        vivaelamor (profile), 30 Apr 2010 @ 2:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
        "If I endeavor to launch an "educational" website featuring pornographic images, may I also charter a business as a non-profit 501-c-3 around it, and drawing my salary from the tax-deductible donations I receive?"
        
        You wouldn't be the first. Where did you get the impression that 501-c-3 has a prude clause?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Elsie, 29 Apr 2010 @ 11:13am
  
  Re: Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
  Greg Kohs is just doing it for the lulz. "Most-viewed" stuff? Big frakkin' deal. Go to your local library, grab one of those dead tree encyclopedias, and see where the pages open. If it's within reach of your standard twelve-year-old, my guess is you'll see it fall open naturally to, ahem, certain biology articles.
  
  But don't give the troll (oh, just wait and see how he lurrrves that word!) too much attention. He's mostly sore because he got banned from Wikipedia back in 2006. He's been trolling since. Four years, man! That's sad! I think we have another sour grapes alert on our hands, people!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gregory Kohs (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 11:18am
    
    Re: Re: Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
    Oh, I see. So, at my local library, I'll find this in my dead tree encyclopedia?
    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Can_you_lick_it_!_%28Klashorst%29.jpg
    
    Banne d from Wikipedia since 2006 is another laughable item. Especially considering my various edits there dating 2009:
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributi ons&contribs=user&target=Thekohser&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2009&month=8
    
    ...not to mention the 2010 edits (for payment) that you DON'T receive the handy link to.
    
    Per usual, the facts are awfully difficult to grasp for the garden-variety, anonymous Wikipediot.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Elsie, 29 Apr 2010 @ 11:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
      It's disingenuous to say the least to say that the brief 2009 unban negates my general statement. And just because you edit under other accounts doesn't mean that if anyone saw that it was you they wouldn't be blocked as well.
      
      …and really, you need a better word than Wikipediot one of these days. It just affirms your douchiness.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 11:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
      Ignore the troll and move along.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 12:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why a tax break for porn warehouse?
romeosidvicious, Gregory Kohs can answer for himself, but you have one poitn wrong. Wikipedia (and Commons) are not censored by policy, they don't mind porn. It's not "unscrupulous people" who "use it host pronographic images," it's regular respected contributors following official policy. The Wikimedia Foundation is extremely disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 12:46pm

Clearly, Gregory Kohs is either a brilliant troll or a complete idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 12:50pm

Masnick, broadcasting the attack was necessary to have any effect on public opinion. I was amazed at how much pornography was on Wikipedia when I found out. Why isn't this general public knowledge? As for child porn, I don't care if it is drawn, it is against the law and has no place in an educational site (or anywhere else).

Also, as to your last paragraph, teachers are not allowed to give children access to adult content. You don't seem to know anything about school firewalls. Why don't you ask a teacher?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 4:05pm
  
  Re:
  Masnick, broadcasting the attack was necessary to have any effect on public opinion.
  
  But the claim was that this wasn't about public opinion, but about "the law" and letting the FBI know. If it's about public opinion, then it goes back to being clear that this is about some guy who's upset that Wikipedia beat him in the market.
  
  I was amazed at how much pornography was on Wikipedia when I found out.
  
  You know where else there's a lot of porn? The internet.
  
  Why isn't this general public knowledge?
  
  Or it is.
  
  As for child porn, I don't care if it is drawn, it is against the law and has no place in an educational site (or anywhere else).
  
  If part of that educational site is discussing issues related to that content, then perhaps it is reasonable, no?
  
  Also, as to your last paragraph, teachers are not allowed to give children access to adult content.
  
  Oh come on. Now you've gone off the deep end. No one is saying that "teachers are giving access to adult content." Just because there's SOME questionable material on wikipedia doesn't mean that using it means that you'll get porn. I've used Wikipedia for years and I've never come across porn.
  
  There's porn all over the internet. Based on your reasoning above, no school should have internet access.
  
  You don't seem to know anything about school firewalls. Why don't you ask a teacher?
  
  No, I actually know quite a bit about school firewalls -- and how ineffective they are. Why don't *YOU* ask a student?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gregory Kohs (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 5:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yet more inability to distinguish between "Wikipedia" and "Wikimedia Commons". I think the argument I made above was referencing the amount of traffic on the top 100 pages of WIKIMEDIA COMMONS. You do understand that that's not "Wikipedia", don't you? I'm not sure how clearly I have to spell it out, since you seem particularly obtuse about this.
    
    Mike, you showed your true colors regarding Sanger when you said, "He's often credited as being a co-founder of the site, though some dispute this."
    
    SOME dispute this?
    
    The only person in the world who disputes this is JIMMY WALES.
    
    So, tell us... how recently was it that you and Jimmy had an expensive dinner together? You're obviously shilling for him. What's the catch? It's okay, you can level with us Techdirt readers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 8:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "While many involved in Wikipedia these days downplay his role there, Sanger has made a pretty compelling case that he was heavily involved in the early days."
      
      Reading comprehension is never the strong suit of transparent spammers, it seems.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - vivaelamor (profile), 30 Apr 2010 @ 2:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Yet more inability to distinguish between "Wikipedia" and "Wikimedia Commons". I think the argument I made above was referencing the amount of traffic on the top 100 pages of WIKIMEDIA COMMONS. You do understand that that's not "Wikipedia", don't you? I'm not sure how clearly I have to spell it out, since you seem particularly obtuse about this. "
      
      The post he was addressing specifically refers to Wikipedia.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Joe Perry (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    When I was in high school (which was only a couple years ago, mind you) we had all sorts of ways to get around firewalls. First it was simple proxy servers. The got blocked, but there were so many of them. Then we made our own hidden proxy server and let people we knew could keep their mouths shut use it. Then we realized most web pages were only blocked for internet explorer and running Firefox from a thumb drive without saving history between sessions made it easy to access almost any site we wanted to. After that we just downloaded some games, installed games to thumb drives, and passed them around. At one point we even had it so that students could access each others' folders on the network, so we had a few people put the games into a set of nested folders hidden behind some school documents and everyone used that. We basically ran our networking guy in circles. It was awesome.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 1:01pm

If I endeavor to launch an "educational" website featuring pornographic images, may I also charter a business as a non-profit 501-c-3 around it, and drawing my salary from the tax-deductible donations I receive?

