Erik Moeller resigns from the WMF

Unread post by **tarantino** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:58 pm

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 77516.html

Dear Wikimedians,

I have some important news to share with you. Erik Moeller will be leaving
the Wikimedia Foundation on April 30th. Last week he let me know that he
decided it is time for him to explore his passions beyond our walls.

I want to thank Erik. For more than a decade, he gave his all to Wikimedia
-- first as a volunteer, then as a board member, and finally as a leader at
the WMF. For the past year, has been my personal guide, particularly in my
critical few months as the ED.

Earlier this year, I announced a Call to Action
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communi ... _to_Action>
designed to organize the WMF around focus on product and communities. We
have already started putting some of these key initiatives into place.

In February, we brought the key community-facing functions into one team,
Community Engagement under Luis Villa, to improve support for community
needs and priorities. In March, we brought on Terry Gilbey as our new Chief
Operating Officer, to improve our organizational effectiveness, and
introduce rigor and discipline into our operational processes, metrics, and
reporting. And just two weeks ago, we introduced Kourosh Karimkhany as our
new Vice President of Strategic Partnerships, to build meaningful
partnerships, projects, and relationships that advance our mission.

Improving technology and execution are a major part of our Call to Action,
and I have been working with Erik, Damon, and others to determine our path
forward. Erik has been a key thought partner and thought leader in this
effort. We are near completion in this planning, and I look forward to
sharing more information with you all next Tuesday.

I am excited to see Erik’s next incredible adventure. Please join me in
supporting him on his path.

~~~~Lila

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:03 pm

Clean them out, Lila. Clean them all out.

His next adventure, "...in a van down by the river..."

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:06 pm

We should start a deadpool.
Next WMF oldtimer to "pine for the fjords", "find his next adventure", "take some time to write those games"...

I'll go first:
JDForrester

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:17 pm

Vigilant wrote:

Clean them out, Lila. Clean them all out.

His next adventure, "...in a van down by the river..."

I'm not one for dancing on graves, but you called this one way back, Vigilant. Can't find the post though.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:20 pm

I've given Erik a lot of grief for his bizarre philosophy regarding exploitation of children with pornography, but I will say this -- he certainly nailed down Jimbo's m.o. back in August 2006, when he wrote to me:

Jimmy is all about appearance -- I don't
think he really cares strongly about the real conflict of interest
issue, but he doesn't want articles in Wikipedia that show up with
"MyWikiBiz" as the user who created them. Next thing he knows,
there'll be a media editorial about it, and he really doesn't want
that.

I should have paid closer heed to that insight of Moeller's.

My dead pool pick: C. Scott Ananian, on the basis that Lila is weeding out by some sort of facial hair algorithm. But that being said, I'm sure Kaldari is sprucing up his resume.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:24 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote:
Vigilant wrote:

Clean them out, Lila. Clean them all out.

His next adventure, "...in a van down by the river..."
I'm not one for dancing on graves, but you called this one way back, Vigilant. Can't find the post though.

This one?
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=5435&start=50#p113957

Perhaps this one?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6036&p=128595

Or this one?
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5918&start=50#p125431

Edit:
This one is also filled with delicious, buttery tears
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=5435&start=50#p114030

Edit2:
I look forward to watching him try to get a new job with this as the #4 hit for his name in Google.

Erik Moeller and Defenses of Pedophilia - Mashable
mashable.com/2008/05/08/erik-moeller-pedophilia/
Mashable
May 8, 2008 - The story in question is Wikimedia Deputy Director Erik Moeller, his recent hiring at Wikimedia, and his continued self-defense of statements ...

Maybe he and Brandon Harris can teach shitty community college courses together...

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:43 pm

Damning with faint (or is it ironic?) praise:

Wikimedia wouldn't be where it is without you.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:51 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote:
Vigilant wrote:

Clean them out, Lila. Clean them all out.

His next adventure, "...in a van down by the river..."
I'm not one for dancing on graves, but you called this one way back, Vigilant. Can't find the post though.

I honestly thought there would be so much resistance to change, that Lila would be the one resigning in her realization that there is no hope for the Foundation. Maybe she does have the power to change things for the better?

JCM · Unread post by **JCM** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 10:00 pm

The Joy wrote:I honestly thought there would be so much resistance to change, that Lila would be the one resigning in her realization that there is no hope for the Foundation. Maybe she does have the power to change things for the better?

I sure hope so. I also think that some of the WMF may have realized that the change of circumstances in the WMF projects, including issues of overdevelopment (too damn many stubs), poor quality, and editor retention might be such that a new group of people whose priority is to deal with those issues first. Those are comparatively new developments, at least the past five years or so, and maybe some of them have realized that the WMF needs to address those problems if it is to remain viable and have a chance of achieving its nominal goals.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 10:44 pm

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 77531.html

To the first Wikimedian to get a tattoo of your item number ... I salute
you.

Me too, buddy, Me too.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:21 am

Vigilant wrote:

Clean them out, Lila. Clean them all out.

His next adventure, "...in a van down by the river..."

The times sure are changing, it seems.

They're going to need to invent some sort of saloon door that keeps hitting him in the ass as he pauses indefinitely on the way out, because he's likely to be going nowhere fast.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:29 am

SB_Johnny wrote:
Vigilant wrote:

Clean them out, Lila. Clean them all out.

His next adventure, "...in a van down by the river..."
The times sure are changing, it seems.

They're going to need to invent some sort of saloon door that keeps hitting him in the ass as he pauses indefinitely on the way out, because he's likely to be going nowhere fast.

I'm gonna go ahead ... and disagree with you here.

The Mole:man is dead like disco.
He's still "around" and may be getting a check, and he'll get some mailing list sympathy handjobs, but he has been removed from the management authority tree.

His opinions count for diddly-doo now.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:36 am

Vigilant wrote:His opinions count for diddly-doo now.

We'll see. He built that staff, and the worst of them owe fealty to him. Could be fun to watch.

I don't think he's going to be emeritus or anything, I just think he's going to spend the severance package hanging out at whatever *bucks or brewpub the wikibrogrammers spend too much time in.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:38 am

SB_Johnny wrote:
Vigilant wrote:His opinions count for diddly-doo now.
