Tweet
We've been saying this for years but nobody listened. What do you say now?
We told you so, but you didn't listen. Now do you believe us? Why should you ever believe anything written on that site is beyond me! It's a front for child pornography!
The parent company of Wikipedia is knowingly distributing child pornography, the co-founder of the online encyclopedia says, and he's imploring the FBI to investigate.
The parent company of Wikipedia is knowingly distributing child pornography, the co-founder of the online encyclopedia says, and he's imploring the FBI to investigate.
Larry Sanger, who left Wikipedia in 2002, said Wikimedia Commons, the parent company of Wiki products including Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikinews and Wikiquote, is rife with renderings of children performing sexual acts.
Sanger sent a letter to the FBI earlier this month outlining his concerns and identifying two specific Wikimedia Commons categories he believes violate federal obscenity law.
The first category, entitled “Pedophilia,” contains 25-30 explicit and detailed drawings of children performing sexual acts. The category was created three years ago.
The second, “Lolicon,” provides cartoons similar in detail and depiction. One of the more egregious cartoons shows a rendering of a young child about to perform oral sex on a much older man.
“I wasn’t shocked that it was online, but I was shocked that it was on a Wikimedia Foundation site that purports to be a reference site,” said Sanger, who is now involved in educational projects like Citizendium.org and WatchKnow.org, non-profit directories of videos for students grades pre-K to 12. (Wikimedia Commons is owned and hosted by the California-based Wikimedia Foundation.)
“I think a lot of teachers and education technologists responsible for the filters at public schools don’t realize how much and what level of pornography there is in the system. I’m quite sure that if they knew there were pages devoted to pedophilia, it might make them think twice about giving students unrestricted access in schools.”
In addition to mentioning the two categories of possibly illegal content, Sanger also named the controversial high-level Wikipedia manager Erik Moeller, who Sanger said “is well known for his views in defense of pedophilia.”
“What is my position on pedophilia, then? It’s really simple. If the child doesn’t want it, is neutral or ambiguous, it’s inappropriate,” Moeller wrote in 2001 in a post on Kuro5hin.org that he titled, “Pleasure, Affection, Cause and Effect”. These writings were drudged up by Valleywag in May 2008.
"The real issue for Wikipedia and sites like it is who is monitoring the content? Who is accountable? And who exactly is responsible? Anonymous editors and contributors and a complete lack of transparency presents a real risk of uncensored content being distributed worldwide. "
On his blog, he pointed out some of Moeller’s additions to Wikipedia articles:
To Wikipedia’s “Human Sexual Behavior” article, Moeller added:
"It is generally acknowledged that children are capable of feeling sexual pleasure, even if they are not yet able to engage in sexual intercourse with each other, and/or are not yet biologically able to reproduce."
To “Homosexuality and Morality,” he added:
“A small minority believes that children are capable of consenting to homosexual acts with older men, but all major pro-homosexual groups have rejected that view.”
Moeller, who did not reply to requests for comment, wrote into the “Pedophilia” entry:
"Again, someone who sexually abuses a minor is not necessarily a pedophile ('exclusively' 'attracted' to 'preadolescents' — emphasis on every word), but may simply be acting out of opportunity. The title 'pedophiles and pederasts' is redundant — pedophilia includes pederasty. This does not in any way mitigate the definitional problems of this article."
The parent company of Wikipedia is knowingly distributing child pornography, the co-founder of the online encyclopedia says, and he's imploring the FBI to investigate.
Larry Sanger, who left Wikipedia in 2002, said Wikimedia Commons, the parent company of Wiki products including Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikinews and Wikiquote, is rife with renderings of children performing sexual acts.
Sanger sent a letter to the FBI earlier this month outlining his concerns and identifying two specific Wikimedia Commons categories he believes violate federal obscenity law.
The first category, entitled “Pedophilia,” contains 25-30 explicit and detailed drawings of children performing sexual acts. The category was created three years ago.
The second, “Lolicon,” provides cartoons similar in detail and depiction. One of the more egregious cartoons shows a rendering of a young child about to perform oral sex on a much older man.
“I wasn’t shocked that it was online, but I was shocked that it was on a Wikimedia Foundation site that purports to be a reference site,” said Sanger, who is now involved in educational projects like Citizendium.org and WatchKnow.org, non-profit directories of videos for students grades pre-K to 12. (Wikimedia Commons is owned and hosted by the California-based Wikimedia Foundation.)
“I think a lot of teachers and education technologists responsible for the filters at public schools don’t realize how much and what level of pornography there is in the system. I’m quite sure that if they knew there were pages devoted to pedophilia, it might make them think twice about giving students unrestricted access in schools.”
In addition to mentioning the two categories of possibly illegal content, Sanger also named the controversial high-level Wikipedia manager Erik Moeller, who Sanger said “is well known for his views in defense of pedophilia.”
“What is my position on pedophilia, then? It’s really simple. If the child doesn’t want it, is neutral or ambiguous, it’s inappropriate,” Moeller wrote in 2001 in a post on Kuro5hin.org that he titled, “Pleasure, Affection, Cause and Effect”. These writings were drudged up by Valleywag in May 2008.
"The real issue for Wikipedia and sites like it is who is monitoring the content? Who is accountable? And who exactly is responsible? Anonymous editors and contributors and a complete lack of transparency presents a real risk of uncensored content being distributed worldwide. "
On his blog, he pointed out some of Moeller’s additions to Wikipedia articles:
To Wikipedia’s “Human Sexual Behavior” article, Moeller added:
"It is generally acknowledged that children are capable of feeling sexual pleasure, even if they are not yet able to engage in sexual intercourse with each other, and/or are not yet biologically able to reproduce."
To “Homosexuality and Morality,” he added:
“A small minority believes that children are capable of consenting to homosexual acts with older men, but all major pro-homosexual groups have rejected that view.”
Moeller, who did not reply to requests for comment, wrote into the “Pedophilia” entry:
"Again, someone who sexually abuses a minor is not necessarily a pedophile ('exclusively' 'attracted' to 'preadolescents' — emphasis on every word), but may simply be acting out of opportunity. The title 'pedophiles and pederasts' is redundant — pedophilia includes pederasty. This does not in any way mitigate the definitional problems of this article."
We told you so, but you didn't listen. Now do you believe us? Why should you ever believe anything written on that site is beyond me! It's a front for child pornography!
Comment