Home > Wikipedia...

Wikipedia...

by Open-Publishing - Tuesday 13 December 2005
12 comments

Internet Justice International

article removed !

My name is Alex Schenck. I am a Wikipedia administrator and I go by the username "Linuxbeak". You may find my user page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Linuxbeak. I would like to discuss this issue on behalf of Wikipedia and Wikimedia.

We at Wikipedia are dedicated to providing you a high-quality pool of information that stems from community effort and participation. Quality of articles stem from a neutral point of view, which means that both supporting and opposing viewpoints are brought to light. It is not Wikipedia’s goal to promote any one said stance, nor is it our goal to serve as a basis for propaganda. We strive to be as neutral and unbiased as possible.

Concerns have been raised in the past regarding neutrality of topics. This press release is obviously critical of how we allow alleged pedophiles edit articles on pedophilia to the extent of allowing them to push an agenda of pro-pedophilia To this concern, we do not have any major objections. Pedophilia is one of our less-monitored articles, and it has been pointed out that there are a number of editors who have declared themselves pedophiles who also actively edit pedophilia-related articles. This brings up three issues.

First: Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation does not endorse any type of illegal activity, including sexual activity with a child or person that is under the age of consent. Wikipedia will not tolerate child-grooming or "fishing", and those who do this and are caught will be banned as well as information being handed over to the proper authorities.

Second: Wikipedia’s policy to maintain a neutral point of view is not so much as an end as it is a path. Certain articles such as pedophilia must be pointed out and identified as being of a non-neutral point of view, and as such fixed to be such. This does not mean. however, that we will tolerate an anti-pedophilia point of view to an article, just as much as we will not tolerate a pro-pedophilia point of view. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide facts. To this, we pledge that we will strive to do just that.

Third: Although this is only conjecture, the majority of humanity finds pedophilia to be taboo and/or immoral. With that said, Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation are not responsible for the viewpoints of individuals which use its services and resources. It is not our job to tell our users what is right and what is wrong; instead it is our job as administrators and editors to ensure that nothing illegal is being committed, which includes trolling for children. As previously stated, we will not tolerate illegal activity.

Our main objection with this press release include the targeting of three of our administrators: Lucky 6.9, Ta bu shi da yu, and Schissel. The press release is hostile and incorrect towards these three people, and we wish that this be understood.

Lucky 6.9, who was incorrectly identified as "Lucky69" in the press release, was cited as such:
"Once we visit Zanthalon’s discussion page, we see one user asking Zanthalon to vote for a user named "Lucky69" to the admin team. This example of pedophile nepotism shows that a vulgar name of "Lucky69" does not deter pedophiles from putting sexual degenerates on the wikipedia staff. Lucky69 is now an admin at wikipedia thanks to the efforts of the pedophile underground at wikipedia."

We would like to clarify the following:
1.) The user who allegedly asked Zanthalon to vote for Lucky was in fact asking Zanthalon to vote against Lucky 6.9, not for.
2.) Lucky 6.9’s user name is, in fact, Lucky 6.9 (as in Lucky 7 minus one tenth).
2a.) According to our user name policy, accounts with user names that are suggestive in nature will be blocked from editing.
2b.) Lucky 6.9 is not a sexual degenerate. This claim is based off of flawed logic and incorrect research.
3.) Lucky 6.9 was voted in as an admin by a multitude of normal, respectable, and intelligent people, not by the alleged pedophile underground at Wikipedia.
3a.) 24ip, one of the users that the press release cited as a pedophile, voted against Lucky 6.9’s adminship bid.