We'll see. He built that staff, and the worst of them owe fealty to him. Could be fun to watch.

I don't think he's going to be emeritus or anything, I just think he's going to spend the severance package hanging out at whatever *bucks or brewpub the wikibrogrammers spend too much time in.

he's probably already got an offer from the EFF

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:40 am

SB_Johnny wrote:
Vigilant wrote:His opinions count for diddly-doo now.
We'll see. He built that staff, and the worst of them owe fealty to him. Could be fun to watch.

I don't think he's going to be emeritus or anything, I just think he's going to spend the severance package hanging out at whatever *bucks or brewpub the wikibrogrammers spend too much time in.

It doesn't smell that way to me.

In the past, I've been VP Eng, CEO, director ... etc
When was the last time you heard of a senior engineering exec just up and leaving their position with no plan in mind or no soft landing ahead?
When was the last time you quit a job without having another lined up already?

He's being kept around since they rightly believe that frog marching him to the door would be bad for morale.
He's also radioactively unemployable in the private sector.
His name googles up 'pedophile' on the front page, he has several very high profile failures at the WMF, he's a pompous ass.

My guess is that he leaves for something like Brandon Harris is doing now in about 4 months.
Or maybe he gets a sympathy gig with some other "get nothing done while looking busy" non profit.

Nothing he says in the meantime will carry any weight.
Everyone inside knows that he's been slow-fired.

cyofee · Unread post by **cyofee** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:49 am

The announcement came came only hours after I posted this. Coincidence? You decide.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:51 am

My dead pool pick: Oliver Keyes.

RfB

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:00 am

This is a really interesting turn of events at WMF, by the way. Putting on my Kremlinologist hat, it's pretty clear that Tretikov is consolidating her position and that the crows are at long last coming home to roost for the incompetent chiefs. First Möller got shuffled out of software into the "envisioning" department and next thing you know the so-called "Deputy Director" is out the door.

It will be interesting to see with whom he is replaced.

I hate to bring up the name of W - - S - - - - - - -, but he did predict that Tretikov would have the ability to remake the dysfunctional WMF operation. That's starting to look at least theoretically possible. They are talking the good talk about connecting software with actual needs of readers and volunteers and have pushed a couple of Old Guard leaders off the pier, in any event...

RfB

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:24 am

You might also notice that Deputy Director is gone from his sig...

Erik Möller
VP of Product & Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 9:30 am

What a nice start to my day.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:35 pm

Vigilant wrote:We should start a deadpool.
Next WMF oldtimer to "pine for the fjords", "find his next adventure", "take some time to write those games"...

I'll go first:
JDForrester

Forrester is almost certain high on the queue for the chopping block. He is at best marginally competent, keeping his role mainly by virtue of being Erik's reliable toady. Sicore has no need of him.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:18 pm

Even Fox news...
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/04/27/ ... anger-fbi/

Erik Möller, Wikimedia's Foundation Deputy Director, says of pedophilia: “What is my position on pedophilia, then? It’s really simple. If the child doesn’t want it, is neutral or ambiguous, it’s inappropriate.” (Lane Hartwell on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation)

Good luck on your next adventure.
Perhaps NAMBLA needs some IT help?

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:29 pm

Vigilant wrote:Even Fox news...
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/04/27/ ... anger-fbi/

Erik Möller, Wikimedia's Foundation Deputy Director, says of pedophilia: “What is my position on pedophilia, then? It’s really simple. If the child doesn’t want it, is neutral or ambiguous, it’s inappropriate.” (Lane Hartwell on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation)

That's a really fucked up quote by the way — "if little Billy or Suzy really wants it, then it's okay..."

What do we know about the origin, context, and accuracy of this quotation?

And if accurate as rendered, what has kept User:Eloquence from being on the receiving end of a SanFranBan?

I am considering the source, Fox News being a pack of agenda-pushing, sensationalistic, nationalistic, right wing liars...

RfB

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:56 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:What do we know about the origin, context, and accuracy of this quotation?

You're an outstanding researcher, Randy.

Try this non-Fox source.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:37 pm

Hex wrote:What a nice start to my day.

Like.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 6:00 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
Vigilant wrote:We should start a deadpool.
Next WMF oldtimer to "pine for the fjords", "find his next adventure", "take some time to write those games"...

I'll go first:
JDForrester
Forrester is almost certain high on the queue for the chopping block. He is at best marginally competent, keeping his role mainly by virtue of being Erik's reliable toady. Sicore has no need of him.

Can someone remind me why they're keeping the other JD around?

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 6:15 pm

thekohser wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:What do we know about the origin, context, and accuracy of this quotation?
You're an outstanding researcher, Randy.

Try this non-Fox source.

It originated in this long article he wrote at Kuro5hin.org, which says it is a technology and culture forum: http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2001/3 ... 4525/72#72.

The quote is not excused by the context that I can tell. The unavoidable logic of the statement is he said that pedophilia is appropriate if the child wants it. I guess he could say he didn't mean that and wrote the sentence wrong, he's not a native English speaker after all, but it looks to me that he knew what he was saying.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 6:28 pm

Here's the quote in context. I'm not sure how much this mitigates things...

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2001/3 ... 4525/72#72

Defending the Right to Pleasure | 104 comments (74 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden)
Pleasure, Affection, Cause and Effect (4.75 / 20) (#72)
by Eloquence on Sat Mar 31, 2001 at 05:13:09 PM EST

In response to blog and media coverage that quoted selectively from the comment below, which is an addition to a larger published story called "Defending the Right to Pleasure", Erik Moeller has asked me to add a link to his public response to what he calls a defamation campaign. The public response can be found here: http://intelligentdesigns.net/blog/?p=101. The original post below has not been altered.

--Rusty Foster, Kuro5hin.org maintainer, April 28, 2010.

First, I would like to point out that the main reason for writing this article -- and putting it under the Help! topic -- was not to convert those who fundamentally disagree, but to get support for the project described in the article. The length of the text may have distracted from that, and I apologize for it -- but I think it was inevitable. The alternative, to split it up, would both make it more difficult to get the big picture and to actually convey the necessity of a pro-pleasure project ("OK, your article series was interesting and all, but now we know that you really just wanted help for your obscure project! -1 from me!").

