ColScott

Case in point:

- You claim you were educated in Law in Canada:

"My own legal training, unfortunately, is limited almost exclusively to Canadian law."

- You went to Simon Fraser University, in Canada. (at least that's accurate)

- SFU has no Law School. SFU has a smattering of undergrad law-related courses in forensic psychology and criminology, including those taught by your friend Neil Boyd. These would leave you sadly unprepared for the intellectual property, copyright, and/or defamation issues you're tackling now.

Sorry to put another dent in the grand delusion..

If you had a case, you'd have a lawyer. If you had a lawyer, that professional -- not you -- would be emailing Godwin (or more likely, sending registered letters). And they most certainly would not advise posting transcripts of those conversations online.

Of course you'd know some of this if you'd actually had any "legal training", aside from that which you received when being charged in the Criminal Courts of British Columbia.

Tell me: if you tell people that you drive a Porsche, does it suddenly appear in your garage? Or can you only manifest the intangible and imaginary -- like your curriculum vitae? Bah, no bother: I'm going to my fridge to get one last real beer before bedtime.

colonelpanic

No thanks. It's way more fun to deal with it out in the real world. :)

Rachel Marsden

Rachel Marsden

If you truly had a case, your lawyer would be talking to Godwin, not a busy [sic] professional [*cough*] like you.

A tip: Avoid big mumblefuck words like "jurisprudence" unless you're fully confident in how they are used within the profession. If you stick to the three-dollar words they make you news with the Faux News Frat Boy audience, it's at least a tiny bit more difficult for folks like us, who actually know what we're talking about, to discern how completely full of shit you are.

Go back to your Life[cycle] and move on with your Life... leaving the series of tubes to those of us who respect it. Godwin's advice is sound: Take your crusade against Wikipedia to.. uh.. Wikipedia.

colonelpanic

bugz321

WilliamMarkFelt

jackparsons

raincoaster

So he's trounced you in online arguments, then?

Based on your postings here, a certain analogy regarding pots, kettles, and colors is coming to mind.

Calton

cyc

Do you define your wit as wry, sardonic, or mordant?

WilliamMarkFelt

Or you won't rest until the whole Wiki[pm]edia moves to U.K. where the libel laws are different?

Spy from the Land of Rainpeople

As for him being a "responsible adult," no. He's prone to flying into scary fits of rage -- online, at least.

johnnypotatoes

Troll_2.0

Rachel Marsden

Rachel Marsden

"our legal status as a service provider rather than as a publisher"

That's the problem. Legally Wikipedia is the same as a message board, but in reality it has more in common with an online version of a magazine, or book. People don't go to message board's for biographical information about people, they go to Wikipedia. And as we all know, Wikipedia is killing the dead-tree magazines left and right.

So what are public figures to do? When "Star" magazine wants to print some juicy tidbit on Tom Cruise's alleged gayness, they have to really think about it. If you or a myriad other public figures object to something in your Wikipedia article, you get the
"we're a service provider, sorry ma'am" end of story.

It's an interesting legal issue and possibly precedent setting. I'm sure there are other public figures that would like the online pendulum swung in their favor more.

WilliamMarkFelt

Rachel Marsden

------Original Message------
From: Cary Bass
To: Rachel Marsden
To: Wikimedia Support Team
Cc: Mike Godwin
ReplyTo: cary@wikimedia.org
Sent: Mar 31, 2008 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Ticket#2008033110016593] Rachel Marsden Wikipedia article

Dear Ms. Marsden,

By copy of this email to our volunteer help system, I am notifying them

of your concerns and your request for article removal.

Thank you for your time.
--
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator

Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia
Foundation today: [donate.wikimedia.org]
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Phone: 415.839.6885 x 601
Fax: 415.882.0495

E-Mail: cary@wikimedia.org

------Original Message------
To: Mike Godwin
Cc: Cary Bass
Sent: Mar 30, 2008 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: Rachel Marsden Wikipedia Article

Hi Mike,

Again, thank you for your note.