3ai.) The rationale behind 24ip’s vote was because Lucky 6.9 voted to delete the Childlove movement article. Specifically, this is what Lucky 6.9 said:
"We have sunk to an all-time low by allowing this "article" to be posted, complete with its image of the cover of a child porn magazine. Let’s get off the POV/NPOV bandwagon and just speedy delete this. No redirect, no nothing except for maybe reporting this pervert to the proper authorities. If this stays, I go for good and I hope that others will consider doing likewise as well. Sysops, take note. If I blank my pages over this, I demand to have my history removed as well. I’ve never been so nauseated in my life. - Lucky 6.9 02:43, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)"

As such, the statement that Lucky 6.9 being a sexual degenerate is not only skewed; it is indeed totally incorrect.

Moving on to Ta bu shi da yu, the press release cited him as follows:
"One wikipedia admin, by the name of Ta bu shi da yu, who is a self-described liberal marxist, goes on to commend Zanthalon’s contributions."

This is a twisted statement. First, it is a non-issue what political affiliation or viewpoints Ta bu shi da yu has. The statement "commending" Zanthalon’s contributions is flawed. This is what was said:
"I appreciate you clarifying sources for the article. Good job. Thank you. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)"

As you can see, Ta bu shi da yu was thanking Zanthalon for providing sources to an edit that he (Zanthalon) made. Providing sources is a way of maintaining encyclopedic integrity and is highly encouraged. It is unlikely, even false, that Ta bu shi da yu was commending Zanthalon for any edits besides providing sources. Additionally, Zanthalon responded to this statement:
"Thanks for this. I appreciate your efforts on this article as well and your ability to approach this article objectively despite your distaste for its subject matter. —Zanthalon , 18:07, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)"

As you can see, Zanthalon himself acknowledges that Ta bu shi da yu finds the subject of pedophilia distasteful. That should be enough for anyone to release Ta bu shi da yu of any accusation.

Continuing to Schissel, he was cited in the press release as follows:
"Another wikipedia admin, by the name of Schissel, thanks Zanthalon for uploading an image. Schissel also has a curious looking red star on his wikipedia profile."

First, the "curious red star" on his user page is what is called a "barnstar". Barnstars are akin to awards or trophies that one may receive from another editor for a job well done or a particularly high-quality edit. I myself have several. There is nothing suspicious about displaying these badges of achievement, and in fact they are rather common. The mere fact that the barnstar was even mentioned in this makes us feel that Schissel is being directly targeted.

Schissel did not "thank" Zanthalon for uploading an image, if one knows about image templates. This is what was said:
"Hi! Thanks for uploading BLogo. I notice it currently doesn’t have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use gfdl if you release it under the GFDL, or fairuse if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks! Schissel 23:53, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)"

Schissel used a pre-fabricated template that one may use in order to save repetitive writing. The template contained, besides the rest of the body, the words "Thanks for uploading x", x being the image name. It is most likely that Schissel saw this being uploaded or came across it in our category "Images without copyright status". At Wikipedia, we must abide by law and ensure that copyright-protected images aren’t used without the explicit permission of the owner. Schissel was merely upholding this rule.

In conclusion, we at Wikipedia find this press release to be biased and unfair. It has caused our administrators concern, which is in a sense a good thing. However, it has also caused Lucky 6.9, Ta bu shi da yu and Schissel unnecessary grief and attention. While we pledge to uphold all the laws of the United States government, we do not believe it is fair to accuse our administrators of being pedophiles without concrete evidence. As such, we respectfully request that Parents for the Online Safety of Children retract their press release and issue an apology to Lucky 6.9 as well as the administrators at Wikipedia.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article=11

Forum posts

  • Maybe Jimbo Wales is their pied-eyed-piper...

    • The page above me reads: "caution : we will erase messages with caractere (sic) defamatory, abusive, xenophobe, sexist, the threats, politic and commercial advertising... "

      This news story is clearly defamatory. The Perverted Justice people who originally posted this have added a right of reply from a Wikipedia administrator. I suggest everyone read it at:

      http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article=11

      TBSDY

  • As a long-time Wikipedia editor myself, I’m probably biased, but this press release looks rather odd. I won’t take an opinion on the matter of pedophilia on Wikipedia, not knowing anything about that, but for instance they got the site’s name wrong.

