Web Fight: Wikipedia, YouTube vs. Perverted Justice

By
August 21st, 2007

Von Erck Their name is "Perverted Justice" — and something strange happens when you follow hyperlinks to their site from Wikipedia.

"Hello Wikipedia Visitor!" it announces. "We've listed Wikipedia as a Corporate Sex Offender for quite some time..."

The site's server re-directs any visitors from the online encyclopedia to a page warning that "there's a few facts you should know about Wikipedia as a foundation itself." Then it lays down an inflammatory attack.
Each article on Wikipedia that deals with any issue relating to pedophiles or internet predators has been heavily targeted and edited by the online pedophile activist movement... Our own article on Wikipedia, which you have likely come from, has been edited by known and outed pedophile activists dozens and dozens of times.

NBC's Dateline works with "Perverted Justice" to create an ongoing series of reports exposing pedophiles (called "To Catch a Predator.") But the group has apparently broadened its list of targets. Their site notes that Wikipedia remained ungrateful when Perverted Justice helpfully pointed out which Wikipedia editors they thought were pedophiles. So the group launched an online campaign to raise public awareness...
"With Wikipedia continuing to try to get their project used in classrooms across the world, it's important to note the danger inherent in the public accepting the project as being factual considering their acceptance of even extremist special interests such as pedophile activists as legitimate editors of their 'encyclopedia.'"


Sunday Wikipedia reacted to the announcement — though not without a tremendous debate.

"I've just gone through Perverted-Justice and removed all outbound links to their site..." announced a Wikipedia administrator named Sarah. (After temporarily locking the entry from being edited.) Another editor pointed out that the site was clearly an attack site, and "There's no place for ideological witchhunts on Wikipedia," while a third editor suggested a temporary blacklisting of the site.



But more viewpoints joined the discussion. A fourth editor asked "Is there some reason why we're trying to hide criticism from a legitimate and active organisation?" Noting that Wikipedia does accept pedophiles as editors, they asked "Why are we trying to hide this fact and label the site that respectfully and politely points that out as some kind of vicious attack site?" Another editor shared an interesting detail. One week ago, Perverted Justice founder Xavier Von Erck was blocked indefinitely from any editing of Wikipedia articles

The discussion continued over the next 48 hours...

"Ten thousands people are being slandered because we refuse to acquiesce to his point of view in our articles and policies? Wonderful."

"[T]his is America, and P-J has every right to criticize Wikipedia in general for what they see as failings of the project."

"I just don't see how this can be treated any differently than a rant on some mildly successful blog."


One editor even posted an email about the controversy, saying it came from Xavier Von Erck himself. The email lent a fierce new perspective to the debate.
We're quite pleased with the links being removed from Wikipedia. This will do two things. One, it will reduce the Google relevancy of the Wikipedia article about us, an article rife with error and editors whose sole purpose is to try to use Wikipedia to attack us. Secondly, having the article without links to our organization but links to other organizations that attack us will make the average person, unaware of the problems of Wikipedia, wonder why the hell the article has such a overt bias.

Lastly, the idea that websites cannot "respond" to a Wikipedia article by redirecting is quite curious. The policy itself is nonsensical. It is Wikipedia saying that their editors, no matter who they are, can write whatever they wish about a subject and that subject has no right of response. 'Tis an unjust, silly policy and one we have no interest in cooperating with.

Ultimately, Wikipedia compromised. They kept all of their pointers to the Perverted-Justice site — but not as hyperlinks. This meant Wikipedia's readers would have to cut-and-paste the URLs into their browser to access the Perverted-Justice site — which would pull up the requested page rather than re-directing the users to an anti-Wikipedia announcement.


But Perverted Justice left their announcement online anyways, pointing its readers to another site called "Corporate Sex Offenders .com."

In fact, Wikipedia was the sole reason that Perverted Justice created their "Corporate Sex Offenders" site in February, according to their announcement. The site lists two web companies as "aggressive corporate sex offenders" — YouTube and LiveJournal. While applauding YouTube for removing some "advocates" of pedophilia, their page argues that YouTube "is still rife with pedophiles and predators on their service." (And they add that YouTube has yet to clarify their policies for pedophiles.) LiveJournal's offense is similar, according to the site — they've failed to delete the accounts of pedophiles. "LiveJournal is as welcoming of pedophiles as they are kids, adults and teens."