Only an extremely delusional mind would honestly believe that hosting a small number of pornographic images is the same as featuring them on your website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 1:02pm

As for child porn, I don't care if it is drawn, it is against the law and has no place in an educational site (or anywhere else).
You're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Larry Sanger complains non-stop, 29 Apr 2010 @ 1:24pm

Larry Sanger makes me sick
Larry Sanger whines.
Larry Sanger bitches.
Larry Sanger is such a
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spanky, 29 Apr 2010 @ 3:29pm

re
Yeah, I looked into this guys stuff, including the alleged pornography, when it was reported on slashdot. This guy's batshit crazy.

Wasn't there a story here just yesterday about how the media industry just "loves" child porn, because they can use it as a wedge to control content on the internet? Yeah, same thing.

There's nothing more telling of a person's character than when they use victims of crimes like this for their own benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 3:46pm

Eh Expert edited or not Citizendium's style guide leads to nicer articles than Wikipedia's does, I wish them the best of luck since over all I like Citizendium (problem is it's not that useful at the moment...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:13pm

I've used Wikipedia for years and I've never come across porn. - says Mike Masnick.

That's because you're not a 13-year old boy who was looking for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 2:03pm
  
  Re:
  "I've used Wikipedia for years and I've never come across porn. - says Mike Masnick.
  
  That's because you're not a 13-year old boy who was looking for it."
  
  Are you kidding me? If I were a 13 yr old boy looking for porn I think wikipedia would be the last place I would go. It seems like 25% of the content online is porn! I guess this access to adult sites is a problem if you cannot figure out how to click on "Enter: Yes I am over 18". Even if parents have Cybersitter or similar software on the computer it can be defeated with a couple of google searches. It is a scary world . If I had children the computer would be in the kitchen or some other non private area... furthermore if/when my children had a laptop it would run spectresoft or some other rootkit so I could keep a watchful eye on their online activities ... Perhaps someone should call the FBI on all those paintings of cherubs in the Metropolitan Museum of Art ...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:26pm

Yet more inability to distinguish between "Wikipedia" and "Wikimedia Commons". I think the argument I made above was referencing the amount of traffic on the top 100 pages of WIKIMEDIA COMMONS.

Whether it's Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, your argument still fails. Whatever its popularity, pornography is but a small portion of each website's content and none of the pornography is being highlighted as featured content.

Your claims are false and your motives suspect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gregory Kohs (profile), 1 May 2010 @ 9:08am
  
  Re:
  Thank you for questioning my claims and my motives, Anonymous Coward. Your cowardice speaks volumes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Hero, 1 May 2010 @ 10:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    …unlike your ad hominems.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jon Awbrey (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:40pm

Larry Sanger Accuses Wikipedia Of Distributing Child Porn
There is a thread of discussion on this topic at The Wikipedia Review.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Larry Sanger, 29 Apr 2010 @ 9:50pm

My reply
Larry Sanger here. Thanks for all the wikilove. ;-) I've posted a reply that covers several of Mike Masnick's points, and other points made by others. Here it is: http://www.larrysanger.org/MoreAboutWikimedia.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 10:47pm

Sorry Larry but you are full of shit. Wikimedia does not condone child pornography, and if any were ever posted they would remove it immediately. What they will not necessarily remove is any pictures that constitute child pornography only in your mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Larry Sanger, 30 Apr 2010 @ 8:07am

Depictions of child sexual abuse
Anonymous Coward: let's agree to disagree about whether Wikimedia Commons (not Wikipedia) hosts something properly called "child porn." But they most certainly do host depictions of child sexual abuse, which is a point that hardly anybody admits or seems to realize. But it is the main point, because prima facie that violates 18 USC 1466A.

The FBI has asked for more time before making public comment, and my senator and representative have forwarded the matter to the FBI. They don't seem to think that my report was "full of shit."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous, 1 May 2010 @ 11:15am
  
  Re: Depictions of child sexual abuse
  The actions of your senator and representative are meaningless as support for your argument. Try and find a politician that will make a comment supporting anything remotely related to child porn. It's impossible.
  
  Child porn is so demonized that supporting anything remotely related is political suicide. Yes, child abuse is wrong, pedophilia is bad, etc.. It's DISGUSTING.
  
  But supposing that a politician will be rational about it is stupid, because if they don't also demonize anything remotely related to it, they'll get accused of supporting or condoning it.
  
  So your senator & rep. supporting your argument doesn't make a difference at all. It's a good example of where appeal to authority fails. You appeal to the authority of the politicians, but those politicians aren't going to make a rational argument because otherwise they can be smeared as supporting/condoning child porn, whether or not there is "child porn" wherever you think there is some. Since their response is predictable, you can't use them as authorities, because they have a personal interest in demonizing the accused side no matter the reality.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2010 @ 10:11am

If you're referring to drawings, how can they possibly be depictions of child sexual abuse when not a single child has been harmed in their creation? Any abuse exists only in your mind.

That you've spoken to your senator and representative leads me to suspect to an even greater degree that your motives are political and self-serving rather than an honest reporting of child abuse.

By the way, 18 USC 1466A is probably unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Larry Sanger, 30 Apr 2010 @ 11:00am

More info about the law
A.C.: Ashcroft was decided in 2002. The statute was passed in 2003. The statute was used in 2006 to prosecute Dwight Whorley, who had a collection of lolicon, and in 2008 the Fourth Circuit refused to hear Whorley's appeal. The case may go to the Supreme Court (search Google for "Dwight Whorley appeal") and who knows, they might win and overturn the law; but in the meantime, that is the law of the land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2010 @ 11:47am

Certain sections of that statute are in direct opposition to the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition. Putting aside the fact that Whorley also possessed real child pornography, the fact that a lower court convicted Whorley for possession of cartoon porn and that the Fourth Circuit refused to hear his appeal is merely indicative of these lower courts' failure to follow binding precedent with respect to virtual child pornography.