    That by itself would be understandable, if rather silly, but I’ve never heard of tracking down an actual address by just an IP number, Wikipedia contributors can mask theirs by registering (which takes roughly 20 seconds) anyway, the link at the bottom says stuff like it taking Siegenthaler four months of toil to get the stupidity in his article removed when in fact it took one notification to the owner, Jimbo Wales, Ta bu shi has publically protested saying that he’s not a liberal Marxist but an evangelical Christian, and to top it all off Schissel is said to have a "curious-looking red star" on his profile as an allusion to socialism while it says in the very same profile directly under the star that it’s a commendation for fine contributions in the field of classical music. -Kizor

    • How is the name wrong? I type in wikipedia.org and I get their site.

    • Oh, it’s not internally capitalized - Wikipedia, not WikiPedia. It’s not a large thing, just something that’s clear from every single page on the site.

    • I capitalized it to highlight the PED, for...pedophiles. But the name is not incorrect as you suggest. It is merely written in a style, that I prefer.

  • All this hubbub about bringing legal action against the open-source encyclopedia community is distressing and not a little aggravating. To me, Wikipedia is all about bringing differing views on various subjects into one place; if POSC doesn’t like it, let them start their own online encyclopedia. I’m certain they’d get plenty of support from the Christian and "tough on crime" communities, and would have more than enough "common sense" moderators to block out any viewpoints they find distasteful or otherwise innappropriate.

    In summary, let me have my encyclopedia the way it was intended: free to all and unregulated. I may not agree with the views presented in some of the articles, but I insist upon my right to view them.

  • This sounds to me like an attack on the open source concept behind Wikipedia, along the lines of "I don’t like what is written here, so I’m going to attack it until it disappears." Paedophiles have their own websites (or so I am told) and troll in chat rooms (apparently), so I see no reason why they should especially focus on Wikipedia as a possible contact point. I feel the problem is that the writer wants to limit what is allowed on the Internet to what he finds "acceptable". There are many porn-sites on the Internet, often with spam in my e-mail trying to get me to go there, but I don’t feel there is a need to remove them all. I have the *choice* of going there, just as the writer has the choice of going to Wikipedia or using the Encyclopedia Britanica. He seems to have been looking especially for paedophile entries in Wikipedia, then projecting his own world view onto what he found.

  • My name is Alex Schenck. I am a Wikipedia administrator and I go by the username "Linuxbeak". You may find my user page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Linuxbeak. I would like to discuss this issue on behalf of Wikipedia and Wikimedia.

    We at Wikipedia are dedicated to providing you a high-quality pool of information that stems from community effort and participation. Quality of articles stem from a neutral point of view, which means that both supporting and opposing viewpoints are brought to light. It is not Wikipedia’s goal to promote any one said stance, nor is it our goal to serve as a basis for propaganda. We strive to be as neutral and unbiased as possible.

    Concerns have been raised in the past regarding neutrality of topics. This press release is obviously critical of how we allow alleged pedophiles edit articles on pedophilia to the extent of allowing them to push an agenda of pro-pedophilia To this concern, we do not have any major objections. Pedophilia is one of our less-monitored articles, and it has been pointed out that there are a number of editors who have declared themselves pedophiles who also actively edit pedophilia-related articles. This brings up three issues.

    First: Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation does not endorse any type of illegal activity, including sexual activity with a child or person that is under the age of consent. Wikipedia will not tolerate child-grooming or "fishing", and those who do this and are caught will be banned as well as information being handed over to the proper authorities.

    Second: Wikipedia’s policy to maintain a neutral point of view is not so much as an end as it is a path. Certain articles such as pedophilia must be pointed out and identified as being of a non-neutral point of view, and as such fixed to be such. This does not mean. however, that we will tolerate an anti-pedophilia point of view to an article, just as much as we will not tolerate a pro-pedophilia point of view. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide facts. To this, we pledge that we will strive to do just that.