Their Wikipedia page also alleges that one pro-pedophile activist labelled Wikipedia's pedphilia page an "important platform for us," since it's Google's top search result. (And that Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales once personally banned a pedophile editor.) It concludes with a condemnation of Wikipedia for having a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy about pedophilia.

And then it includes their list of Wikipedia's suspected pedophile editors.

See Also:
Jimmy Wales Will Destroy Google
The Perversions of "Perverted Justice

Subscribe to this site with:
RSS
Google
Yahoo
Bloglines
My AOL
Newsgator
Rojo
Add to:
Digg | | Reddit
 

Send to a Friend:





E-mail this story
to a friend

 

 




 

22 Responses to “Web Fight: Wikipedia, YouTube vs. Perverted Justice”

  1. AnonymousCoward Says:

    That’s *Jimmy* Wales, not “Jimmie.”

  2. Modemac Says:

    About two years ago, I had my own little run-in with Xavier von Erck on Wikipedia, and for a period of several months the Perverted Justice warning about bias on Wikipedia singled me out as an example of editors who supposedly use Wikipedia to gratify our own egos. (I considered that warning a badge of honor.) I run my own wiki and have an entry on Perverted Justice; and for a long time the link to Perverted Justice from my own Web page redirected to their Wikipedia warning page. Now, however, if you go to my page and click on the link to Perverted Justice, you are redirected to an article on a Web-based law enforcement e-zine that praises Perverted Justice for their efforts. If you don’t mind my plugging my site here (grin), then you may want to check it out:

    http://www.modemac.com/wiki/Perverted_Justice

  3. Midnight Says:

    Lost in all this is the simple fact that Wiki’s policy of NPOV “Neutral Point Of View” has been bastardized completely by allowing either P-J people or those on the other side to edit the article.

    Wiki staff needs to simply lock it up, and re-write the entire thing from a completly NPOV, encyclopedia-style, and leave it locked up.

    It’s too bad Wiki seems to believe pedophiles and pedophile activists should have any voice whatsoever, though.

  4. Modemac Says:

    Wikipedia believes everyone should have a voice, be it pedophiles, Holocaust deniers, racists, cult members, spammers, or what have you. And this is as it should be — remember, the idea there is to produce an encyclopedia that promotes NPOV. Extremist entries (including those by pedophiles or anti-pedophile fanatics like Perverted Justice) are corrected by the many other contributors. Those who outright refuse to compromise in the name of NPOV are blocked, which is what happened to Von Erck. It’s also happened to spammers, racists, sock puppets, political extremists, corporate stooges, and others. Even pedophiles have rights, and besides, you really can’t point at an anonymous name or IP address and say, “you are a pedophile, you are not allowed here.” As long as contributors work with Wikipedia’s editors and contributors, they will be allowed — and that includes pedophiles.

  5. Midnight Says:

    Neither anti-pedophile “fanatics” as you call them nor pro pedophiles have NPOV on related articles. Therefore neither should be editing that particular article.

    Pedophilia is an ILLEGAL activity in most of the world… and your other examples you put with it, aren’t. So, what’s your particular agenda?

    People CAN hide behind anonymous IP addresses, and not register with Wiki, but this is all solved if Wiki locks the article. So Modemac, your entire argument is shot down that quickly.

  6. ordinary person Says:

    Pedophilia is NOT an activity. It is a sexual attraction to minors. Pedophile can be a person who actually molest children, as well as it can be a person who never had any kind of sexual activity with a child and considers it harmful. It’s the same as heterosexuality. A heterosexual is someone who is ATTRACTED to opposite sex, not someone who HAS sex with opposite sex. Someone could be celibate for the entire life for various reasons, but is still a heterosexual.
    Just to avoid misunderstanding :-)

  7. Modemac Says:

    Funny, that’s the same argument Von Erck used on Wikipedia, and it’s the same argument peo0ple often use in these kind of discussions: if a person (in this case, me) dares to suggest that even pedophiles have rights and can act on the Internet in a manner that doesn’t involve stalking and molesting kids, that person is obviously defending pedophiles, if not a pedophile himself. It’s this kind of hysteria that makes politicians want to pass insane laws against “pedophiles” because they use that logic — if you oppose it, you’re obviously “defending pedophiles.”