Ask yourself who is harmed in the making of fake child pornography and then ask yourself whether the purpose of a law that criminalizes fake child pornography is the protection of children or the censorship of controversial and offensive material.

No children are harmed by any of Wikimedia's properties, though I'm sure the claim that this is so is a convenient tool for those with ulterior motives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Larry Sanger, 1 May 2010 @ 6:01am

Regarding the consistency and applicability of Supreme Court decisions to certain statutes, I'm more inclined to believe the judgment of an appellate court than Anonymous Coward's.

Who is harmed? Society as a whole--all of us, to a certain extent, and some of us more than others. The normalization of, shall we say, pedophilic sentiments, would be deeply, deeply damaging to the safety of children everywhere--that's just for starters--and the legalization of drawings of the sexual violation of children would be a decided step in that direction. I am not going to lay out my case in full here, but I might in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2010 @ 11:50am

@Larry Sanger

Do get off your high horse. You know very well that a bunch of drawings on Wikimedia Commons will never lead to the normalization of pedophilia, nor is their existence in any way "deeply, deeply damaging to the safety of children" (no matter how many times you repeat the word "deeply").

You can turn this into an emotional issue by referring to "drawings of the sexual violation of children" in the same tone as one would refer to the sexual exploitation of real children, but I think you know very well that such an attitude toward the former cannot possibly survive rational scrutiny. Like I said, you are full of shit.

As for the Supreme Court's opinion, you don't need to take this Anonymous Coward's word for it. Read the Supreme Court's decision and learn for yourself why the lower courts have failed to follow binding precedent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2010 @ 11:55am

"Thank you for questioning my claims and my motives, Anonymous Coward. Your cowardice speaks volumes."

It doesn't say nearly as much as your bullshit assertions concerning Wikimedia Commons. Frankly, I don't find it the least bit surprising that the two people most loudly trumpeting their opposition to these drawings are also people who conceivably have an axe to grind against the Wikimedia Foundation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2010 @ 11:58am

PS - I just noticed the link in your latest post. It links to a document titled "Top 10 Reasons Not to Donate to Wikipedia", but you're not at all biased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Larry Sanger, 1 May 2010 @ 1:30pm

@A.C.: of course no single instance of child porn will normalize pedophilia, adult-child sexual relations, or whatever you want to call it. But that isn't my argument, it is your silly straw man. My argument is that Wikipedia is an important project, and precedent-setting, and if the government takes a stand here, it will do significant good in the fight against the normalization of pedophilia. Of course, being the Anonymous Coward that you are, you might want children to be able legally to "consent" to sex with children, but I and most sane people don't.

Listen, genius, this *is* an emotional issue, and rightly so, because we are talking about the safety of children here. I doubt you have children, and I doubt you have the first clue about what this means or is all about; I'm sure some people have to have some life experience deeply caring for the upbringing of children before they really get this. But whether the drawings in question are "of the sexual violation of children," well, that's simply a fact. That's what the drawings are of. If you doubted that, you haven't seen the images I saw. And dare I point out that it is precisely their knowledge of what the images are *of* that makes them so exciting to pedophiles?

You obviously didn't understand my point about the Fifth Circuit. They knew about the earlier Supreme Court ruling perfectly well, and understood it far, far better than piddling little Anonymous Cowards such as yourself. Whether they chose not to follow a precedent, or whether they decided that it was not really a precedent, it does not matter: they had the case in hand. It's now up to the Supreme Court, if they decide to handle the case.

It seems to me that the shit-for-brains here is you, since "full of shit" seems to be your strongest argument. You tell me to get off my high horse; I tell you to get your head out of the toilet. Jerk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 3 May 2010 @ 12:29am
  
  Re:
  My argument is that Wikipedia is an important project, and precedent-setting, and if the government takes a stand here, it will do significant good in the fight against the normalization of pedophilia
  
  Larry, I'm curious. Do you HONESTLY believe that there is ANY movement whatsoever towards normalizing pedophilia? Of all the silly things you've said in this threat, that is, by far, the most ridiculous.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Larry Sanger, 1 May 2010 @ 1:38pm

If the point is that the images are not of child sexual abuse because no actual, real children were depicted, I have to say that the argument is sophomoric at best. If someone draws a picture of a murder which never happened, do we say for that reason that it is not a picture of a murder? No, the point is that the contents, or what the images are intended or understood to represent, are essential to their nature. It does not matter if there are no children who modelled for the pictures, for example. The pictures still show children being molested, violated, raped, or whatever you want to call it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2010 @ 2:33pm

"Of course no single instance of child porn will normalize pedophilia, adult-child sexual relations, or whatever you want to call it. But that isn't my argument, it is your silly straw man. My argument is that Wikipedia is an important project, and precedent-setting, and if the government takes a stand here, it will do significant good in the fight against the normalization of pedophilia."
No. Your argument was that "the legalization of drawings of the sexual violation of children would be a decided step in that direction". In other words, to allow Wikimedia Common's "child porn drawings" to exist is to draw one step closer toward the normalization of pedophilia. Sorry, but that's bullshit.
Of course, being the Anonymous Coward that you are, you might want children to be able legally to "consent" to sex with children, but I and most sane people don't.
And just a second ago you were accusing me of trotting out silly straw men. For shame. I don't wish to legalize actual child abuse, but drawings of fake child abuse should not be illegal and in any case should not be used as ammunition against the likes of Wikimedia Foundation.
Listen, genius, this *is* an emotional issue, and rightly so, because we are talking about the safety of children here.
Bullshit. We're talking about drawings here. To say this is about the safety of children is nothing less than mindless chest thumping.
I doubt you have children, and I doubt you have the first clue about what this means or is all about
I don't have children, but all it takes is a look at a random sampling of parents to realize that being a parent in no way guarantees that you're a competent judge real versus imagined risks. These drawings are purely an imagined risk.
I'm sure some people have to have some life experience deeply caring for the upbringing of children before they really get this.
Parents are often irrational about their children's safety.
You obviously didn't understand my point about the Fifth Circuit. They knew about the earlier Supreme Court ruling perfectly well, and understood it far, far better than piddling little Anonymous Cowards such as yourself.
That they knew about the Supreme Court ruling is not in dispute. The point is that they chose to ignore binding precedent. That I am a piddling little Anonymous Coward does not alter that fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2010 @ 2:46pm

