How much truth is there to this:
The Parents for the Online Safety of Children (POSC) organization is worried about parents letting their children into a website that is a known gathering for pedophiles. Any pedophile can easily obtain a child's IP address and use it to locate the child's place of residence outside of the internet. Pedophiles may also solicit children for sex or attempt to contact them through using WikiPedia as a medium, or even find out their e-mail address or instant messenger screen name.
Since WikiPedia allows pedophiles to edit WikiPedia pages and view the IP addresses of children freely, we recommend that you use filtering software to block WikiPedia from access in your household or school.
The internet is already a dangerous lurking ground for pedophiles; statistics show that about 1 in 5 children are solicited for sex online, and with the growth of the unregulated WikiPedia, that number can only skyrocket.
Since WikiPedia refuses to address the issue of pedophiles within its ranks and the allowance of random editing to pages, we can only recommend parents to withhold access to WikiPedia.org for the time being.
Excerpts from http://news.baou.com/main.php? action=recent&msg_recent=&rid=20679
What can we practically do that would reduce any real risk? (I exclude fighting among ourselves in a destructive way)
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
How much truth is there to this:
The Parents for the Online Safety of Children (POSC) organization is worried about parents letting their children into a website that is a known gathering for pedophiles. Any pedophile can easily obtain a child's IP address and use it to locate the child's place of residence outside of the internet. Pedophiles may also solicit children for sex or attempt to contact them through using WikiPedia as a medium, or even find out their e-mail address or instant messenger screen name.
Since WikiPedia allows pedophiles to edit WikiPedia pages and view the IP addresses of children freely, we recommend that you use filtering software to block WikiPedia from access in your household or school.
The internet is already a dangerous lurking ground for pedophiles; statistics show that about 1 in 5 children are solicited for sex online, and with the growth of the unregulated WikiPedia, that number can only skyrocket.
Since WikiPedia refuses to address the issue of pedophiles within its ranks and the allowance of random editing to pages, we can only recommend parents to withhold access to WikiPedia.org for the time being.
Excerpts from http://news.baou.com/main.php? action=recent&msg_recent=&rid=20679
What can we practically do that would reduce any real risk? (I exclude fighting among ourselves in a destructive way)
Fred
BAOU is a coalition of trolls. Having said that, I think [[WP:NOT]] censored for the protection of minors covers this sufficiently.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
On 2/6/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
What can we practically do that would reduce any real risk? (I exclude
fighting among ourselves in a destructive way)
Block anyone we see actively using talk pages to groom minors I guess. Personally I've never seen evidence of this and I can't imagine that any pedo would be dumb enough to do it in a public forum like that. I suppose there is some marginal risk that a pervert will meet a child through Wikipedia just by virtue of the fact that we are so highly trafficked and we permit user communication through our site, but there isn't much else we can do about it short of shutting the whole thing down. It's not our responsibility to raise people's children, and parents should know what their kids are doing on the internet.
I say ignore it.
Ryan
Some key points that come to mind: - It's not easy to get the ID of a user with a login name - Wikipedia actively discourages off topic discussion. Anyone asking for anyone's personal details or providing an email address would generally be told off, whatever the context. - Any nasty person would leave a huge electronic trail behind them publicly visible to basically anyone.
Steve
On 2/6/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/6/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
What can we practically do that would reduce any real risk? (I exclude
fighting among ourselves in a destructive way)
Block anyone we see actively using talk pages to groom minors I guess. Personally I've never seen evidence of this and I can't imagine that any pedo would be dumb enough to do it in a public forum like that. I suppose there is some marginal risk that a pervert will meet a child through Wikipedia just by virtue of the fact that we are so highly trafficked and we permit user communication through our site, but there isn't much else we can do about it short of shutting the whole thing down. It's not our responsibility to raise people's children, and parents should know what their kids are doing on the internet.
Steve Bennett wrote:
Some key points that come to mind:
- It's not easy to get the ID of a user with a login name
What do you mean by ID in this context?
Chris
Sort of like an IP, but with a typo.
Steve
On 2/6/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Some key points that come to mind:
- It's not easy to get the ID of a user with a login name
What do you mean by ID in this context?
Chris
On 2/6/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Some key points that come to mind:
- It's not easy to get the ID of a user with a login name
- Wikipedia actively discourages off topic discussion. Anyone asking
for anyone's personal details or providing an email address would generally be told off, whatever the context.
- Any nasty person would leave a huge electronic trail behind them
publicly visible to basically anyone.
Steve
Actually, the best way to avoid that would be to have a user name, since then you would be anonymous, at least a month or two after your last edit. Which reminds me - if the amount of time that IP addresses of logged in users is kept is lengthened, my advice would be to announce that change
Ian
See also:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_talk:Story_preparation/Wikipedia_class_...
