Yes, of course the FBI would always strive to keep the target(s) of any investigation(s) well-informed and apprised. That's how the feds roll.

There's no "debate" to be had by the 13-year olds who run Wikipedia here, Jimmy. It's been debated. By the Supreme Court. And it's been decided - for the Wikimatrix, too.

What a fidiot. I can't believe I actually dated this guy.

Ah, even the king is splitting hairs over kiddie porn. Good show.

This is the wiki paradigm of intellectualism. Basically, pedos are banned everywhere else, wikipedia is a place where this rhetoric can go uncensored.

There is a difference between neutrality and being a haven for heinous crime. There is the freedom of speech principle, and then there is the harsh truth: when you justify crime, you simply encourage it. Don't take my word for it.

You'll probably be reporting NAMBLA donations coming in the next donation drive.

One of the hallmark signs of pseudo-intellectualism is the attempt to rationalize even the most sociopathic of behaviours under the guise of "intellectual debate".

If you're up for a delving into a discussion of the merits of kiddie porn, with admitted pedophiles, as it relates to Wikipedia "the encyclopedia game" website, or any other website, I'd say it's probably time to get your moral compass checked.

IQ = 140. EQ = 10.

This guy disgusts me every time I hear about him.

Some intellectual speculation on one grain of sand about the Scorpions album cover, but nothing on the issue on having a pedophilia sympathizer in the #2 position? The lack of saying anything about it, reveals a lot. Too scary an issue to go there, too close to his career.

Wikipedia isn't just an encylopedia, it's also it's own type of social networking site. And I wonder, just as many people do I'm sure, just how many legal children have voluntarily hooked up with pedophiles on say the pro-pedophilia activism article?

That's one among many things I doubt Wales will ever speak of publicly.

Unrelated: Was nobody reading Lacy's Index? There's only two days before it's out, and I wanted to learn what Muscovitz does (did?) and how many times Randi Zuckerberg is mentioned.

no love for the poor <br> tag

OK OK, I'm an asshole, I fully know it. But I can't let this go.

"wonder: was the album cover *legally* banned in the US?"

Wonder. Weak word. Not your job to wonder. Your job is to know. Yes, in the US this picture is illegal.

"[May 11 2008 00:45:59] as in, a court case? [May 11 2008 00:46:05] that would have to be in federal court I suppose"

Suppose. Weak. Feh. No, just simply illegal. It's the Scorpions, why would they spend more money in court that the album would or did ever make?

"[May 11 2008 00:46:10] and there would have been an appeal, I suppose"

Another Holy Nugget from God's nether regions and despite its provenance from a Deity, it's still a buttnugget.

"as opposed to merely being "banned by the record company" for sales reasons or whatever"

In the US, it was more trouble than it's worth. And for Wikipedia, it's more trouble that its worth too. But, that would require what Jimbo railroaded Larry for - expert, or at least responsible, oversight. But that would require a decision, and some people disliking a decision. So instead it's best to just talk, like this above, and not say one fucking thing, so in the end, everyone still likes you. But that just doesn't really fly anymore, but the one trick pony still likes the trick that got him to be friends with Bono and Branson.

And most importantly, he won't go near, and will never dare go near, the real issue. Pedophilia sympathizers in da house!

This is just sad. People get worked up over the covers of the semi-obscure rock albums.

I remember when we got detained after school for playing rock music too loud, the teacher complained about the previous Scorpions' album "In Trance" [en.wikipedia.org] and UFO's "Force it" [en.wikipedia.org] I do recall that the US edition of UFO album had the women carefully stenciled out. I don't recall anyone batting an eye about the "Virgin Killer" cover. But in terms of album cover censorship nothing beats Judas Priest's "Rocka-Rolla" [en.wikipedia.org] , it really hits heavily into the American icon.

Perhaps Wikipedia Foundation needs to move to some more cool-headed place like Old Blighty or Switzerland?

If Wikipedia's being investigated for this why isn't Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and everyone else that runs an image search engine being investigated too?