If the point is that the images are not of child sexual abuse because no actual, real children were depicted, I have to say that the argument is sophomoric at best. If someone draws a picture of a murder which never happened, do we say for that reason that it is not a picture of a murder? No, the point is that the contents, or what the images are intended or understood to represent, are essential to their nature. It does not matter if there are no children who modelled for the pictures, for example. The pictures still show children being molested, violated, raped, or whatever you want to call it.
I see your point, but my point is that you're playing with inflammatory labels in order to lend your argument some emotional thrust (without which it falls completely flat). There's two ways to interpret the claim that Wikimedia Commons hosts "depictions of child sexual abuse". One is that the drawings depict actual sexual abuse of children, and another is that the drawings are purely fictional. Only the first of those is a real problem, just like only real murders are a problem while novels about murder are not. To speak of fictional depictions in the same tone as you would speak of real abuse is just more emotional chest thumping on your part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- W.R. Somey (profile), 2 May 2010 @ 2:24pm
  
  Fictional Child Abuse != Fictional Murder
  One is that the drawings depict actual sexual abuse of children, and another is that the drawings are purely fictional. Only the first of those is a real problem, just like only real murders are a problem while novels about murder are not.
  That's a completely bogus argument; I don't really understand why people keep trotting it out, other than that they're oblivious to reality. The reason why parents want to keep a lid on internet porn, and child porn in particular, is simply because sex is fun. (That's what the media tells kids, anyway.) Parents are afraid, quite rightly, that their children will be introduced to sex in various ways that are beyond their control, many of which are seriously harmful, and they'll never know about it. A child's emotional balance and stability can be completely destroyed by a pedophile, and the parents could be completely oblivious as to why - because the child is too afraid or ashamed to tell them. Needless to say, murder isn't like that. Moreover, child sex-abuse imagery is used for different purposes, and by different people, than "fictional murder." Those purposes are quite often to entice and corrupt, not terrify, children. Images of murder nearly always terrify. To draw a direct comparison between the two is at best absurd, and at worst, grossly irresponsible and morally bankrupt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ericbarbour, 2 May 2010 @ 12:08am

Looking for pics of naked boys on Wikimedia servers?
I recommend to Larry Sanger that he examine the contributions of a WMF Commons user named "Prtzthl":

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Prtzthl

Most of those photos were taken a century ago by a notorious homosexual photographer named Wilhelm von Gloeden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2010 @ 3:33pm

The only bogus argument between the two of us is your own. Children are unlikely to be interested in drawings of kids being abused, and even if they were somehow being "enticed and corrupted" it is not the drawings that do so but the criminal who employs them. Your complaint is not against the drawings, which are in themselves exactly as harmless as fictional depictions of murder, but against the people who would use them for their own selfish purposes. Saying it's "absurd", "grossly irresponsible", or "morally bankrupt" is just meaningless noise which appeals to the emotions rather than the intellect.

Your bogus argument is the same one people use when they claim that video games promote violence or that movies glorify violence and drug use. It's possible some people may be influenced by playing those games or watching those movies, but that's never a good enough reason to ban them.

Only in a paranoid fantasy world would drawings of children being abused ever lead to the abuse of real children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2010 @ 5:27pm

Oh look! Somey's name links to Wikipedia Review, which is "an open forum is provided for people to talk about issues related to Wikipedia and sister projects like Wiktionary and Wikimedia Commons without the possibility of censorship by the Wikimedia Foundation openly-undemocratic administration ('Voting is evil' --Jimbo Wales)."

Imagine that! Yet another Wikimedia critic trotting out allegations of child porn for whatever reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tyciol (profile), 3 May 2010 @ 2:29am

Listen to Larry
He`s got plans for this, as soon as we take down the paintings, we are going to get in the Delorean and go interrogate the guy who drew them in 1905 and make sure he didn`t base it on anything real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Larry Sanger, 3 May 2010 @ 9:32am

@Mike Masnick: all right, I'll bite. Of course, if you're like certain people who insist on using "pedophilia" only to mean a psychological disorder in which there is sexual attraction exclusively to children, then no, of course there's no movement to normalize that disorder. Who wants to normalize a disorder? But if you use the word "pedophilia" the way that most people use it, to mean any actual sexual relations between full-fledged adults and children below the age of consent, then, yeah, there is such a movement. You mean you didn't know that? Yes, there are people who regard pedophilia as an action regardless of motives, and a terrible crime, and there is an anarchist-associated movement to make this all hunky-dory.

Yes, there is a nasty little movement devoted to normalizing at least some sexual relations between adults and children--relations that are now considered deeply criminal and deeply wrong by sane, civilized people. That there are people out there plugging for this is well documented on sites like http://wikisposure.com/ (BTW, search for "Tyciol" there, then look at the username of your most recent commenter) and you can read more on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform and this copy of an old Wikipedia article that was apparently deleted: http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Pro-pedophile_activism . These sorts of people see nothing at all wrong with, say, 12-year-olds (that's Levine's cut-off; and for others, younger people) being able to legally consent to sex with full-fledged adults. I do.

A little background for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htAUysRPvNs Fascinating, and scary.

You mean you really didn't know all this? Or were you baiting me to say it, so you could mock me when I said it? Well, go ahead. Dig yourself into your hole a little farther, Masnick. Mock away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gregory Kohs (profile), 3 May 2010 @ 9:52am
  
  Re:
  Another Masnick FAIL, versus another Sanger WIN.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 3 May 2010 @ 10:37am
  
  Re:
  Larry, I'm beginning to question your sanity.
  