This is just some silly troll outfit as far as I can tell
On 2/6/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, the best way to avoid that would be to have a user name, since then you would be anonymous, at least a month or two after your last edit. Which reminds me - if the amount of time that IP addresses of logged in users is kept is lengthened, my advice would be to announce that change
Ian
No need there is a trivial cheack you can do yourself to see how long IPs are kept within the current system.
-- geni
On 2/6/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/6/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
What can we practically do that would reduce any real risk? (I exclude
fighting among ourselves in a destructive way)
Block anyone we see actively using talk pages to groom minors I guess. Personally I've never seen evidence of this and I can't imagine that any pedo would be dumb enough to do it in a public forum like that. I suppose there is some marginal risk that a pervert will meet a child through Wikipedia just by virtue of the fact that we are so highly trafficked and we permit user communication through our site, but there isn't much else we can do about it short of shutting the whole thing down. It's not our responsibility to raise people's children, and parents should know what their kids are doing on the internet.
I say ignore it.
Ryan
I completely agree. BTW, what young kid uses wikipedia so actively so that he actually starts using wp talk-pages? In my experience, wikipedia is strictly for adults, young or otherwise (well, adults in age-range that is, not necessarily maturity).
Maybe someone should send a polite email to POSC explaining that there has been no such activity at all on wikipedia, and also remind them how the word is capitalized?
--Oskar
The fact that they are saying we refuse to address the issue of "the allowance of random editing to pages" should say enough. The only pandering to these people would be to shut the entire project down. I don't think so.
FF
On 2/6/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
How much truth is there to this:
The Parents for the Online Safety of Children (POSC) organization is worried about parents letting their children into a website that is a known gathering for pedophiles. Any pedophile can easily obtain a child's IP address and use it to locate the child's place of residence outside of the internet. Pedophiles may also solicit children for sex or attempt to contact them through using WikiPedia as a medium, or even find out their e-mail address or instant messenger screen name.
Since WikiPedia allows pedophiles to edit WikiPedia pages and view the IP addresses of children freely, we recommend that you use filtering software to block WikiPedia from access in your household or school.
The internet is already a dangerous lurking ground for pedophiles; statistics show that about 1 in 5 children are solicited for sex online, and with the growth of the unregulated WikiPedia, that number can only skyrocket.
Since WikiPedia refuses to address the issue of pedophiles within its ranks and the allowance of random editing to pages, we can only recommend parents to withhold access to WikiPedia.org for the time being.
Excerpts from http://news.baou.com/main.php? action=recent&msg_recent=&rid=20679
What can we practically do that would reduce any real risk? (I exclude fighting among ourselves in a destructive way)
Fred _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/6/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
How much truth is there to this:
The Parents for the Online Safety of Children (POSC) organization is worried about parents letting their children into a website that is a known gathering for pedophiles. Any pedophile can easily obtain a child's IP address and use it to locate the child's place of residence outside of the internet.
No, they can't IP addresses are only available for not logged in users, and for people with CheckUser access.
Pedophiles may also solicit
children for sex or attempt to contact them through using WikiPedia as a medium, or even find out their e-mail address or instant messenger screen name.
Parents should tell their children to never share personal details online. Anyone using Wikipedia to initiate sexual contacts through Wikipedia will get a very permanent ban on their person.
Since WikiPedia allows pedophiles to edit WikiPedia pages and view
the IP addresses of children freely, we recommend that you use filtering software to block WikiPedia from access in your household or school.
We don't. Simply make an account, and their IP won't show up, or simply don't announce your personal details when you're not logged on.
The internet is already a dangerous lurking ground for pedophiles;
statistics show that about 1 in 5 children are solicited for sex online, and with the growth of the unregulated WikiPedia, that number can only skyrocket.
The internet is also used by murderers, and crackpot theorists...
Since WikiPedia refuses to address the issue of pedophiles within its
ranks and the allowance of random editing to pages, we can only recommend parents to withhold access to WikiPedia.org for the time being.
Excerpts from http://news.baou.com/main.php? action=recent&msg_recent=&rid=20679
What can we practically do that would reduce any real risk? (I exclude fighting among ourselves in a destructive way)
Encourage anyone who is worried about their security to surf safely http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_1600000/newsid_1607200/1607213.stm
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of MacGyverMagic/Mgm
Anyone using Wikipedia to initiate sexual contacts through Wikipedia will get a very permanent ban on their person.
Cripes. And it's Valentine's Day next week, too.
Anyone using Wikipedia to initiate sexual contacts through Wikipedia will get a very permanent ban on their person.
Cripes. And it's Valentine's Day next week, too.