    Third: Although this is only conjecture, the majority of humanity finds pedophilia to be taboo and/or immoral. With that said, Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation are not responsible for the viewpoints of individuals which use its services and resources. It is not our job to tell our users what is right and what is wrong; instead it is our job as administrators and editors to ensure that nothing illegal is being committed, which includes trolling for children. As previously stated, we will not tolerate illegal activity.

    Our main objection with this press release include the targeting of three of our administrators: Lucky 6.9, Ta bu shi da yu, and Schissel. The press release is hostile and incorrect towards these three people, and we wish that this be understood.

    Lucky 6.9, who was incorrectly identified as "Lucky69" in the press release, was cited as such:
    "Once we visit Zanthalon’s discussion page, we see one user asking Zanthalon to vote for a user named "Lucky69" to the admin team. This example of pedophile nepotism shows that a vulgar name of "Lucky69" does not deter pedophiles from putting sexual degenerates on the wikipedia staff. Lucky69 is now an admin at wikipedia thanks to the efforts of the pedophile underground at wikipedia."

    We would like to clarify the following:
    1.) The user who allegedly asked Zanthalon to vote for Lucky was in fact asking Zanthalon to vote against Lucky 6.9, not for.
    2.) Lucky 6.9’s user name is, in fact, Lucky 6.9 (as in Lucky 7 minus one tenth).
    2a.) According to our user name policy, accounts with user names that are suggestive in nature will be blocked from editing.
    2b.) Lucky 6.9 is not a sexual degenerate. This claim is based off of flawed logic and incorrect research.
    3.) Lucky 6.9 was voted in as an admin by a multitude of normal, respectable, and intelligent people, not by the alleged pedophile underground at Wikipedia.
    3a.) 24ip, one of the users that the press release cited as a pedophile, voted against Lucky 6.9’s adminship bid.

    3ai.) The rationale behind 24ip’s vote was because Lucky 6.9 voted to delete the Childlove movement article. Specifically, this is what Lucky 6.9 said:
    "We have sunk to an all-time low by allowing this "article" to be posted, complete with its image of the cover of a child porn magazine. Let’s get off the POV/NPOV bandwagon and just speedy delete this. No redirect, no nothing except for maybe reporting this pervert to the proper authorities. If this stays, I go for good and I hope that others will consider doing likewise as well. Sysops, take note. If I blank my pages over this, I demand to have my history removed as well. I’ve never been so nauseated in my life. - Lucky 6.9 02:43, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)"

    As such, the statement that Lucky 6.9 being a sexual degenerate is not only skewed; it is indeed totally incorrect.

    Moving on to Ta bu shi da yu, the press release cited him as follows:
    "One wikipedia admin, by the name of Ta bu shi da yu, who is a self-described liberal marxist, goes on to commend Zanthalon’s contributions."

    This is a twisted statement. First, it is a non-issue what political affiliation or viewpoints Ta bu shi da yu has. The statement "commending" Zanthalon’s contributions is flawed. This is what was said:
    "I appreciate you clarifying sources for the article. Good job. Thank you. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)"

    As you can see, Ta bu shi da yu was thanking Zanthalon for providing sources to an edit that he (Zanthalon) made. Providing sources is a way of maintaining encyclopedic integrity and is highly encouraged. It is unlikely, even false, that Ta bu shi da yu was commending Zanthalon for any edits besides providing sources. Additionally, Zanthalon responded to this statement:
    "Thanks for this. I appreciate your efforts on this article as well and your ability to approach this article objectively despite your distaste for its subject matter. —Zanthalon , 18:07, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)"

    As you can see, Zanthalon himself acknowledges that Ta bu shi da yu finds the subject of pedophilia distasteful. That should be enough for anyone to release Ta bu shi da yu of any accusation.

