eww?

Yes but does Erik drive:

a) a van?
b) an ice cream truck?
c) a van that doubles as an ice cream truck in the summertime?
d) a bicycle with a banana seat?

Enquiring minds want to know.

And again...in this topic's ongoing spirit of bilingualism:

Ja, aber macht Erik Antrieb:

a) ein Lieferwagen?
b) ein Eislastwagen?
c) ein Lieferwagen, der verdoppelt, als ein Eislastwagen in der Sommerzeit?
d) ein Fahrrad mit einem Bananensitz?

Fragende Gemüter wollen wissen.

Congratulations, Owen. You are well on the way to cementing ValleyWag's influence. This is going to be a major story with lots of ripples!

I smell a new Dateline special: to Catch a Wikipedophile.

Awful. Really awful. Someone explain to me why Wikipedia provides this guy a forum. Maybe Jimbo is too busy plowing the over-18 crowd to worry about the underaged?

For some reason Moeller's wiki page has been deleted. it was being tweeted about earlier.

JasonCalacanis the#2person @Wikipedia CAN'Thave a page? EPICFAIL!coverup? @jwales ? [tinyurl.com] about 4 hours ago from web

leolaporte @JasonCalacanis There is some rationale for Moeller's deletion at Wikipedia. Read the discussion: [en.wikipedia.org] about 3 hours ago from twhirl in reply to JasonCalacanis

leolaporte Sorry - here's the direct link to the Moller discussion on Wikipedia: [snurl.com] about 3 hours ago from twhirl

In a for profit enterprise this individual would likely be terminated. You have to love nonprofits, they can take a moral high ground on just about anything.

Roger McNamee, Bono - you guys need to get to WP HQ and clean house - like, you know, now. And yes, to any skeptics, they are the guys who call the shots.

Erik Moeller - Moeller, I don't like you. You've written things that I'm sure sexual predators have used to justify their desires and behavior against children. I'm writing to every appropriate government and media outlet who will listen, and won't rest, ever, until you're deported.

Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales - the Ronald MacDonald of the internet, and his drive-thru of MacInfo is probably done after this. The Hamburgler just should've kept his weird thoughts to himself.

A bunch of people with nothing better to do all day than spark edit wars over subjects they freely admit they know nothing about? Issues, man, issues...

Somehow, I think this is just the beginning.

thank god valleywag reads twitter so I don't have to....

@age of plastic - spot on, them and religious groups (two worst client types to have, ever)

Gross.

"Kinder sind Pornos,"

Sleazy, Fat, Dutch Bastard.

@Rachel Marsden: NAAAAAAASTY, gemein,onaangenaam

@GamblesAC2: creepy ass pedo on a bike..... Built for two perhaps..lol

I don't think the average tech nerd really understands just how creepy your average Wikifiddler is. You see a man with terribly unstylish glasses and a ponytail and think, "Hey, he's a few years behind the time but he's just a geek." Yes: a geek that is fluent in Klingon, has sex in a fursuit and obsesses over the eroticism of diapers. I'm all in favor of anti-social behavior but, in the words of Harry Shearer, it's like a velvet painting of the crucifixion on sale in Tijuana: it's just sad and wrong.

Won't somebody please think about the children?

@Bornean: I think Erik has you covered.

@Bornean - maybe I've read you wrong, but it seems to me you're making a wry commentary on how people and organizations use children as a tool for evoking sympathy, and manipulating emotions.

However, there is a serious side to this. If/when Moller and the Wikimedia Foundation make a statement about this, I'm sure it will all be chalked up to youthful indiscretions on Moller's part, because after all, these essays were written 7 years ago.

However, it's clear that Moller had at one time quite a preoccupation with the issue of child sexuality, as the writings must've taken a great deal of time. The problem is that research in the subject will show you that such preoccupations do not abate over time.
If anything, they become more intense.

What Moller should've done was forget writing this screed in the first place and get some help. However, the people who could help him are the people he brands as the hysterics who unfairly malign adults with attraction to children.