I agree. I think it would be very sweet if two Wikipedians fell in love on a talk page. But only if they were both above the statutory age of consent.
On 2/6/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
I agree. I think it would be very sweet if two Wikipedians fell in love on a talk page. But only if they were both above the statutory age of consent.
As per the Wikiholic test, sockpuppets don't count.
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
I agree. I think it would be very sweet if two Wikipedians fell in love on a talk page. But only if they were both above the statutory age of consent.
As per the Wikiholic test, sockpuppets don't count.
There's a masturbation gag here somewhere, but I'm damned if I can see what it is. :)
Cheers,
N.
On 2/7/06, Nick Boalch n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
I agree. I think it would be very sweet if two Wikipedians fell in love on a talk page. But only if they were both above the statutory age of consent.
As per the Wikiholic test, sockpuppets don't count.
There's a masturbation gag here somewhere, but I'm damned if I can see what it is. :)
Cheers,
N.
"This user is believed to be a sockpuppet of User:Penis....."
Sorry, couldn't help myself. I'll go stand in the corner of shame now.
--Oskar
On 2/7/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/7/06, Nick Boalch n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
I agree. I think it would be very sweet if two Wikipedians fell in love on a talk page. But only if they were both above the statutory age of consent.
As per the Wikiholic test, sockpuppets don't count.
There's a masturbation gag here somewhere, but I'm damned if I can see what it is. :)
Cheers,
N.
"This user is believed to be a sockpuppet of User:Penis....."
Sorry, couldn't help myself. I'll go stand in the corner of shame now.
I've brought tomatoes, everyone! START THROWING!
-- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
On 2/6/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Anyone using Wikipedia to initiate sexual contacts through Wikipedia will get a very permanent ban on their person.
Cripes. And it's Valentine's Day next week, too.
I agree. I think it would be very sweet if two Wikipedians fell in love on a talk page. But only if they were both above the statutory age of consent.
Unlikely. Excluding anon IPs [[Love]] is linked to from exaclt 9 user talk pages.
-- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Philip Welch wrote:
Anyone using Wikipedia to initiate sexual contacts through Wikipedia will get a very permanent ban on their person.
Cripes. And it's Valentine's Day next week, too.
I agree. I think it would be very sweet if two Wikipedians fell in love on a talk page. But only if they were both above the statutory age of consent.
In Florida? Or are we going to be governed by whatsoever laws are applicable to the individuals? ;-)
Yours sincerely, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch
Anyone using Wikipedia to initiate sexual contacts through
Wikipedia
will get a very permanent ban on their person.
Cripes. And it's Valentine's Day next week, too.
I agree. I think it would be very sweet if two Wikipedians fell in love on a talk page. But only if they were both above the statutory age of consent.
Well, I dunno. Thinking back to the editor who precipitated all this, it's clear that he's big on what I'd call frivolous userboxes. He identifies as "16-ish" (in one of the few items of personal information NOT found in a userbox), and when I was 16-ish, I had very strong desires for others in that age range. I'm thinking of Joan Smith here, a 17-ish classmate whose ripening womanly attributes dominated my adolescent thoughts to a remarkable degree. If she had appeared naked and willing in bed beside me (in respose to my fervent prayers), I would not have hesitated. I would have embraced the moment.
Perhaps young scamp Joeyramoney was being serious when he declared his love for children, and he meant someone about his age, rather than what we older and wiser folk might at first imagine. Perhaps he was having a bit of a laugh at our expense.
I can understand why some O&W editors wanted to shoot him and scatter his ground up ashes into the Rhine, but I cannot condone this sort of behaviour.
Peter (Skyring)
--- Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf
Of Philip Welch
Anyone using Wikipedia to initiate sexual
contacts through
Wikipedia
will get a very permanent ban on their person.
Cripes. And it's Valentine's Day next week, too.
I agree. I think it would be very sweet if two
Wikipedians
fell in love on a talk page. But only if they were
both above
the statutory age of consent.
Well, I dunno. Thinking back to the editor who precipitated all this, it's clear that he's big on what I'd call frivolous userboxes. He identifies as "16-ish" (in one of the few items of personal information NOT found in a userbox), and when I was 16-ish, I had very strong desires for others in that age range. I'm thinking of Joan Smith here, a 17-ish classmate whose ripening womanly attributes dominated my adolescent thoughts to a remarkable degree. If she had appeared naked and willing in bed beside me (in respose to my fervent prayers), I would not have hesitated. I would have embraced the moment.
Perhaps young scamp Joeyramoney was being serious when he declared his love for children, and he meant someone about his age, rather than what we older and wiser folk might at first imagine. Perhaps he was having a bit of a laugh at our expense.
I can understand why some O&W editors wanted to shoot him and scatter his ground up ashes into the Rhine, but I cannot condone this sort of behaviour.