  So because there are a few sick morons, the world is "normalizing" pedophilia? You're being ridiculous. No one -- NO ONE -- takes those people seriously, other than whatever small community of folks are making those ridiculous arguments.
  
  That's the point, which you can't seem to get through your head.
  
  You think there's some big movement to make pedophilia acceptible. There isn't. It's not being normalized and your actions don't do anything to stop the normalization of it because it's NOT being normalized. Most people find it horrifying and the practice has been quite reasonable considered awful across the board.
  
  You're living in a dream world where you think because a few crazy people say something, that's becoming a standard view.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tyciol (profile), 19 Jul 2010 @ 8:39pm
  
  Re:
  Master of presumptuous ad hominem as always eh Larry?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Larry Sanger, 3 May 2010 @ 10:52am

I see your argumentative tactics are descending to ad hominem.

I didn't say the movement was "big," I said, and I quote, "there is a nasty little movement devoted to normalizing at least some sexual relations between adults and children." This is true, and it is what you asked about. You asked, "Do you HONESTLY believe that there is ANY movement whatsoever towards normalizing pedophilia?" I answered your silly question. Yes, there is such a movement. At least one representative of that movement is present on this very forum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 3 May 2010 @ 11:05am
  
  Re:
  By a "movement" I figured it was obvious that I meant a movement that actually is working. You suggested in your comment that the world was moving dangerously towards normalizing pedophilia. You are wrong.
  
  Your claims that you did this to *stop* the normalization of pedophilia suggest you actually believe that it's being normalized.
  
  It is not. You are wrong.
  
  I'm sorry Larry, but it's difficult to take you seriously. None of your arguments seem to hold up under scrutiny.
  
  You claim you did this to stop the normalization of pedophilia. But it's not being normalized.
  
  You claimed you did this because the law required it. But the law did not require you to make it public.
  
  So then you claim you made it public because people needed to know about this. But that disagrees with your claim that you only did it because the law required you to do so.
  
  Then people point out that the content you find so troubling might not be quite as troubling as you make it out to be when put in context -- which you seem to leave out -- and you respond by claiming you need to fight it to stop the normalization of pedophilia... which, again, there is no evidence that it's being normalized.
  
  None of your reasons seem to hold up.
  
  So I can't seem to figure out any reason why you're actually doing this, because every time someone pins you down on a specific point and proves you wrong, you jump to the next point in a circular fashion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tyciol (profile), 27 Dec 2010 @ 10:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tyciol (profile), 27 Dec 2010 @ 10:40am
  
  Re: Larry Sanger
  You are a liar, calling me a representative of a movement to normalize pedophilia. I neither represent nor am I part of nor do I even accept/believe in/promote/support such movement(s) you have discovered.
  
  I do not move to normalize pedophilia. It is abnormal and I neither wish to label the abnormal as normal nor to make it the norm. Pedophilia is a biased fixation on pre-fertility, I do not wish for people to be fixated on such things. I wish for people to be unbiased and healthy balanced individuals who do not obsess over physical trivialities in such a way. I oppose it for the same reason I oppose gerontophilia, monosexuality and other paraphilic mental defects.
  
  I have reported your post for your lie and personal attack levied against a commenter. You are engaged in the very ad hominem you accused others of, unfounded personal insults not based on anything I've said.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2010 @ 11:13am

Larry,

Do you honestly believe people who aren't pedophiles are any more likely to think pedophilia is okay after seeing a bunch of drawings of children being abused? Is the moral and ethical argument against pedophilia so weak that it breaks down under the pressure of an artist's imagination? Were you at all persuaded to molest any children after looking at any of the drawings that you saw, or is it simply a matter of you being superior to the easily corrupted majority?

Once again, I remind you that we're talking about drawings here. The idea that they lead in any way to the normalization of pedophilia is just ridiculous. I'm not sure of your motives here, but I think they lie somewhere between the desire to attack the Wikimedia Foundation and an honest belief that you're doing something for the good of society. I only wonder which came first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tyciol (profile), 27 Dec 2010 @ 10:46am
  
  Re: AnonCow
  Very insightful point sir, I think it is incredibly silly. It makes me think, if I see Hannibal Lecter killing an innocent prison guard, will I want to do it? Of course not! Seeing it would only make me more determined to capture him and save Clarice!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2010 @ 11:15am

"Another Masnick FAIL, versus another Sanger WIN."

Based on the fact that you agree with him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Larry Sanger, 3 May 2010 @ 2:47pm

First, see here: http://www.larrysanger.org/ReplyToSlashdot.html and here: http://www.larrysanger.org/MoreAboutWikimedia.html That's all I'm going to say about your facile dismissals of my motives. It also contains some responses to some of the sillier claims in your original blog post.

"You claim you did this to stop the normalization of pedophilia. But it's not being normalized." Sez you, with no defense of your claim whatsoever; you take a definition position, you should support it. I see a lot of evidence of a movement to normalize pedophilia. Quite a few comments on Slashdot suggested it; there's P.C.-hipness of Judith Levine's book, "Harmful to Minors"; there's the sheer fact that radically lowering age of consent laws is no longer ruled out of court; there's the attempted "scientific" normalization of pedophilia, for example the "personal perspective" viewable here. There's the fact that Wikipedia defends its right to host depictions of child abuse, and then Wikipedia's defenders like you attack me, rather than taking a closer look at their beloved project.

And, by the way, I did not say that I posted my letter to the FBI in order to stop the normalization of pedophilia. It really had more to do with Wikipedia, in particular--with holding Wikipedia to higher standards, the standards of the rest of the world. I don't have a special concern about stopping child porn, more than other bad things in the world. But it definitely is one of the bad things in the world.