One more Wikipedia link for those who are actually interested in the background: [en.wikipedia.org] .

At the time I saw and heard the record first time this didn't really look to me as a posed atalier photo. It look like a photomontage made with a picture from some FKK vacation brochure. They would be available from pretty much every travel agency in Germany.

I must have liked the record a lot, because I still vaguely remember "Pictured life" and "Yellow Raven".

By the way, are your arguments about "social nudity" any better than those of Hermann Goring? Or are just itching to fill more prisons than his goverment?

"'[Wales] also made this statement: "I take a very strong stand against having sexually explicit images of any kind on Wikipedia.'"

Obviously not strong enough of a statement, moron. Because your stupid website is still rife with it, just as it's rife with half-assed truths, inaccuracies, and complete fiction on living people's "biographies" because some reporter put it in an article that some Wikipidiot linked to without having any idea as to the accuracy of the information. Why is this so rampant? Because you don't give a shit, Jimmy. That's why.

You don't give a shit until it affects YOU.

You only edited my bio while we were "fucking our brains out" (your words, not mine, dear) because you were concerned about how the public's perception of me might impact on YOU. And as soon as we broke up, you opened up an unabated free-for-all.

You're utterly full of shit, Jimmy. But what else is new.

@Mr E. - the issue is hosting, not searching.

IF the FBI thing is true, maybe it's the old investigative foot-in-the-door for looking into this:

[answers.yahoo.com]

The best quote:

"It was claimed that there is an active community there of people who feel molesting children is not harmful, and they undermine articles about abuse in a subtle way. They very carefully reword articles so that it looks like harm from sexual abuse is simply bias on the part of society and quote obscure research from seemingly qualified scientists (but of dubious motive and validity). Not only that, they beat their critics over the head with wikipedia policy in order to silence them and keep them from contesting such claims."

So let's connect some dots. Does the SEC go after Joe Bob McCluskey in Fuckknuckle, USA for trading some stock of a small company whose CEO he plays golf with every Saturday. Not usually, no. They go after people like Martha Stuart.

So now you have the #9 website in the world, and it's pretty well been proven that their #2 is a pedophilia sympathizer, and now you have average citizen writing on yahoo that he/she has concerns about certain articles on Wikipedia being controlled by a pack of pervs, and their leadership says and does nothing about it even though they know. Looks like big news in the making.

But all this stuff takes time. But, sooner or later, Uncle Sam is going to get his grubby meatgrubbers into Wikipedia, and the Feds love press just as much as Jimbo.

While they're in the investigation stage, Erik certainly has the time to get out of the USA, and the civilians who came into this believing the hype, and not knowing what a hive of weirdos this really is, can cut their losses, and run away.

I could be wrong about the whole thing - but I don't think so.

"Inaccurate"?? INACCURATE?

Oh really? How so, Jimmy? Gee, I've seen this kind of BS before from you - repeatedly. Every time you get caught in some sort of BS or lie, and are incapable of debating or defending something that's sitting there in outright, factual BLACK AND WHITE, you call it "inaccurate" and hope that people will dismiss it.

Maybe in the Wikimatrix this kind of BS flies. Here in the real world, there's true free speech, real debate, and accountability. And you can't simply block or ban someone because you don't like what they say.

Forget the feds. I'd say a Congressional investigation is long overdue.

@WilliamMarkFelt: All image search engines host their own thumbnails. [images.google.com]

[www.urbandictionary.com]

noun: Wikipedo,

1)A Wikepedian paedophile, a wikipedian who is also a self-admitted paedophile or discovered to be a paedophile.

2)one who uses and/or edits Wikipedia for the purpose of illegally promoting and defending criminal sexual molestation of children such as pedophile propaganda advocacy by introducing and editing Wikipedia articles to include pedophile bias POV, and/or grooming children for child rape by linking from Wikipedia to outside sources for child sexual solicitation purposes.

Well when you have a meme out there like this, that's bad enough. When you can make a pretty good case that the #2 meets the definition of "Wikipedo" that's a whole other legal ballgame.