In short, for information related to the editing of the Rachel Marsden
Wikipedia by Jimmy Wales through Wikipedia administrators, please refer
to his March 1st, 2008 statement, as posted on Wikipedia.

As you can probably appreciate, as a busy professional, I don't really
have the time or inclination to get involved in skirmishes on websites
- Wikipedia or otherwise.

Over the years, libelous and inaccurate information - often based on
sources which have printed retractions - has been prevalent, if not
dominant, in the Wikipedia Rachel Marsden article. As such, I would kindly
request, in order to prevent this ongoing issue, that the article in
question simply be permanently deleted.

Again, I greatly appreciate your attention to this matter.

Kind regards,
Rachel Marsden

------Original Message------
From: Mike Godwin
To: Rachel Marsden
Cc: Cary Bass
Sent: Mar 30, 2008 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: Rachel Marsden Wikipedia Article

Dear Ms. Marsden,

We have received your communications regarding what are apparently
complaints about the Wikipedia entry for "Rachel Marsden." I have
forwarded your electronic communications to our volunteer community,
asking the volunteers to begin a review of the article in question. We

note here, as we always do in response to such complaints, that anyone

(including you) can edit a Wikipedia article to remove or change
inaccurate or misleading information. Most readers find that editing
an inaccurate article is both a less expensive and more satisfying
remedy than legal action. If you would like to do so yourself, and you

have any difficulty doing so, please contact our volunteer
coordinator, Cary Bass, who will assist you.

Generally, any edits of an existing article should be accompanied both

be an explanatory note in the header for the edit and, if possible, by

an explanation for the changes in the Talk page of the article. In
addition, revisions are more likely to be respected if undertaken by a

registered user of Wikipedia rather than by an anonymous user.
Registration is, as always, free of charge.

We realize that self-help is sometimes counterintuitive in an era in
which we are transitioning from one-way mass media (newspapers and
broadcasting) to a more collaborative model (including wikis such as
Wikipedia), but we encourage you to explore this option on your
client's behalf, even as we ask our volunteers to review the article
as well.

With regard to any request for personally identifying information
regarding certain registered users, you should know that our privacy
policy forbids our giving out that information. Moreover, even if you
obtained a court order requiring disclosure of the information we
have, be aware that we don't normally retain much personal identifying

information in any case (we don't need to, since registration is free,

eliminating any need for financial or physical-address information).

We also ask that you understand that the Wikimedia Foundation is not
the publisher or republisher of the article in question. We did not
write it. To my knowledge neither we nor any agent or employee or ours

has edited it. We do not hold any copyrights related to the article.
What we will do is refer your complaints to the community of volunteer

editors, one or more of whom may attempt to address your concerns.
Finally, even if we assume that yours is a reputational interest that
can be vindicated under defamation law, you will perhaps recall that
providers of information services are immune under Section 230 of the
federal Communications Decency Act (1996) from most civil liability
for content they did not originate or develop.

I urge you to correct any problems you see with the article yourself,
and once again offer our assistance, if necessary, in teaching you how

to edit a Wikipedia article.

I should add that it is probably impossible for someone unfamiliar
with your biography and factual details to determine at a reading of
the article which statements (or which supporting documentation) are
factually erroneous. Certainly if you decide in subsequent
correspondence to detail precisely what sentences need to be changed,
and provide sources for those changes, we can both forward your
complaints to the volunteer editors and/or post them verbatim on the
Discussion page associated with the "Rachel Marsden" article. We
are
also willing to help you post your letters verbatim to the Talk page
associated with the article, if you should so choose. Obviously, given

our legal status as a service provider rather than as a publisher, we
cannot exercise significant editorial judgment on the article
ourselves (if we did so and you didn't like the outcome, you would no
doubt threaten again to sue us).