Peter (Skyring)
Children, as in this case, are usually defined as those under 13. If an adult has sex with a teen between 13 and 17, it is defined as underage sex. Under 13 is, I suppose, child sex -- and that's where pedophilia comes in. If you take a look at the Wiki article about pedophilia, you will see that there are organizations out there that try to legalize pedophilia.
Direct link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile#Advocacy_of_pedophilia
I'm guessing that none of those people would be allowed to express their opinion on Wiki. From what I read, pedophilia is when one is "being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent children." To be sexully attracted to children is in itself not a crime. It becomes a crime when you "act" on it. Some doctors say that pedophilia should not be deemed as an illness. Many cultures included what we call today, pedophilia, such as: Greek-, Roman-, and Ottoman Empire.
I'm not condoning what that guy did (I'm not a pedophile), but if Wiki had better-defined rules, we wouldn't waste time on such debates.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA
--- Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Perhaps young scamp Joeyramoney was being serious when he
declared his
love for children, and he meant someone about his age, rather than what we older and wiser folk might at first imagine. Perhaps he was having a bit of a laugh at our expense.
I can understand why some O&W editors wanted to shoot him
and scatter
his ground up ashes into the Rhine, but I cannot condone
this sort of
behaviour.
Children, as in this case, are usually defined as those under 13. If an adult has sex with a teen between 13 and 17, it is defined as underage sex.
I thank you for your detailed explanation, but in this case I think that an 16YO boy with a pronounced sense of the absurd wasn't thinking along the same lines as yourself, an "older and wiser" editor.
I'm coming around to the view that while some userboxes serve a useful purpose, and some are just plain silly and harmless, we should draw the line at those that touch on sex, politics or religion, because the potential for abuse, misunderstanding and incivility is too great.
Peter (Skyring)
On 06/02/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
How much truth is there to this:
(...)
Excerpts from http://news.baou.com/main.php? action=recent&msg_recent=&rid=20679
BAOU/"OfficialWire" is run by the same guy behind [[QuakeAID]] - and [[WikipediaClassAction.org]] - who would publish "WIKIPEDIANS EAT BABIES" if someone suggested it to him. HTH.
(PS: please don't suggest it to him)
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 2/6/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
BAOU/"OfficialWire" is run by the same guy behind [[QuakeAID]] - and [[WikipediaClassAction.org]] - who would publish "WIKIPEDIANS EAT BABIES" if someone suggested it to him. HTH.
And who somehow doesn't see that his scorched-earth response to being called a scammer proves that he IS one even better than our article on his activities does. No genuine charity would behave like that.
-Matt
Fred Bauder wrote:
How much truth is there to this:
The Parents for the Online Safety of Children (POSC) organization is worried about parents letting their children into a website that is a known gathering for pedophiles. Any pedophile can easily obtain a child's IP address and use it to locate the child's place of residence outside of the internet. Pedophiles may also solicit children for sex or attempt to contact them through using WikiPedia as a medium, or even find out their e-mail address or instant messenger screen name.
We do still encourage everyone to become a registered user, in which case the children's IP addresses are not public knowledge. The first step in internet safety is what the child does to protect himself. He should not register himself anywhere under his real name. Wikipedia is only one site, but an inventive pedophile can use any site to lure children. The more obscure ones are likely to be more effective.
Parents who engage in that kind of whining would probably serve their kids best if they first understood what they were talking about. Many of them may not even know how to turn a computer on. The kids can see right through that, and those parents soon lose all credibility in the eyes of their own kids who promptly do the opposite of what they're told.
Since WikiPedia allows pedophiles to edit WikiPedia pages and view the IP addresses of children freely, we recommend that you use filtering software to block WikiPedia from access in your household or school.
When the parent doesn't understand computers he can always get the kids to help with the software installation. ;-)
The internet is already a dangerous lurking ground for pedophiles; statistics show that about 1 in 5 children are solicited for sex online, and with the growth of the unregulated WikiPedia, that number can only skyrocket.
"Lies, damn lies, and statistics ..." with a little non-sequitur for flavour. We now require material to be sourced; do they?
Since WikiPedia refuses to address the issue of pedophiles within its ranks and the allowance of random editing to pages, we can only recommend parents to withhold access to WikiPedia.org for the time being.
Simply banning identified pedophiles doesn't help the kids. You can always keep an eye on the identified ones. The really dangerous one are the ones who have not been identified at all.
Excerpts from http://news.baou.com/main.php? action=recent&msg_recent=&rid=20679
What can we practically do that would reduce any real risk? (I exclude fighting among ourselves in a destructive way)
Providing accurate information about internet dangers that parents can use to protect their children would be a positive step, but that has limited value for people who are never online.
Ec