So far, one person has e-mailed me and offered to help and another has directly subscribed to peacelist-tech, the mailing list I have created for the activities related to building this project. Two other readers have expressed general agreement by mail. If anyone else wants to help, please e-mail me or subscribe directly to peacelist-tech. Donations would also be welcome, of course.

I wasn't very specific in what the site should cover because that largely depends on the involvement by others. With few people, a complete reorganization of the current site is hardly possible and most work would consist of adding new papers to the archive (mainly HTML and proofreading work). With more people and some room on a server where Scoop could be installed by someone with the necessary skills, more could be done (including coverage of current pleasure-related news and events). It all depends on you.

Addressing the comments

First, thanks to everyone for their feedback. There are no arguments that I haven't heard before, but it's good to see them all compiled in a single place. In order to avoid having to follow many different threads, I am going to compile the replies in one comment, but I will structure them with headings. If you are irritated by the length of this comment, please read only the parts that interest you.

Pedophilia and Incest

One of the first editorial arguments against the article was that it is just a "defense of pedophilia", suggesting that either I am a pedophile, or at least that I have some sympathy for pedophiles (maybe part of a conspiracy?). I have pondered putting a disclaimer into the article ("I am not a pedophile. I am a 22-y-o heterosexual white male") but I see no reason to give this concession to the child sex hysteria.

But if there was any doubt, yes, I am defending that children can have sex with each other. Not only adolescents, but also children of earlier ages -- whenever they want to. It is a scandal in itself that the subject of child sexuality cannot be discussed without people raising the specter of pedophilia. That is the direct result of the witchhunts I have described in the article, where so-called therapists induced false memories in patients and horrible stories of mass abuse were produced -- child sexual abuse was portrayed as being literally everywhere, and celebrities proudly described themselves as "survivors" of sexual abuse.

As a result, not only were many harmless, affectionate adult/child situations (parents hugging, kissing, tickling their children, for example) stigmatized but also child sexuality as a subject in itself. Children and even teenagers are mostly portrayed as asexual, and if it's obvious that they are not, they are required to "control" their sexuality. The problem goes so far that in some cases of gay teenagers put in therapy because of their sexuality, local youth gay centers didn't offer to help because they feared to be seen as pedophile-defenders. These people have a hard enough time fighting for gay rights as it is, so they avoid tackling another "hot button" issue. Unfortunately, that means that teenagers like Lyn Duff, who was sent to a therapy center in Utah for being a lesbian, are hardly offered any help. (Do a Google search on her name to learn more about her case.)

The Incest Taboo

What is my position on pedophilia, then? It's really simple. If the child doesn't want it, is neutral or ambigious, it's inappropriate. This excludes most adult/child sexual contact, but only little child/child contact. There is another key to the puzzle - the incest taboo. Incest leads to an increased amount of genetic defects, because defects in the genetic code of one parent are more likely to be corrected in the combination with the genetic code of the other.

That means that incest is disadvantageous from an evolutionary perspective. In primates, there exists a simple yet effective mechanism to prevent us from having sex with our closest relatives. Thinking of the people we are bonded with in a directly sexual context creates a feeling of disgust: Think visually of sleeping with your mother or father to find out what I mean (the feeling is stronger if you still live with your parents). Even if your mother is the most beautiful person in the world, the feeling is totally different from that you have when thinking of having sex with some other beautiful person you like. This is the reason "motherfucker" is still one of the most emotionally effective insults. For the same reason, even the bonobo chimps, who otherwise do practically everything that is conceivable in the area of sexual behavior, don't have incest. With the exception of a few genetic defects, all people have this taboo.

What that means, now, is that any mother/father-child-sexual relationship is going to be a highly traumatic experience for the child. The incest taboo usually sets in shortly before puberty, and experiences which are forgotten should have no long-term effects. Again, there is much hysteria to be found, some people "discover" at age 45 that they have been abused as a baby; thanks to "therapists" again who ask the respective suggestive questions.

But it's different from family to family what is seen by the child as a sexual experience. In a sexually repressive family, where all nudity is hidden from the child, a single instance of nudity could be remembered by the child as a sexual memory, invoking the incest taboo and causing disgust. In a family where nudity is not a taboo, it is not associated with sexual actions, and therefore no problems result.

Pleasure-repressive people might argue that the best way to avoid problems would be to ban all nudity, instead of allowing all. However, if you succeed in doing this, you only make the situation much worse. The reason is that you can ban nudity, but you can't ban sexuality, and sexuality doesn't begin at puberty. If you remove nudity from the child's view, other situations will be interpreted as sexual. Some religious fundamentalists even see the face of a women as an obscenity, or ban them from riding bikes because their legs move so seductively. When you apply this "logic" to children, you create all sorts of weird fetishes when sexual feelings are encoded into non-sexual subjects.

There are people who have a fetish for crucifixion, for example. In one case I know about, the person explains this because they had a large vivid Jesus cross in the living room. That was obviously an image that had been burned into his memory, and for some reason encoded as sexual, probably because of the half-nudity. As an adult, he creates quite professional photo-manips of crucified women -- that is the best way for him to be sexually aroused. I know of other similar cases with fetishes ranging from the harmless (foot fetishes, wet clothing) to the extreme (necrophilia). It is worth pointing out that the majority of sex offenders stems from conservative, sexually repressive households. This has been verified by various studies (Amir 1965, Gebhard 1965, Kant & Goldstein 1970, Geiser 1979, Fox 1980, for example).

Pleasure and Affection

A lot of people were worried that I "confused" sexual pleasure with "other pleasure" or physical affection. First, I am indeed talking mostly about body pleasure and not pleasure in general, but that includes sexual pleasure. Unfortunately, people have artificial barriers in their heads when it comes to sexuality, especially child sexuality. Let me quote an article by Jacqueline Livingston to illustrate this point:

Because I was raised in a family where my sexuality was repressed (as most of us were), I thought touching one's genitalia was something that occurred in teen years. As a new parent, I learned differently. Sometime in Sam's first week, when I was changing his diapers, his hands went to his genitals. My first impulse was to brush his hands aside, but I hesitated long enough to realize that here was an important decision--to be free or not to be free, that is the question.