--Mike Godwin
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation

------Original Message------
To: Mike Godwin
Sent: Mar 30, 2008 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: Rachel Marsden Wikipedia Article

Hi Mike,

Thanks again for your response. Please trust that these legal
judgments I'm making are indeed based on extensive consultation with an
attorney based here in New York City, specializing in such matters. My own
legal training, unfortunately, is limited almost exclusively to Canadian
law.

It would appear that the approach you describe directly contradicts the
spirit of the CDA, which claims that Internet providers are merely
providing a blank bulletin board, where people can post whatever they
want. That is only true, however, insofar as the owners of the bulletin
board do not interfere with what is posted there. It is my understanding,
based on extensive legal consultation, that the moment they decide to
take action regarding postings, they are liable for everything that is
on it.

Jimmy Wales, my ex-boyfriend and Wikimedia Board member, admits
publicly to having my article altered. In other words, he is admitting that
he is essentially responsible for the content of the bulletin board--he
can influence what it says, and the law says that since he can, he
should. In other words, the safe harbour--I am not responsible for what
people post on my bulletin board--goes right out the window.

I have been advised that the Wikimedia Foundation
alone is legally liable for the actions of its admins, as they are
working on behalf of the Foundation.

In other words, the Wikimedia Foundation is acting as publisher, rather
than as bulletin board, negating the basis of any legal protection it
might
have.

In my case, it is a Board member instructing admins to act on behalf of
the Foundation. In other words, there is no legal safe harbour; Jimmy
Wales is responsible for all the content - particularly now that malice
is provable based on article content before vs after this recent
public ordeal.

It is my sincere hope that, in approaching you personally at this early
stage, any further wrangling or publicity over this issue, by lawyers
on both sides, might be avoided and the situation handled amicably and
in good faith.

Yours sincerely,
Rachel Marsden

Dear Ms. Marsden,

That interpretation has been attempted in the courts, but has not been

adopted. Moreover, as one of the drafters of the precursors of Sec.
230, I'm clear that notice does not trigger a requirement for removal
of content, except in narrow circumstances, none of which you have
invoked here, and none of which could justify the removal of the
entire article, as you request. I ask that you not take my word on
this but consult your own counsel and any other experts as well.

Best regards,

--Mike Godwin
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation

On Mar 30, 2008, at 6:14 PM, Rachel Marsden wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Thank you kindly for your response.
>
> I trust that you are referring to s. 230 of the Communications
> Decency Act (1996) and the provision related to the responsibility
> of ISP and website hosts in regards to content posted by their users.
>
> It is my understanding that the law stipulates, as you correctly
> assertain, that Wikipedia and other Internet website hosts are not
> responsible for content posted by users. The caveat, however, is
> that they are indeed responsible for such content if they are
> apprised of its existence and fail to act to ensure its removal.
>
> It is in that specific capacity that I am approaching the Foundation

> in relation to the "Rachel Marsden" article on Wikipedia.
>
> Yours sincerely,
> Rachel Marsden
>
> Mike Godwin wrote:
>> Dear Ms. Marsden,
>> I am sympathetic with your plight. Unfortunately, there is little I
>> can do to help you. Under U.S. law, the Wikimedia Foundation
>> maintains
>> statutory immunity for content we did not originate or develop.
>> Therefore, the best answer for someone who wishes to change or
>> eliminate an article that features her is to take up the discussion
>> within the Wikipedia community itself. This is best done on the
Talk
>> page associated with article in question.
>> As you no doubt are aware, you also can make edits yourself (which
is
>> frowned up by some members of the community but not forbidden), but
>> doing so risks quick reversion, conflict of interest claims, and so
>> on. This problem would be made worse if I or someone at the
>> Foundation made the changes for you.
>> I wish I could be more helpful to you, but I'm afraid I can't.
>> --Mike Godwin
>> General Counsel
>> Wikimedia Foundation