    The statement “Neither anti-pedophile “fanatics” as you call them nor pro pedophiles have NPOV on related articles. Therefore neither should be editing that particular article” can be applied to nearly all of Wikipedia’s most contentious and edit-war-prone articles, including their articles on Scientology, George W. Bush, the Armenian Genocide, Microsoft, Wal-mart, Hilary Clinton, and many others. But I ask you, how can you tell when a person is either an “anti-pedophile fanatic” (a term that I stand by when describing Perverted Justice) or a pedophile, until after that person has spent time editing the articles in question?

  8. BLueRibbon Says:

    “Xavier” is a loose cannon and has always been unable to work with others at community projects such as Wikipedia. If people refuse to do everything he says, he attempts to bully them into submission.

    Xavier has personally admitted that protecting children is not his goal – http://xavier-pj.blogspot.com/

    I did indeed say that I edit Wikipedia because it’s an important platform, but my edits were genuine – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BLueRibbon . I do reject the label of “child rape advocate,” however, as I agree with the criminalisation of adult-child sex.

    I was banned from Wikipedia for allegedly violating the user page policies. Apparently, posting my bio listed here, as well as links to my blogs (political text) were a violation.

    Midnight,

    You are wrong about paedophilia being an activity and you’re also incorrect when you suggest that paedophiles are being allowed a voice at Wikipedia; they are covertly banned. I’d like to hear why you support legitimate paedophile editors being banned from editing?

  9. Raptor Says:

    “Pedophilia: A sexual disorder occuring in a person 16 years or older and that is recurrent with intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child. ” ~ DSM-IV

    This is NOT an illegal ‘activity’ it is technically a sexual disorder. There’s nothing illegal about that, therefor why impede their rights of free speech?

    Advocating child-rape is of course another matter all-together, and by all means should be censored, but that’s not the issue…

  10. Loonesta Says:

    “Our own article on Wikipedia, which you have likely come from, has been edited by known and outed pedophile activists dozens and dozens of times.”
    Did I miss PJ’s clear and substantiated proof of this outlandish claim or is this merely bullsh*t?

  11. SplendidOne Says:

    I had a run-in with Perverted Justice when I was on the board of directors of a nonprofit organization. They believed, without any conviction, that one of our 10,000+ members had engaged in online activities with minors and were quite strident that we needed to “out” him and ban him from membership, even though the organization had nothing to do with minors, and their blackmail threats about what they would do to our organization were incredibly unreasonable.

    So, the reasonableness of their organization’s claims and tactics is immediately suspect to me.

    OTOH, I am not a fan of pedophiles. I don’t *think* any of my friends are, but I don’t know. I do know from interacting with these folks that the moment they *think* someone *is* a pedophile, they want that person to essentially be removed from all aspects of society.

  12. Midnight Says:

    Modemac,

    Would George W. Bush be allowed to edit his own article? He’s not NPOV right?

    Same thing I’m saying.

    “Edit wars” on Wiki mostly spring from people with a dog in the fight, editing the article. Agreed? They shouldn’t be allowed to do so, such articles should be locked.

    Just sayin’

  13. BLueRibbon Says:

    Would George W. Bush be allowed to edit his own article?

    Probably not, but a Republican or another supporter would.

  14. CSO note Says:

    BLueRibbon commenting here is a member of Boychat and various other pedophile organizations. The BL stands for BoyLove, a euphemism pedophiles use to describe themselves.

    http://www.corporatesexoffenders.com/wiki/BLueRibbon

    It is always interesting to see how pedophiles will come to articles like this and try to spread misinformation in order to sway the opinions of regular folks.

  15. Jesus, lol Says:

    And I’m sure that you, Mr. CSO note, are perfectly unbiased on this.

  16. ShemTechnology.com » Blog Archive » Group Behind ‘To Catch A Predator’ Claims Wikipedia Is A Corporate Sex Offender Says:

    [...] used by NBC Dateline’s equally controversial “To Catch A Predator” show) is now claiming that Wikipedia is “a corporate sex offender.” Apparently, if you follow the links from Wikipedia to Perverted Justice’s site, it has a [...]

  17. Beowulf Lee Says:

    There’s a banal saying here that’s “innocent until proven guilty”. Personally, I don’t see any reason why Bush would be banned from editing Wikipedia unless there’s been previous accounts of him being an ass, being heavily partisan, etc. This same logic can be extended to any member of an “extremist” group.