    Continuing to Schissel, he was cited in the press release as follows:
    "Another wikipedia admin, by the name of Schissel, thanks Zanthalon for uploading an image. Schissel also has a curious looking red star on his wikipedia profile."

    First, the "curious red star" on his user page is what is called a "barnstar". Barnstars are akin to awards or trophies that one may receive from another editor for a job well done or a particularly high-quality edit. I myself have several. There is nothing suspicious about displaying these badges of achievement, and in fact they are rather common. The mere fact that the barnstar was even mentioned in this makes us feel that Schissel is being directly targeted.

    Schissel did not "thank" Zanthalon for uploading an image, if one knows about image templates. This is what was said:
    "Hi! Thanks for uploading BLogo. I notice it currently doesn’t have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use gfdl if you release it under the GFDL, or fairuse if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks! Schissel 23:53, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)"

    Schissel used a pre-fabricated template that one may use in order to save repetitive writing. The template contained, besides the rest of the body, the words "Thanks for uploading x", x being the image name. It is most likely that Schissel saw this being uploaded or came across it in our category "Images without copyright status". At Wikipedia, we must abide by law and ensure that copyright-protected images aren’t used without the explicit permission of the owner. Schissel was merely upholding this rule.

    In conclusion, we at Wikipedia find this press release to be biased and unfair. It has caused our administrators concern, which is in a sense a good thing. However, it has also caused Lucky 6.9, Ta bu shi da yu and Schissel unnecessary grief and attention. While we pledge to uphold all the laws of the United States government, we do not believe it is fair to accuse our administrators of being pedophiles without concrete evidence. As such, we respectfully request that Parents for the Online Safety of Children retract their press release and issue an apology to Lucky 6.9 as well as the administrators at Wikipedia.

    http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article=11

  • Why is Bellaciao.org gotten so interested in attacking another online, free service such as Wikipedia? For the last couple of months, Bellaciao.org has posted many articles, some more factually based than others, [most are biased to an extreme], that are basically questioning the existence of this autonomous, free online website, which frankly has many of the same flaws of any fledging new organization. Why crucify it? This latest attack strikes me, someone who has no ties whatsoever to the Wikipedia organization I must add, as uncalled for and extremely libelous. For an organization that thrives on the opinions of all , from the most educated to the most ignorant, this latest attack stinks of hypocrisy and heavy handed arrogance. If we are to survive as a democracy, we will need the internet, since the mass media do their best to undermine the truth. To see one online service attack another is very disheartening to anyone who values the future contributions of the net to our society. If the people of Bellacia.org value the net at all and its future, they should be very careful when they critique another online service that has, for the most part, done a great deal in educating the public. If the people that run Belliciao.org are not careful in how they critique Wikipedia, then they should not be so surprised when the feds come calling on them.

    The use of the word ’pedophile’ strikes me as another fear word used by our media to localize public debate on any entity they consider unwanted, much like the word ’terrorist’ is used now, or the word ’communist’ was used in the McCarthy era. Have these attacks on Wikipedia become part of an overall witch hunt? If so, who is really behind this witch hunt? The Encyclopedia Britannica? Encarta online?
    Witch hunts are often orchestrated by real witches to persecute innocent people who have committed no crime other than that they were in the way. Has Belliciao.org turned a new leaf, becoming witch hunters over night?

    • Its not bellaciao who have post this article ! here, it’s "open publishing" ...

    • That’s my whole point, Bellaciao and Wikipedia are both ’open’ publishing, yet it seems to me that the Wikipedians do a far better job at reading the articles posted on their website than the people of Bellaciao. At least they are aware of them. Bellaciao.org gives me the impression that there is no one in the driver’s seat whatsoever. A runaway train for the disenfranchised and the disillusioned. All I’m saying is what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and what is happening to Wikipedia, libelous attacks based mostly on innuendo, can easily happen to Bellaciao.