And let's just assume that Moller is a perfectly normal person psychologically, the topic of pedophilia and childhood sexuality is so explosive, so complex, that a 20 year old college student whose formal training is software development has no business writing about this as if he's an expert in the field. Please, leave that to people who spend their lives researching sexual paraphilia.

Instead, Moller writes in both English and German, two polemics espousing the notion that the views of experts and laymen on perhaps the most controversial and explosive issue, is "hysterical", and that his views, of a 20 year old kid with no training, are the correct views on pedophilia that people should adopt.

And here in lies a fundamental problem of Wikipedia. How many edits has Moller made on the English and German articles on pedophilia, childhood sexuality, and other related topics on which he has no expertise, and radical , possibly dangerous views? A topic with ramifications in the legal, the moral, with the safety of children? No one knows, and no one can know. Yet the article has been read by thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of people. Maybe millions.

So thinking about the children? You bet we should be. Erik Moller has written things that elaborate moral justification for behaviors with are illegal, immoral, and often scar people psychological for life. There is a reason this is such an emotionally charged topic. Yet Moller has the hubris to believe that he can hold such views, and write them in two languages for the world to read, with impunity. Then, make God knows how many edits to the same topics on the largest multi-lingual project in the world.

So, am I going to think about thie children? You bet. After I hit submit, I'm getting back on the phone, and calling everyone who will listen.
Someone's bound to do something.

Moller's writings are harmful, and my patience for Wikipedia ends when the number 2 executive of the 9th largest website in the world tells the world child pornography, as long as it's not violent, is OK. And I'd bet the proverbial farm he believes that same thing right now.

@Rachel Marsden: I had a bicycle with a banana seat!

Um, wait.

Revision as of 10:12, 7 May 2008 (view source)
random_play (Talk|contribs)
(banana seat sounds too creepy)

Line 1:
+ I never had a bicycle and even if I did, it didn't have a banana seat!

Wiki, Jimbo and his whole board are creepy, sick people.

Eh, and he sure doesen't look like a childmolester either?

[x] Vacant stare
[x] 'candyman' smile
[ ] Would let him babysit

@random_play: Well played!

And here in lies a fundamental problem of Wikipedia. How many edits has Moller made on the English and German articles on pedophilia, childhood sexuality, and other related topics on which he has no expertise, and radical , possibly dangerous views? A topic with ramifications in the legal, the moral, with the safety of children? No one knows, and no one can know. Yet the article has been read by thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of people. Maybe millions.

Well, that's remarkably stupid on numerous levels, starting from the passive-aggressive question-begging and going on from there to moral panic and concern-trolling.

Not that I buy into the "logic" underlying your dopey premise, but you do realize that there are edit counters that actually answer your alleged question? And according to one of them, the largest number of edits he's racked up for any particular article is on...Mother Teresa:

[tools.wikimedia.de]

"Well, that's remarkably stupid on numerous levels, starting from the passive-aggressive question-begging and going on from there to moral panic and concern-trolling."

Typical Wikipedian ad hominem argument.

Listen, this is simple. To write objective, factual information on a topic like pedophilia, there are people who spend their lives studying the topic. Erik was a college kid passing himself off as an expert. I've looked myself, and he's made many edits on the topic. He is at least an apologist for pedophilia, pedophilia is immoral and illegal, therefore it's rather disturbing that information on the topic, read by innumerable people, was written in part by someone encouraging illegal activity.

No edit counter has ever answered by question, and I happen to know that Erik thinks Mother Teresa is a fraud, but you conveniently omitted that fact.

Look, calling something stupid and dopey doesn't make it so. And, I'll have you know, there are some pretty important people who don't think what I've told them is stupid and dopey. Sooner or later, maybe a few weeks, maybe a few months, but Erik at minimum, is done.

Your turn.

@Calton

[valleywag.com]

It's all about consensus Calton, and I think the consensus, on Valleywag and most of society, is not on your side.