To Anonymous Coward: my position does not rest on any such notion as that a particular person will be more likely inspired to molest a child after viewing a drawing--not just any drawing, by the way, but a drawing of horrifically disturbing acts, which would be sought out only by people who find nothing wrong with contemplating the molestation of children. My claim, instead (to simplify), is that a society that tolerates the graphic, gross depiction of children being sexually molested, in the interest of "history" or "education" or "reference" or "art" or however you might implausibly try to label it, is probably also going to be more tolerant of actual child molestation. It is part of a slow creep toward the lowering of another taboo, and in this case, a taboo that really should remain taboo. There are things that even you can agree are good that society is intolerant of, that it should be intolerant of, and the intolerance of which we should guard jealously. A society that tolerates these things is, to that extent, less civilized. Racism, slavery, and incest are only the easiest examples. Pedophilia is another. Child porn of all sorts--whether in photographs or in drawings--can appeal only to those who find pedophilic sentiments, if not actions, acceptable in themselves. But a civilized society finds all such sentiments deplorable and intolerable; and, I think, it should not tolerate them. To put it another way, pedophiles need no further encouragement, and they should continue to be shamed and made afraid by the law. Since there are no other consumers of child porn than people who get their kicks from imagining abusing children, banning the material by law is a perfectly justified way to do this.

I know one response: lolicon is legal in Japan, and they don't have so much abuse. There are at least a couple of points here. First, as far as I can tell (I admit I don't know much about it), "lolicon" refers to cutesy cartoon characters, of young-looking but indefinite age, having sex. This may or may not be easily labelled as depictions of child molestation. If it is--well, I think Japan should ban it. Second, Japan has less crime period. The question is whether they would reduce the amount of pedophilia, over the long run, if they were to get rid of depictions of child molestation. Furthermore, in a society that tolerates stories of children being raped, I would have serious doubts about crime statistics--there is a deep shame culture in Japan, which would make reports of child molestation a much more damaging. So I would not be at all surprised if it were grossly under-reported. For this and other reasons, I very much doubt that the child molestation statistics of the U.S. and Japan could easily be compared.

There is a lot more to say, but I'm going to have to leave it at that. At some point in the future I might publish an essay explaining my views on such things more fully.

I'm guessing you don't have children, Masnick. I don't know if you're married. If you are married, I wonder what your wife says about this. She might be able to explain it to you better, or at least more convincingly, than I can. I notice that there are precious few females the people who criticized me for reporting WMF to the FBI. I wonder why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 3 May 2010 @ 4:00pm
  
  Re:
  Larry:
  
  (1) there's a "Reply to this comment" link that lets people read the comments in threaded mode. Not sure why you don't use it.
  
  (2) Yes, I have a wife and a son, and my wife thinks your argument makes no sense at all and thinks it's best to just ignore you rather than waste any more time arguing with someone so logically challenged.
  
  (3) Wikipedia is not a "beloved project" to me. I actually don't use it very much. So I'm not some big Wikipedia defender.
  
  (4) Your entire argument seems to rest on "anything Larry Sanger doesn't like is evil and must be banned -- and anyone who questions where the borders are drawn, and why certain things are considered illegal is disgusting and should be punished." I'm sorry, Larry, that's not convincing.
  
  Larry, there is no momentum towards normalizing pedophilia, no matter how many times you claim there is. What you described were a few people questioning why something certain thinks are considered pedophilia when it's questionable if they really are. It's people questioning whether the pendulum has swung too far. Pedophilia is a horrible disgusting thing that should be stopped at pretty much all costs. But what people are discussing here -- which you seem to have a near total blindspot for in your rage against Wikipedia -- is that some of the things that are lumped in as pedophilia really are not what most people think of as pedophilia and *as such* it actually does more harm than good, in that it takes away efforts from dealing with real pedophilia.
  
  Anyway, from here on in, I'm listening to my wife. I have no time talking for talking to folks like you whose basic logic functions are turned off. I would suggest that you take a step back and look at this situation logically, but I fear you are way beyond the possibility of doing so. However, I will not reply to you any further.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tyciol (profile), 27 Dec 2010 @ 11:00am
  
  Re: Larry Sanger's thoughtcrime
  Larry the crux of your argument in reply to AnonCow seems to rest upon unsupported assumptions, assertions you have made about the thinking patterns of others.
  
  I can only assume you've because a semi-omniscient telepath able to see into the minds of all humans, or else you understand cognition to such an extreme level that you can define someone's opinions and desires based upon their having seen a picture.
  
  Here are the quotes that represent your cognitive distortions, all-or-nothing condemnations which are not supported by any logic or science.
  
  "A drawing of horrifically disturbing acts would be sought only only be people who find nothing wrong with contemplating child molestation."
  
  I would like to point out: contemplating means thinking about. Not as in "planning", but as in "comprehending." You yourself contemplate child molestation because it's an issue you have thought about in objecting to its depiction. Police officers and child protection advocates also contemplate it, because they must understand a problem if they are to combat it.
  
  "A society that tolerates depiction of child molestation is probably going to tolerate it."
  
  On what statistics do you assert such a probability? Tell me something: how many depictions of such a crime existed in the middle east when child brides such as Aisha were more common? How many depictions existed in the middle ages when people also married and impregnated pubescents?
  
  Now, conversely, what is the rate of rapes in Japan, where such depictions are allowed in lolicon magazines? I do not think your assumption has any ground to stand on. Your "Japan has less crime, period" argument holds no water, you are confronted with a society whom you say should ban media because you blame crime on this media, yet the crime does not exist, so there's no actual statistical evidence supporting you.
  
  You do have a valid point about the shame culture, but this would only invalidate using Japan's low crime as evidence for someone arguing that lolicon prevented child abuse. The core argument is actually that you did not present evidence proving a causal relationship between your idea that such media would increase abuse. I don't at all see the difference between this and saying depicting violence increases violence. Nor would such a correlation validate the idea that we should censor the idea of depicting travesty for fear that someone shall commit it, because travesty has always predated imagery depicting the idea. Child abuse existed before people decided to write or draw about it, just as harlots existed before pornography.
  
  You also relate this issue to racism/slavery/incest, yet it is not illegal to depict these. Indeed, if it were illegal to depict racism, we would actually have to deny that racism ever happened. I couldn't make a film about Harriet Tubman, because I'd break the law by depicting her being enslaved.
  