I envisioned thousands of parents repeatedly pulling their babies' hands away, slapping them, or spanking--whatever it took to teach them that the area between their legs is forbidden territory. I had grown up thinking/feeling it was a dark and dirty business down there. My mother was undoubtedly responsible. She must have pulled my hand away from my sex hundreds of times. I wasn't going to make the same mistake.

I encourage you to read the complete article, it is also a great commentary on the hysteria related to child pornography. Many people think that affection is good and all, but when children start acting sexually, things are taking a wrong turn. This is a barrier that doesn't exist in reality -- the same pleasure center (the septal region in the limbic system) of the human brain is activated during sexual pleasure that is also activated in the pleasure derived from physical affection, touching etc. The question is which other brain regions are active at the same time: just the somatosensory/touching region, or also the sexual regions? This determines whether we feel that a certain type of pleasure is "sexual" in nature. In other words, it's not the pleasure that is different (although it may vary strongly in intensity), it's the feelings that accompany it.
So if one type of pleasure is beneficial, there is no reason to assume that another type isn't, if it doesn't come with harmful side effects. Whether there are any such effects in the case of child sexuality I will discuss later on. There are reasons to assume, though, that the deprivation of the most basic types of pleasure (resulting from touch or sexual actions) causes many problems, including brain damage and violence. This is only natural, since children are programmed to desire closeness to their mother (being away from her causes discomfort, permanent discomfort causes long-term damage - being close to her is an evolutionary advantage) and children are sexual human beings (sexual relationships strengthen social bonds and are therefore beneficial to the community, an evolutionary advantage).

Now, some have argued that I have failed to show any research supporting the claim that the expression of sexuality is beneficial to children, and not only to adolescents. This is easy to assume, and I should have pointed out that "premarital sex" doesn't mean quite what you may think it means in the "primitive" cultures examined by Prescott/Textor. Marriage in most of these cultures happens at teenage age (the Balinese marry at age 12, for example). Premarital then also means preteen. Those who are shocked by the idea of children having sex with each other (something which is commonly acknowledged as "playing doctor" in most European countries) should maybe go back to 1948, when America was in some ways more progressive than it is today, and about a third of the adults examined by Alfred C. Kinsey in his groundbreaking sex surveys remembered preteen sexual games with other children before puberty.

Diseases and Pregnancy

There are two killer phrases of those who advocate sexual repression: teenage preganancies and STDs. Advocating a natural relationship towards sexuality, they argue, would be wrong because children and adolescents don't have the responsibility to deal with these problems. To begin with the problem of pregnancies, let me start by quoting some recent news:

Friday March 2 11:44 AM ET
Dutch Offer Winning Formula to Cut Teenage Pregnancies
By Patricia Reaney

LONDON (Reuters) - Sex education, free contraceptives and liberal attitudes toward sex are among the best ways to reduce soaring teenage pregnancy rates, a Dutch researcher said Friday.

The Dutch should know. The tiny country better known for its cheese, windmills and canals has fewer pregnant teenagers than most Western countries.

Less than one percent, or 10 per 1,000, 15-17 year-olds in the Netherlands get pregnant each year, compared to nearly five percent in Britain, which has the highest rate in Western Europe, and 99 per 1,000 in the United States. [It is notable that Britain is also the most conservative. The government there has even started similar sexual abstinence programs to the US.]

``Teenage pregnancy seems virtually eliminated as a health and social problem in the Netherlands,'' Dr. Simone Buitendijk, of the Dutch Institute for Applied Scientific Research in Leiden, told Reuters.

The Dutch have seen a steady drop in the number of young mothers for decades as teen pregnancies have been increasing in other countries. In the early 1970s four percent of live births in the Netherlands were to teenagers. By the late 1990s the figure had dropped to one percent.

``It's due to a whole mix of things. It is very hard to pinpoint what the major factor is. The liberal attitude is probably one very important determinant,'' she added in a telephone interview.

Better Knowlege Of The Birds And Bees

While other countries have been expounding the joys of no sex, the Dutch have accepted that teens are sexually active and have introduced measures to deal with it.

``In Holland teens know about sexuality and about procreation, how it works and what you should do not to become pregnant. Their peers know and it is a very socially acceptable thing to prevent pregnancy,'' she added.

Birth control pills are available at pharmacies and free through a National Sick Fund, a state-funded system that ensures low income people have medical care, and statistics show that Dutch teenagers are using them.

In 1995, 70 percent of sexually active 18 year-olds were on the pill and 40 percent of students three or four years younger. Eighty-five percent of teens used a condom, the pill or both during their first sexual experience.

Buitendijk, who will present the Dutch data at a meeting on child health in London, said condoms are popular among young teenagers but the pill gains preference as they get older.

``Factors that positively influence contraceptive behavior in Dutch teenagers are their sufficient knowledge of reproduction and contraception, the large amount of information available to them both in school and informally and the general permissive attitude the Dutch hold toward teen sexuality,'' she said.

Proof that birth control is the key is supported by a drop in teenage abortions in the Netherlands but an increase in sexual activity. So more teens are having sex but fewer are getting pregnant or having abortions.

Teaching sexual abstinence doesn't work, while educating kids (and allowing them to educate themselves) does. This is only logical: By teaching someone to suppress their sexuality, kids are totally unprepared when having spontaneous sex under the wrong circumstances later. They don't know how to handle the condoms (most condom problems result from mishandling, the rest from inferior quality), if they think of condoms at all. However, if kids are allowed to "train" even before they are actually able to reproduce, this is unlikely to ever happen.
The situation is similar with STDs. Condoms, when properly handled, are a safe measure against both pregnancy and STDs. But they can only be properly handled if the kids are familiar with them. That means that sex education is not only essential, it is essential at an early time.

(The "primitive" cultures usually handled contraception by coitus interruptus. For this, training is especially important. STDs were obviously not as big a problem then.)