Erik must really want the job badly if he's not on the first flight to anywhere outside of the USA by now.

Again I could be wrong.

And as long as my name is associated with your website in any way by virtue of inclusion against my will, and I'm subjected to ongoing reputational smearing by 13-year olds, I'm going to be a thorn in Wikipedia's fucking side.

I guaran-fucking-tee it.

Hi Owen! I have a suggestion. You now have a "Connectedness Index" sponsored by Acura TSX. I propose that you add software to compute "Coprolalia Index" for each poster. You can come up with some funny formula eg. exp(count("shit")) + sqrt(count("fuck")) + ln(abs(count("wiki") - count("[pm]edia")))

I don't immediately know who would sponsor it, but I trust you will be able to profitably add it to your inventory.

You could also organize a some sort of friendly betting scheme on eg. when W.M.F. will overtake R.M. in the copro-ranking.

@Mr.E - good point. But the issue probably remains that Google does not host a pro-pedophilia activism, nor are Larry and Sergi pedophilia activists themselves, therefore they're not so glaringly suspect of breaking any US Federal laws.

@Spy from the Land of Rainpeople: LOL

@Owen Thomas, could you please just do us a solid and consolidate all of Rachel Marsden's postings under a single account?

Or are you hoping she'll seduce Eric Schmidt or Larry Ellison eventually and fake up some IM sessions?

Jimbo qoutes; "Do not place shocking or explicit pictures into an article unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for that article"

This isn't the way it works in practice. You actually need a consensus to 'remove' and objectionable image, not to 'add' it. Anything obscene at Wikipedia gets magical protection under the banner of anti-censorship. This mindset is so strong that it trumps editorial judgment, and that's why Wikipedia has images of men sucking their own wieners.

[en.wikipedia.org]

@colonelpanic: I only need one account to post here, dear. If you're seeing several of me, you may want to seek psychiatric assistance. Cheers.

@colonelpanic: Incidentally, rest assured that the IM sessions between Jimmy and I that you read here on Valleywag were indeed real. And there are many, many more where they came from. :)

@Rachel Marsden: "Jimmy and me."

You guys are ridiculous. The feds aren't going to bust wikipedia for hosting a picture of some album cover from the 70s. I'm sure they have MUCH bigger fish to fry. You know, like, actual pedophiles

Actually the Feds have *nothing better to do* than chase down such things, because pics of underage kids is what they are supposed to be chasing. Not to mention IP infringement, which this was also.

Ah... Jimbo at his usual f-tard self. Of course, any normal, sane corporate leader would speak better, but not our hero. Which leads to the next point.

Jimbos not afraid of the Feds for good reason.

In general, one knows if one is being investigated by one's "in bed with" partner. Jimbos affair with the FBI (et al) has lasted longer, and has unfortunately received far less attention than his with our friend, here, Rachel.

Rachel, did he really say those things about his new squeeze? Oldest groupie? Sad? Or were you kidding (sorry, I'm a bit slow in my dotage). Best,DL

Has you all read the entry on Pedophiles? It seems sane, well balance and informative. It does not advocate anything. It allows you to read about a subject and then decide your own 'rational' ideas about that subject.

Have you all read the entry on splitting open people's abdomens and feasting on the steaming innards while the people are still alive and screaming in pain? Sure, the pro-splitting open people's abdomens and feasting on their innards side is represented, but so is the anti side. It's well balanced and informed and does not advocate anything. It lets the readers decide what's "rational."

Someone's flying off the handle in these comments... :P

but anyway, I don't believe this Scorpions album cover is child porn. It's pretty tasteless, but now it's pop-culture history and it's significant. And you really have to search for that album to find it, btw. It's not like it's classified under 'nake kids', like some other articles on wikipedia are. (ex: there is a picture illustrating 'hand job' ?!)

Now where were all these talk of NOT purposely posting offensive pictures when the subject was Islam.. there was a big silence then, if I remember correctly. I'm not islamic, but imho that was more an obvious example the wikipedia community's sense of moral superiority and self-righteousness over everyone else.