>> On Mar 29, 2008, at 11:28 PM, Rachel Marsden wrote:
>>> Hi Mike,
>>>
>>> I am trying to reach a responsible adult at the Wikimedia
Foundation
>>> who might understand my plight. I recall your name from a former
>>> colleague and friend of mine (Lisa Dean, with whom I worked as a
>>> fellow director of the Free Congress Foundation).
>>>
>>> Over the past couple of years, I have politely and diplomatically
>>> requested permanent deletion of the "Rachel Marsden" article on
>>> Wikipedia. My primary reason for doing so is that I am a private
>>> citizen, and someone who works in public relations and business,
>>> many of my clients (and potential clients) have obtained privacy-
>>> violating personal details about my life strictly as a result of
>>> reading this Wikipedia article.
>>>
>>> While I understand that much of the information is available
>>> elsewhere online, the fact is that because of the prominent
>>> placement of the Wikipedia article through various searches, my
>>> private, personal information has been made readily available to
>>> them, wrapped in a convenient package.
>>>
>>> It is my understanding that for someone to be included in an
>>> encyclopedia, they would have to be noteworthy beyond a few
>>> salacious details related to their personal life. Judging by the
>>> current state of the Rachel Marsden Wikipedia entry, it would
appear
>>> that my life does not meet that threshold.
>>>
>>> I realize that there is perhaps a means of going about applying for
>>> article deletion via the website itself. However, like many others
>>> who aren't "tech savvy" and are busy living their lives, I don't
>>> have either the know-how or the time to engage in online game
>>> playing through the website.
>>>
>>> As such, I'm hoping that I could appeal to you, in your capacity as
>>> legal counsel for the Foundation, to see that this article about my
>>> life is permanently deleted and my personal privacy restored.
>>>
>>> I kindly thank you, in advance, for any assistance you might be
able
>>> to offer me with respect to this matter. Please feel free to
>>> contact me, should you require any further information.
>>>
>>> Yours sincerely,
>>> Rachel Marsden

Rachel Marsden

Rachel Marsden

Rachel Marsden

Happy to elaborate within the context of any investigation - federal, political or otherwise. Valleywag, however, is not the best forum for such a thing.

Rachel Marsden

WilliamMarkFelt

Rachel Marsden

"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."

Most topics are utterly benign, like the discography of Menudo, or even the succession of Popes from Saint Peter to today.

Others, however, by their nature, someone had better make sure you get it right. Cancer's a pretty serious topic, and I would hope that the editors who regularly work on the cancer articles, understand that many people who read this want to have an understanding of a disease that they may, or do, have.

And the same thing with pedophilia. I have no problem with the pedophilia article on Wikipedia, but I have serious concerns with the numerous ancillary articles on pedophilia activism. I've gone on and on, ad nauseum and ad infinitum about why, and won't bore anyone with the details anymore.

Now, if people who disagree with me would take the same tone, then we could actually learn something.

WilliamMarkFelt

"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.

WilliamMarkFelt

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

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.

dannyisme

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.

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

@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

- 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.

Rachel Marsden

SeanPara

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?

johnnypotatoes

bugz321

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

Troll_2.0

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.

frederic

johnnypotatoes

SeanPara

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

DisillusionedLackey

cyc

raincoaster

Rachel Marsden

Rachel Marsden

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]

Duk

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

colonelpanic

Rachel Marsden

WilliamMarkFelt

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.

Spy from the Land of Rainpeople

I guaran-fucking-tee it.

Rachel Marsden

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.

WilliamMarkFelt

Mr. E.

Rachel Marsden

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.

Rachel Marsden

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.

WilliamMarkFelt

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.

Rachel Marsden

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?

Spy from the Land of Rainpeople

Mr. E.

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?

Spy from the Land of Rainpeople

"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!

WilliamMarkFelt

matto

Tim Faulkner

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.

WilliamMarkFelt

Jacobys

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.

Rachel Marsden

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.

Bornean

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.

Rachel Marsden