  Trying to make an argument about females/wives is sexist, you seem to be making some kind of point that only men oppose censorship? That would be flawed. Or perhaps, that only pedophiles would disagree with you and that only men are pedophiles? That would also be flawed, so probably neither of these is what you meant, but what do you mean by making this sexist observation Larry?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Larry Sanger, 3 May 2010 @ 5:03pm

Mike Masnick, I have a Ph.D. in Philosophy and I taught logic for a few years. I regularly support my views on all sorts of things with very carefully thought-out arguments. I did so in this case: I presented you with a perfectly cogent argument, which you have chosen to ignore. You, on the other hand, have done little more than abuse me.

And you accuse me of being "logically challenged"?

You are a git, and a logically challenged one at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 3 May 2010 @ 5:25pm
  
  Re:
  *sigh* I said I'd stop responding, but this one is just too rich. Really.
  
  Mike Masnick, I have a Ph.D. in Philosophy
  
  Good for you. I don't have a PhD, but I also taught logic, but I've found that anyone who highlights their degrees to prove an argument has none.
  
  I regularly support my views on all sorts of things with very carefully thought-out arguments.
  
  You did not do so here and everyone has called you on it.
  
  I did so in this case: I presented you with a perfectly cogent argument, which you have chosen to ignore. You, on the other hand, have done little more than abuse me.
  
  No, I did not ignore your argument. I read it, and responded to it, and you moved the yardstick. You claimed that you only wrote the letter because the law required you to do so. So we pointed out that you were clearly lying because you also publicized it -- which the law does not require. So clearly, there were motives beyond just "the law requires it." Then, you defended the first lie by claiming that you had to publicize it so people would know about this (contrary to your false claim that you only did this because the law demanded it). Then people called you on your second argument, because the evidence showed that what you were complaining about were NOT things that most people found problematic. Your response was to again move the line, and change the argument, claiming that you had to stop the "normalization" of pedophilia. So we called you on that obviously wrong argument, as there is no movement to normalize pedophilia. And your response is to move the yard line again, and claim that there is a movement based on a few individuals who are getting nowhere or who are merely questioning where the boundary should be.
  
  No offense, but to argue that questioning where the boundary should be is "normalizing" pedophilia is really troubling. You seem to have decided what Larry Sanger doesn't like and because of that anyone who questions that is somehow a sicko trying to popularize pedophilia.
  
  But that is, on its face, ridiculous.
  
  Every argument you have made has been shown to be ridiculous.
  
  Then you resort to ad hominems and ridiculous assertions against me (such as being sure I have no kids). If that's "logic" I now have even less respect for Ohio State, who apparently gave you your degree.
  
  You are a git, and a logically challenged one at that.
  
  And what, pray tell, is the logic of ad hominem attacks on those who prove you wrong?
  
  You presented no logical argument. You just insisted that because YOU don't like something it must be bad, and when people questioned the definitions on the edge, you freaked out and claimed that they were "normalizing" the evil of pedophilia. You were wrong, and got called on it.
  
  Give it up Larry. You are wrong and are fighting a ridiculous crusade. Tons of people have called you on it. It's time to stop digging a deeper hole.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tyciol (profile), 27 Dec 2010 @ 11:02am
  
  Re:
  An interesting flawed attempt at argument from authority, one's own authority in fact.
  
  It almost seems like you are insinuating "I got a degree in logic therefore I am incapable of being illogical."
  
  I guess that's the same reason someone with a degree in English never makes a spelling mistake.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2010 @ 5:24pm

"My claim, instead (to simplify), is that a society that tolerates the graphic, gross depiction of children being sexually molested, in the interest of "history" or "education" or "reference" or "art" or however you might implausibly try to label it, is probably also going to be more tolerant of actual child molestation."

Really? Based on what, exactly?

A society that tolerates fictional child abuse is no more likely to accept real abuse than a society tolerant of murder in fiction is likely to be tolerant of actual murder. Most people are intelligent enough to know the difference between fact and fiction and are capable of separating their attitude toward one and the other. Only in fantasy would society stop caring about child abuse simply because they let a bunch of drawings remain online.

You argue your "position does not rest on any such notion as that a particular person will be more likely inspired to molest a child after viewing a drawing", but apparently you do believe that allowing such drawings to exist would lead to a collective cry of "who cares" if anybody else decided to molest a child. I find that exactly as implausible as the notion that it would lead directly to the molestation of children. Again, I ask you: Is the moral and ethical argument against pedophilia so weak that it breaks down under the pressure of an artist's imagination?

You say a society that tolerates drawings of child abuse is "probably also" more likely to tolerate actual child abuse, but that seems to me a form of sophistry. The unstated argument seems to go something like this: A society that is tolerant of real child abuse would surely have no problems with fictional child abuse, therefore a society that tolerates fictional child abuse would surely be the kind of society that tolerates the actual abuse of children. I'm sure I don't need to tell you such an argument is nonsense, but I don't see any other way to interpret what you're saying that would make even the slightest bit of sense.

I feel like I'm watching a bad magician ruin his tricks but continue to act like he's god's gift to performance art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Larry Sanger, 3 May 2010 @ 7:28pm

Well, this has gotten just plain boring. I thought there was a chance that you would actually try to have a rational debate as this purports to be a high-profile blog, but I guess I was naive. "Sorry, this room is abuse!"

As to A.C.--oy. I'll let somebody else unconfuse you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 3 May 2010 @ 11:01pm
  
  Re:
  Well, this has gotten just plain boring
  
  Wait, seriously? You claimed that I had not made any logical argument, so I laid it out in great detail... and your response is "this has gotten just plain boring."
  
  Clearly, you mean, "Mike, you've proved my argument here makes no sense, so rather than admit defeat, I'll pretend I'm bored and go away without responding to a single one of you claims."
  
  Very, very convincing. Good luck with the FBI.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gregory Kohs (profile), 4 May 2010 @ 4:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike, you said two posts ago that you were quitting here.
    