Correlation vs. Causation

One obvious argument against the cross-cultural study is the difference between correlation and causation. Societies that lavish affection on infants and tolerate premarital sex are 100% non violent. Societies that physically punish their infants and punish premarital sex are 100% violent. (This is based on the latest data on the cultures examined, which is somewhat different from the 1975 data.) Now, let's take a look at the different possible hypotheses that can be based on these facts:

Repressing pleasure causes people to become violent. Increasing the amount of pleasure would lead to less violence.
Violence causes people to repress pleasure. Reducing the amount of violence would cause people to be more tolerant towards pleasure.
"Something else" causes both violence and the repression of pleasure.
Now it must not be forgotten that there can be a multitude of reasons for punishing (body) pleasure. Many cultures argue that pleasure is against their religion, some here on K5 argue that the repression of pleasure is necessary to feel accomplishments. So there is definitely no singular cause to the repression of pleasure. According to possibilities 2 and 3, a culture would therefore be possible that represses pleasure (punishes infants and premarital sex), but is not violent. Likewise, a culture would be possible that allows pleasure, but still is violent. Such a culture has not been found in the cross-cultural study, nor has it been found in the comparison of today's cultures. On all the primitive cultures where data exists, according to the latest data, not a single one has been found that is both peaceful and anti-pleasure, or violent and pro-pleasure.

From this data alone, it can therefore be reasonably argued (unless there are reasons to assume that there is a singular cause for people to repress pleasure), that the repression of pleasure is the cause, and adult violence is the effect. Even if the cross-cultural study stood alone, it would be evidence enough to assume such a relationship. But it doesn't stand alone.

Keep in mind that Prescott is a developmental neuropsychologist, and that's what his primary work was: studying the human (and monkey) brain. I have pointed to the research showing that deprivation of physical contact directly causes violence in monkeys (chimpanzees are 98,4% genetically identical to humans and also exhibit this behavior) -- such experiments cannot be done on humans for obvious reasons -- and that stimulating the pleasure center of the human brain stops all aggression. If any further confirmation would be necessary for the effect, this is it.

There are lots of other reasons, too, including the simple fact that the pleasure/no-pleasure experience is one of the earliest ones and most basic ones, if not the most basic one, the infant makes, and all other experiences (and the value system itself) are based on it. The primary motivations to act violently -- not in self defense, but because of enjoying it -- must be formed in early life. Based on this, there can only be three possibilities, that the repression of pleasure causes or prevents violence, and the other data clearly refutes the latter, or that genetic defects cause violence. If you assume genetic defects, the distribution of violence would not be as unequal as it is in primitive cultures. Please note that I am not arguing for a singular cause of violence and aggression, but for the repression of pleasure as a main cause (and a good way to compensate other possible causes, like bullying or poverty).

The body pleasure/violence relationship is one of the must fundamental and most certain ones we know. Yet it is one of the most controversial ones. The reasons are not in science, but in culture. People who do not like pleasure will always find reasons to ignore science. If we want to change society, we need to work on it. You know where to find me.
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!

Short Note by Eloquence, 03/31/2001 06:06:39 PM EST (none / 0)

What is my position on pedophilia, then? It's really simple. If the child doesn't want it, is neutral or ambigious, it's inappropriate. This excludes most adult/child sexual contact, but only little child/child contact. There is another key to the puzzle - the incest taboo. Incest leads to an increased amount of genetic defects, because defects in the genetic code of one parent are more likely to be corrected in the combination with the genetic code of the other.

I'm not seeing how this isn't broken.
Some child/adult sexual contact is okie-dokie and incest would be fine without the genetic issues...

I'm thinking that any prospective employers might have significant issues with this kind of public stance on child sex issues.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:38 pm

Vigilant wrote:
What is my position on pedophilia, then? It's really simple. If the child doesn't want it, is neutral or ambigious, it's inappropriate. This excludes most adult/child sexual contact, but only little child/child contact. There is another key to the puzzle - the incest taboo. Incest leads to an increased amount of genetic defects, because defects in the genetic code of one parent are more likely to be corrected in the combination with the genetic code of the other.
I'm not seeing how this isn't broken.
Some child/adult sexual contact is okie-dokie and incest would be fine without the genetic issues...

He isn't saying that at all. He says that because of the incest taboo – which has evolutionary reasons – incest will inevitably result in severe psychological trauma.

Moreover, his definition of children appears to include adolescents. Few people would consider it child abuse if two adolescents, one aged 18 years and 1 day, and the other aged 17 years 364 days, have sex. Hence Romeo and Juliet laws in many jurisdictions, which also protect, say, a 17-year-old who's engaged in consensual sex with a 15-year-old from prosecution. Whatever you may think about two people that age having sex, they're not child abusers deserving prosecution and being registered as sex offenders.

Just saying. I recall that at the time, people also asserted Möller had said things which he hadn't said at all, based on a faulty Google translation that failed to translate the little word "not". Of course, many conservatives and religiously-minded people would very much dislike Möller's views, even when represented fairly.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:52 pm

How is it, though, that Moeller is an expert in website software design, open licenses, free content management, and child sexualization? He's a veritable Renaissance man, eh?

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 10:30 pm

The Joy wrote:I honestly thought there would be so much resistance to change, that Lila would be the one resigning in her realization that there is no hope for the Foundation. Maybe she does have the power to change things for the better?

She's got at least 40-50 other incompetent, lying assholes to eliminate from the payroll.
Most of whom were powermongering admins on English Wikipedia and/or regulars on IRC.

I'll believe it when Forrester, Keyes, Dan Garry, Andrew Garrett, Beaudette, James Alexander, and that supreme fuckhead Coren are gone. The WMF has competent people, but for several years they've been supervised by the Scum Of The Galaxy. So it's no wonder a housecleaning is underway.

Vigilant wrote:Here's the quote in context. I'm not sure how much this mitigates things...

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2001/3 ... 4525/72#72

Remember, he heavily re-edited that essay in 2010 after Fox News made a stink.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 2:51 am

HRIP7 wrote:Just saying. I recall that at the time, people also asserted Möller had said things which he hadn't said at all, based on a faulty Google translation that failed to translate the little word "not". Of course, many conservatives and religiously-minded people would very much dislike Möller's views, even when represented fairly.

Fair enough, but why was he even speaking on these subjects at all?