  18. El Mike’s Internet News Blog » Blog Archive » Group Behind ‘To Catch A Predator’ Claims Wikipedia Is A Corporate Sex Offender Says:

    [...] used by NBC Dateline’s equally controversial “To Catch A Predator” show) is now claiming that Wikipedia is “a corporate sex offender.” Apparently, if you follow the links from Wikipedia to Perverted Justice’s site, it has a [...]

  19. mb Says:

    Looks like wiki is run by pedo sympithisers. I knew LiveJournal is run by pedos, but wiki? Glad I don’t use it. The last thing I need is to be told “facts” by pedophiles, supported by pedophiles (wiki admins).

    People who think pedophiles should have a voice should be shot along with them.

  20. Interesting Stance Says:

    I checked out Wikipedias’ definition on the term “pedophile” just to see what all the noise was about. I expected to confirm Perverted Justice is exagerrating, causing hysteria, etc, but what I found was really eye opening.

    - Acting on pedophilia impulses is illegal in the US. That is not mentioned at all in their definition, that certainly caused me concern. Since suffering from, and acting on, are relevant details to the definition, the absence of defining this causes me concern a child reading this will get the impression it’s ok, and not against the law. Dangerous to their well being in my view.

    -When one looks up other definitions such as “murder” Wikipedia clearly defines it in its’ first sentence as an illegal act.

    This threatens my view of impartiality and neutrality. Pedophles do not have legally protected status to engage in their illness in the United States. Acting on their condition should be noted as illegal until it is otherwise. That would be responsible, and truthful conditions. That Wikipedia has responded as it has casts serious doubt as to their continued legitamacy, and shows a downward turn in my view of them.

    I already know several schools who have blocked access to them completely, and other schools are following suit due to this lapse in judgement, and others. We have known for years Wikipedia would inevitably lose it’s ability to remain a safe place for families/schools to visit. Surprising how fast that has occurred.

  21. Intersesting Stance Says:

    I went back to the site definition tonight, and low and behold, Wikepedia did an in depth massive overhaul of the definition, and locked it for further editing. I’m very glad for that.

    Yet still, they are hesitant to mention acting on pedophilic impulses is illegal. Instead, they write this:

    ” The term pedophile is also used colloquially to denote an adult who is sexually attracted to adolescents or youths below the local age of consent,[2] as well as those accused or convicted of child sexual abuse or child pornography related offences.”

    Local age of consent? How mild. As if it’s ok to be romantically attracted to an 11 year old in Utah but not in California? Not accurate and misleading.

    Child sexual abuse? Pedophilia is attraction of a romantic nature to children. Child sexual abuse is an adult having a sexual relationship with a child. If the pedophile brings flowers and candy and sweet talks a child or brings ropes and belts, it is still against the law.

    Laws are clear, children are off limits. Why is it so difficult for Wikipedia to state clearly “acting on pedophilic impulses is illegal” in the very first paragraphs so that children and teens reading this definition are made aware of this in simplest terms? This is why the definition is there I assume, to educate. Wouldn’t it be responsible to educate children and teens on this truth?

    I am grateful for the in depth analysis though. Step in the right direction. Still support the blocking of Wikipedia from family/school settings until standards improve. The fact that it took this much to get the definition even to mention possible “attraction below local age of consent” and be longer than 2 paragraphs is still cause for alarm.

    Perverted Justice have their work cut out for them. I can see why they are gaining support from law enforcement.

  22. anonymous Says:

    Hmm, I definitely think that it is wrong to cut out an editor simply because of their stance. While I understand Midnight’s sentiment that both sides should be prevented from editing, I disagree strongly. All of the viewpoints need to be represented, not just the ones in the center. The center isn’t necessairily right, and only center opinions would make the encyclopedia very boring.

    Interesting stance, while I understand your Point of view, think about this. In the beginning of the pyromania article, it doesn’t state that acting on pyro impulses is illegal. It doesn’t state that acting on necrophiliac impulses is illegal in the beginning of the necrophilia article. See what I’m saying? I also understand that the age of consent varies, so it is possible that in some places acting of pedophilic urges is not illegal, making your statement inaccurate.

Leave a Reply