    I just wanted to point out that JAPAN HAS NO PROBLEMS with underage sexual matters!
    
    http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20100426p2a00m0na012000c.html
    
    http://news.asiaone .com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Crime/Story/A1Story20100416-210741.html
    
    That's just in the past month.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - tyciol (profile), 27 Dec 2010 @ 11:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Pointing out that crimes still occur in a country with a low rate of them proves nothing. None have insinuated that Japan is devoid of problems, merely that they seem to have fewer of them than others who censor more.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bwaha, 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:07pm
  
  Ahaha, and no response to "Anonymous Coward, May 3rd, 2010 @ 5:24pm," because you have no actual basis for your opinions and have to run away. Fun.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2010 @ 7:41pm

As to A.C.--oy. I'll let somebody else unconfuse you.

I should have expected this kind of response from you. When you keep moving the goalposts, you eventually run out of field.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert E Piriczki, 4 May 2010 @ 5:09am

Jimbo Wales should be jailed
Wikipedia should be shut down immediately and Jimbo Wales jailed. It is clear the project has lost all ethical and moral ground. People donating to the foundation should be warned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2010 @ 7:26am

"I just wanted to point out that JAPAN HAS NO PROBLEMS with underage sexual matters!"

Two publicized instances of child abuse constitute proof that Japan has no problems with "underage sexual matters"? I suppose in the brave United States, where proud crusaders such as yourself and Larry Sanger are ready to pounce on controversial drawings, there are no cases of child abuse?

I guess when looking for evidence for a claim that's based on ulterior motives rather than facts, anything that looks like evidence will do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gregory Kohs (profile), 6 May 2010 @ 6:55am

Looks like somebody cracked under federal pressure
Sounds to me that (thanks to Dr. Larry Sanger), a little ol' office of free culture in San Francisco got a little ol' call from the little ol' FBI, and the Wikimedia Foundation was "persuaded" to change its stance, pronto -- or else.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysu bmit&diff=38806204&oldid=35313912

Go cry to your mommies, pedo-porn supporters, one and all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 6 May 2010 @ 10:42am
  
  Re: Looks like somebody cracked under federal pressure
  Go cry to your mommies, pedo-porn supporters, one and all.
  
  Gregory... really? No one on this thread in any way supported pedo-porn. You are a sick, sick individual in branding people who are debating with you supporters of pedo-porn. I'm sorry, but it is impossible to take you seriously when you defame and smear people who are having a serious discussion, just because they disagree with you.
  
  I would ask you, kindly, to retract your false and defamatory statement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gregory Kohs (profile), 7 May 2010 @ 4:47am
    
    Re: Re: Looks like somebody cracked under federal pressure
    I guess you didn't Google "Tyciol", one of your comment-leavers here, did you?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - tyciol (profile), 19 Jul 2010 @ 8:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Looks like somebody cracked under federal pressure
      Greg, contradicting what you're attempting to insinuate: I have never supported any form of pornography in my entire life.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2010 @ 8:20am
  
  Re: Looks like somebody cracked under federal pressure
  What proof do you have that Wales' decision had anything to do with pressure from the FBI? I guess whatever makes you feel like you "won" this argument is proof enough for the likes of you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Henry, 10 May 2010 @ 1:45pm

Why attack Larry when the fact is that Wikipedia sites have a lot of adult imagery. They should at least make it possible for parents and schools to keep underage kids from seeing that stuff. I grew up studying real Encyclopedias and they didn't need to put multiple images of every possible sex position and sex act in the pages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 10 May 2010 @ 2:03pm
  
  Re:
  They should at least make it possible for parents and schools to keep underage kids from seeing that stuff.
  
  Uh. What, exactly, is stopping them? Schools and parents have control over their own filters.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gregory Kohs (profile), 11 May 2010 @ 8:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike, you continue to participate here in the thread you said you were done with, and by doing so you continue to display your ignorance.
    
    What's "stopping them" is the dual tactic of the Wikimedia Foundation and the out-of-control Wikimedia "community" to:
    
    (A) Pro-actively push (via public speeches, cooperative initiatives, and feel-good PR about kids in the jungle using Wikipedia) for wider usage of Wikimedia projects in schools, at all age levels; and,
    
    (B) An utter refusal to implement any sort of child-protective measures like adding filter-ready labels or age-specific warnings to some of the more objectionable and gruesome content that they insist on hosting.
    
    Do you see how these two agendas are at cross-purposes with parents, schools, and libraries who would like to embrace Wikimedia projects, but can't due to the morally reprehensible attitudes and practices that emanate from the Foundation?
    
    Your badgering of Larry Sanger to "explain" his motives -- repeatedly -- reminds me of a comedy sketch, where the house is on fire, but the person calling for the fire department to come save him is asked so many irrelevant questions ("What's your shoe size, Sir?", etc.) that it becomes laughable. Who cares what Sanger's ulterior motives are? The problem is apparent to him, the law obliges him to report it, and that should be enough for anyone who's not a pro-pedophile agenda pusher.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 5:17pm

The only comedy is coming from you and Sanger. Your arguments are largely devoid of anything resembling rational argument, being little better than empty appeals to emotion. You criticize the Wikimedia Foundation for nothing wrong in particular, exploiting the false child pornography angle for whatever purpose. When that doesn't work, you expand the argument to include all forms of pornography that kids might somehow encounter, again making the same empty appeals to emotion.

Let there be no doubt: You are both full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taco_Grande, 30 Aug 2010 @ 11:14am

If I had any bias going into this mess, it was against Larry. I got the impression after reading his contributions to the talk page for his own Citizendium article that Sanger was a bit off his nut. With that having been said, I gotta give him the win in that debate between he and Mike. Larry kept his shit together and stayed on point, while Mike desperately resorted to obfuscation and ad-hominem attacks in a pathetic attempt to discredit Larry and to diminish the strength of his points. I still think that the guy is nuts, but I respect him for that. Takes a lot to keep your cool when you’re talking to an idiot and you’ve got all his fans up your ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]