I'm not sure that stuff even contributes much to his radioactivity anyway. The problem I've always had with him is that he's really bad at being a "community builder and activist", which is pretty clearly what he wants to be. He's the guy who wants to be Jimbo, but doesn't want to be Sanger. Under the bus he goes, which is probably where he should be (fixing the exhaust system and such...I'm sure he's capable of being productive if forced to be so).

His real challenge now will be to explain away the absolute horror show that was the rapidly-growing WMF tech department under his watch. If he doesn't manage to land a good job somewhere, we should expect a really nasty memoir (really nasty, Jimmy... maybe he can run your new foundation!).

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:04 am

It's relevant since its on the front page of results returned by google for his name.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:26 am

SB_Johnny wrote:Fair enough, but why was he even speaking on these subjects at all?

If I recall correctly, some of us were quoting blog entries of his that were written during the years prior to his being hired by the WMF. The German government had been making some changes to their child-protection laws around that time, starting with a major reform effort in 1998, which specified conditions for removing children from their homes when it was determined that the parents were suspected of sexually abusive or physically violent behavior - and this resulted in making almost any kind of corporal punishment by parents a crime, for example, so on some aspects at least, their laws are now more strict than those of the USA or the UK. So presumably this was a heavily-discussed issue in Germany, where Mr. Möller was living at the time - in fact, he would have been just 21 years of age when the 1998 reform legislation was passed, not too far removed from the age of consent himself.

Anyway, when the WMF hired him they either didn't check this stuff out, or didn't care, or knew and didn't think anyone would notice. (I'm assuming they didn't actually agree with him, but who knows - it's clearly an irresponsible organization.)

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:46 am

Well, hats off to Lila, who got Möller out the door in less than a year, (without a lawsuit in sight.)
I´m impressed.

Yes, now dealing with all those other WMF-ers, whose one and only "qualification" was, eh, "enthusiasm for the project".

As for Möller´s views, I believe they were not that far from what many in the Green Party party of Germany thought at one time. In 1985, they wanted to allow "non-violent sexuality" between adults and children. Try googleing: Green Party Party Germany Pedophile

I would assume Möller is pretty much radioactive in the US job-marked today, but in Germany?
Probably not?

Obi-Wan Kenobi · Unread post by **Obi-Wan Kenobi** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 7:12 am

Randy from Boise wrote:My dead pool pick: Oliver Keyes.

RfB

Keyes is going to be walking on eggshells from now on, if he doesn't want his head on the chopping block. Is the idiot Kaldari still on the payroll as well? He seems like the perfect candidate to get the boot.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 7:46 am

EricBarbour wrote:She's got at least 40-50 other incompetent, lying assholes to eliminate from the payroll. Most of whom were powermongering admins on English Wikipedia and/or regulars on IRC.

If you want a "who's next" list, I'm pretty sure the overlap with the IRC gang is going to be close to 100%.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 7:55 am

Robert Rohde wrote:Out of curiosity, with Erik's departure, who will be the highest ranking
staff member(s) with extensive editing experience (say 5000+ edits, or
something like that)? I skimmed the WMF bios, and I don't think there is
anyone left in a VP or C-level position that grew out of the community. It
is the nature of the beast that many of the best talents will come to
Wikimedia from outside of the community, and consequently they will have to
learn what the community is all about. However, I am a little surprised
that there aren't more identifiable community members among the top level
staff. I would think that having that background and experience would be
valuable for some of the roles.

...And that's why you're not in charge.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:33 am

Hex wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:She's got at least 40-50 other incompetent, lying assholes to eliminate from the payroll. Most of whom were powermongering admins on English Wikipedia and/or regulars on IRC.
If you want a "who's next" list, I'm pretty sure the overlap with the IRC gang is going to be close to 100%.

heh, one can only hope.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:12 am

thekohser wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:What do we know about the origin, context, and accuracy of this quotation?
You're an outstanding researcher, Randy.

Try this non-Fox source.

Wow, thanks so much for the link to an unsigned blog post in the world-renowned "Cyde Ways Musings" which quotes a Valley Wag article that seems to no longer exist. That is amazingly compelling and a fine piece of research, I am in awe of your documentary abilities...

So let me repeat: what do we know about the origin, context, and accuracy of this alleged quotation of Möller's?

RfB

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:24 am

Triptych wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:What do we know about the origin, context, and accuracy of this quotation?
It originated in this long article he wrote at Kuro5hin.org, which says it is a technology and culture forum: http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2001/3 ... 4525/72#72.

The quote is not excused by the context that I can tell. The unavoidable logic of the statement is he said that pedophilia is appropriate if the child wants it. I guess he could say he didn't mean that and wrote the sentence wrong, he's not a native English speaker after all, but it looks to me that he knew what he was saying.

Ah, thanks. Yeah, at a minimum Fox stripped one line out of context — as I expected, actually...

Erik Möller wrote: One of the first editorial arguments against the article was that it is just a "defense of pedophilia", suggesting that either I am a pedophile, or at least that I have some sympathy for pedophiles (maybe part of a conspiracy?). I have pondered putting a disclaimer into the article ("I am not a pedophile. I am a 22-y-o heterosexual white male") but I see no reason to give this concession to the child sex hysteria.

But if there was any doubt, yes, I am defending that children can have sex with each other. Not only adolescents, but also children of earlier ages -- whenever they want to. It is a scandal in itself that the subject of child sexuality cannot be discussed without people raising the specter of pedophilia. That is the direct result of the witchhunts I have described in the article, where so-called therapists induced false memories in patients and horrible stories of mass abuse were produced -- child sexual abuse was portrayed as being literally everywhere, and celebrities proudly described themselves as "survivors" of sexual abuse. * * *

What is my position on pedophilia, then? It's really simple. If the child doesn't want it, is neutral or ambigious, it's inappropriate. This excludes most adult/child sexual contact, but only little child/child contact. There is another key to the puzzle - the incest taboo. Incest leads to an increased amount of genetic defects, because defects in the genetic code of one parent are more likely to be corrected in the combination with the genetic code of the other.

So it would depend upon the definition of "adult" and "child," would it not? A 19-year old and a 17-year old would meet the definitions in many jurisdictions. That may well be an overly generous reading of what he meant, but it's not nearly as clear as grabbing that one line out of context and huffing and puffing about it would make it.