Wales denied that there was an FBI investigation, "as far as I am aware."

Hey, braniac! FBI usually does not announce it.

"Hi, I'm Donnie Brasco, I want to join your crime family. BTW I'm not really Donnie, my real name is Joe Pistone and I am an undecover FBI agent" LOL

@SeanPara: Well, there is your mistake. You're not allowed to be rational about pedophilia. At the merest whiff, you have to fall down, foaming at the mouth, batshit insane over the issue. Anything less indicates that you too are obviously a child molester.

"You're not allowed to be rational about slicing abdomens and eating innards, you have to fall down...." etc.

If being "rational" means leaving out or glossing over or trying to "balance" the harm that pedophilia does, it's not actually rational. One doesn't need to foam at the mouth to comprehend this. The argument for "balance" may come from some kind of misguided, puerile libertarianism, or some kind of misguided, puerile ideas about sexual freedom. Or it may come from conscious or subconscious pedophilia -- in any of those cases, it's still wrong, and it's still, at best, incredibly thoughtless and selfish given the harm done to children. See how I'm not foaming or going insane?

Jonnypotatoes: Discussion and free debate are not allowed about this subject? It must be erased from all dictionaries and books (Wikipedia) I ask again, Did you read its entry on Pedophilia?

"It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."

- Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC

I seriously doubt that Sgt. O'Brien had the pedophiles' right to foist their illness on children through Wikipedia in mind - and I sure as hell can guarantee that the people who spilled blood to fight for our right to free speech didn't.

Wikipedia, Jimmy, and the rest of you sickos who try to rationalize the sociopathic here make me ill. Consider the spirit and purpose of what these people died for. It sure as hell isn't this.

@johnnypotatoes: It's an encyclopedia, for fuck's sake. The entire point is to be neutral and to present issues without bias. Go read the wikipedia article on Pedophilia and compare it with, say, Disembowelment. What do you want the article to say? "THIS IS AGAINST OUR CULTURAL MORES, YOU ARE A TERRIBLE PERSON FOR EVEN READING THIS ARTICLE"?

@Rachel Marsden: Wow. Just wow. 10/10 for best non-sequitur of the thread. You should get Fox to put you back on Red Eye because you say some hilarious shit sometimes.

@cyc:

1) Wikipedia is not an "encyclopedia". It's a website where people play "encyclopedia" as a game.

2) That's not an actual argument. Please try again.

@Rachel Marsden:

1) Regardless of your opinion on Wikipedia (which is, shall we say, "tainted" by intimate contact), it's aim is to be as encyclopedic as possible. Is that difficult to understand?

2) It's not an actual argument because your post was not an actual argument either.

This is actually evolving into a fascinating discussion about Wikipedia's underlying ideals. Wikipedia prides itself on being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"--expert and amateur alike. And for certain topics, like whether Abraham Lincoln had Marfan's Syndrome or the details of Sir John A. MacDonald's first marriage--the consequences are hardly earth-shattering.

It seems, however, that there are certain topics--pedophilia among them--that do require an expert's touch because of the potential consequences. It is not something that an amateur, no matter how well-meaning, can use Wikipedia as a forum to speculate about, regardless of the number of citations. Even if one accepts the basic premise that "eventually we will get it right," there is still the menace of the "meanwhile" to contend with.

@cyc:

It's still not an encyclopedia. It's an "encyclopedia game". That's an immutable fact.

Given your inability to actually engage in debate over anything aside from perhaps pedophilia, I think I'll move on.

@Rachel Marsden: LOL, you're the #1 valleywag troll. I'm not going to honestly debate you on anything because you're just trolling here. Nobody takes you seriously

@cyc -

"Troll -

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument."

So your comments to Potatoes and Marsden *weren't* provocative?

From here, I rest my case, and will not respond or speak with you again, unless there is a truly legitimate issue to discuss in a respectful manner.