RfB

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:38 am

Vigilant wrote: I'm not seeing how this isn't broken.
Some child/adult sexual contact is okie-dokie and incest would be fine without the genetic issues...

I'm thinking that any prospective employers might have significant issues with this kind of public stance on child sex issues.

That could well be, but you would be wise to redact the NAMBLA snark...

RfB

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:53 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:...the world-renowned "Cyde Ways (sic) Musings"...

I thought you would have shown more respect for one of your fellow Wikipedia Travelers in Knowledge?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 1:39 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote: I'm not seeing how this isn't broken.
Some child/adult sexual contact is okie-dokie and incest would be fine without the genetic issues...

I'm thinking that any prospective employers might have significant issues with this kind of public stance on child sex issues.
That could well be, but you would be wise to redact the NAMBLA snark...

RfB

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

There were some here who also defended Demiurge1000 when I called him a creepy groomer.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 4:00 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:So it would depend upon the definition of "adult" and "child," would it not? A 19-year old and a 17-year old would meet the definitions in many jurisdictions. That may well be an overly generous reading of what he meant, but it's not nearly as clear as grabbing that one line out of context and huffing and puffing about it would make it.

No, we've now looked into the context and determined that the context doesn't change the meaning of the quote. He's not at all talking about the Romeo and Juliet thing (Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber by the way fell into this category a few years ago, depending on what they were up to in their private time). He does expound on the question of child/child sex relationships at various ages, but that is a way broader topic than Romeo and Juliet. If he was attempting to limit his remark to that, he would have made it clear.

Besides those who are versed in the details of the stuff have a word (Epibophelia? Epiphelia?) for adult attraction to post-puberty but under-18 children. He said "pedophilia."

If you want another outrage-generating quote from the article, check out "But if there was any doubt, yes, I am defending that children can have sex with each other. Not only adolescents, but also children of earlier ages -- whenever they want to." Wow, so that creepy 17-year-old can start looking for action at the local junior high and elementary schools.

It's a shame to get into all this stuff right when Moeller has decided to move on from the WMF, but it does jump out at one. He wrote this article back in 2001 so it's unfortunate to hammer him again about it now.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 4:11 pm

I struggle to find any context that helps this out.

Let's imagine me and one of you meeting for the first time in bar. A story on a pedophile being arrested comes on the TV. Two scenarios.

Scenario 1:
You: "What do you think society should do about this, Dan?"
Me: "It's such a horror. However, sometimes laws designed to protect children from predators are misused, with horrific results. Like when a 16-year-old has consensual sex with an 18-year-old, a parent finds out and complains, and the older of the two is prosecuted, sentenced, and entered into a sexual-predator registry for life. That's inhuman."

What would happen next?

Scenario 2:
You: "What do you think society should do about this, Dan?"
Me: "My position on pedophilia is really simple. If the child doesn’t want it, is neutral or ambiguous, it’s inappropriate.”

What would happen next?

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 5:30 pm

A correspondent has passed along via email Erik Möller's formal response from April 2010, a blog post entitled "My Defamation 2.0 Experience."

link http://intelligentdesigns.net/blog/?page_id=104[/link]

My Defamation 2.0 Experience

Today, past defamatory allegations based on an anonymous smear letter which distorted and misrepresented early online comments and writings of mine, were resurrected by Fox News. I want to say definitively: I do not defend nor support acts of sexual violence against children and have never defended pedophilia in any way. Any claims to the contrary are false and a deliberate distortion of my views. Any repetition of those claims is, at best, reckless and irresponsible.

I’ve remained silent on these issues until now, so not to give credence and visibility to these falsehoods. But now, it seems obvious to me that the issue may be regularly revived, and therefore, I want to set the record straight. The experience of being defamed in this fashion has been highly traumatic and distressing to me. Fortunately, I have the strong support of my employer and my loved ones as I deal with this event in my life, and I’m grateful for all the expressions of support I’ve already received, also from within the Wikipedia community. The Wikimedia Foundation has also published a blog statement of support: I am grateful for that too.

Backstory

My name is Erik Moeller. I’ve been a Wikipedia volunteer editor and software developer since 2001. In 2006, I was elected by its volunteer community to the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization which operates it; in 2007, I was reelected, and in 2008, I relocated from Berlin, Germany to San Francisco to join the Wikimedia Foundation staff as Deputy Director.

In May 2008, an anonymous defamer circulated a smear letter about me to various blogs, which resulted in a series of posts written by Owen Thomas for Gawker Media that defamed me as a “defender of pedophilia”. These posts did not attract much attention until April 2010, when Larry Sanger re-circulated reference to them as part of a false accusation that Wikimedia knowingly distributed illegal child pornography. This in turn resulted in a Fox News story, “Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI”, which is prompting me to write this response. I am also now represented by a lawyer, and intend to take legal action.

Prior to joining the Wikimedia Foundation staff, I worked as a journalist (from 1996 to 2005), public speaker, software engineer, and project manager. I wrote a book titled Die heimliche Medienrevolution (“The secret media revolution”) published in 2004 and published in a revised second edition 2006.

I wrote my first article for a magazine in 1996, at the age of 17, a piece about artificial intelligence. Journalism was a good way to make a bit of a living, and it also was my way of thinking through complex issues that I was interested in at the time. In addition to many technical and scientific topics, I wrote extensively about censorship, copyright law and file sharing, privacy, religion, and sexuality. Not all of my writings were published professionally: At age 20 I co-founded a secular humanist weblog called “Der Humanist”. In the following years, I also launched a blog called infoAnarchy, and wrote many stories for a community weblog called Kuro5hin.org. As a Wikipedia editor, I made nearly 7,000 edits to a large variety of articles, on topics ranging from technology to history to popular culture.

Most of my published articles are in German, and a list of many can be found on my personal homepage.

As Deputy Director, I represent the Executive Director, Sue Gardner, in her absence or on delegated projects, and oversee the development of Wikimedia’s product strategy – that is: how does the Wikimedia Foundation use technology to serve its mission, to bring free knowledge to every person on the planet. I am proud of my work: I think the Wikimedia Foundation makes the world a better place, and I am happy to be part of that.

The beginning of the campaign

Two years ago, a Silicon Valley gossip blog operated by Gawker Media, called Valleywag, began a smear campaign against Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation which runs it. Following attacks focused on the personal life of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, in May 2008 the blog ran a series of posts by Owen Thomas which defamed me by calling me a “defender of pedophilia”, deriving its claims from articles and comments I wrote in 2000 and 2001, mixed with malicious fabrications and insinuations.

The defamatory claims which originated in that blog were repeated in a small number of other blogs without deeper reflection. They were not picked up by mainstream media at the time.

The defamation campaign by Gawker was deeply hurtful to me. At the time, I also met with an attorney specializing in defamation, who assessed the claims and confirmed his opinion that they constituted legal defamation, but who also made it clear that trying to have the posts taken down would be very expensive and time-consuming. It was also obvious that any legal action would serve to amplify the visibility of the original posts, and would drive traffic to Valleywag.

I had no reason to believe that Valleywag would engage in a responsible dialogue: quite the opposite. And I didn’t want to increase its public profile. Therefore, I decided then that it was best to ignore the claims, rather than responding to them. It may not have been the right decision, but at the time I believed it was the best among many bad options available to me.

On April 7, 2010, Larry Sanger made public statements to the effect that Wikipedia’s media repository, Wikimedia Commons, knowingly hosts illegal child pornography, and that he had reported the Wikimedia Foundation to the FBI. It’s a false claim related largely to some historic early 20th century drawings, as described in the summary published by the Wikipedia Signpost. The Wikimedia Foundation’s General Counsel examined the drawings and concluded that they do not violate federal laws; we have not received any communication from the FBI to the contrary, and when and if we are asked by authorities to remove images that are illegal, we will do so.

In that context, Sanger repeated the two-year-old defamatory claims about me, adding his own defamatory comment that I was “well known for [my] views in defense of pedophilia”. This resulted in some additional visibility for these claims, most notably the April 27 Fox News story “Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI” . Moreover, two years since the original Gawker publication, the associated blog posts remain accessible and highly ranked in a Google search on my name, thanks to Gawker’s heavy search engine optimization.

At this point, I believe it’s preferable to have a full response to these defamatory claims on the record, rather than letting them go unchallenged. If you write about this situation, I would ask you to provide a reference to this response where relevant, and to avoid linking directly to the defamatory claims in question, both to avoid perpetuating the libel, and to avoid further driving page views to its publishers.

I have no problem being called out for things that I believe. Even attacking me based on things I wrote in my late teens or early twenties without giving me a chance to weigh in is, while not fair play, forgivable. But defaming me based on deliberate, malicious misconstruction of old writings , attributing claims to me which I have never made, describing me as a person who would defend sexual violence against children – that is completely beyond the pale, it is shocking, and it is unforgivable.

I’m not going to speculate about why Valleywag, Larry Sanger and Fox News would do this: your theories are probably not much different from mine.

The intent of this post is therefore the following:
* to state clearly which claims are defamatory and false;
* to provide further context for the defamation campaign;
* to provide context for my writings on the topic of sexuality.

Nature of the defamatory claims

The key defamatory claims originally made by Gawker include:

That I am a “defender of pedophilia”:
Pedophilia is a mental disorder which causes adults to be sexually attracted to children. Pedophiles who act upon these impulses commit abhorrent acts of sexual violence against children. I have not defended pedophilia in any of my writings.

That I have argued that “non-violent child pornography does no harm”:
I have never made such an argument. This claim is apparently based on the malicious insertion of the word “child” into a heading from an article which stated “non-violent pornography does no harm”, based on an interpretation of a German-to-English machine translation. Child sexual abuse is an abhorrent crime, and the depiction of child sexual abuse, and the trade in such depictions, are rightly criminalized.

That I “oversee editorial operations” at Wikipedia, or otherwise control its content:
Wikimedia’s projects are governed by volunteer communities. Individual Wikimedia Foundation staff members, including myself, do not control or direct editorial changes. I am not sure why Valleywag made that claim, which it presumably knows to be false. I can only assume its goal was to amplify excitement and outrage about the story, by implying that I was personally influencing Wikipedia’s articles on controversial topics.

Gawker Media made several other insinuations and defamatory claims in its posts which are so over-the-top that they are barely worth rebutting; one post attributed an edit to the Wikipedia article about child sexual abuse to me which was made well before my first edit to it, based on an incorrect reading of the edit history. That post was completely false.

Context of the defamation campaign

As mentioned above, Gawker Media ran a series of other posts with defamatory attacks against the Wikimedia Foundation before and after its campaign against me. Most of these posts were written by managing editor Owen Thomas, who left Gawker.com in 2009 and recently joined VentureBeat.com.

Gawker Media is a multi-million dollar publishing empire comprised of several blogs. The defamatory claims about me and the Wikimedia Foundation were published in Gawker’s ValleyWag blog, which was later folded into the main Gawker.com site.

The primary Gawker.com blog is a celebrity gossip blog, and ValleyWag applied a comparable editorial style to blogging about more or less notable figures in the Silicon Valley. That’s remarkable in and of itself: regardless of whether individuals are celebrities or not, they are now subjected to the same kind of invasive attacks that celebrities have long endured on a daily basis. Gawker bloggers were, at least at the time of the defamation campaign, rewarded according to the number of pageviews they produced: optimizing for the most sensationalized output possible. Heavy search engine optimization through massive cross-linking and syndication ensures that Gawker posts often rank at the top of relevant searches indefinitely.
Valleywag is widely derided in Silicon Valley: nobody takes it seriously. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t cause real damage. People are afraid of Valleywag, and generally stay quiet about it, for fear they will otherwise be targeted.

That’s presumably why technology blogger Michael Arrington asked in early 2008: When will we have our first Valleywag suicide? Not surprisingly, Arrington became a target of multiple Valleywag posts after writing the story. Indeed, before Valleywag targeted me, I wrote a post in my own blog, titled “The Rise of the Trash Blogs“, in response to the campaign against Jimmy Wales. I have no idea if Owen Thomas ever read it, and indeed, I do know that it was not the trigger for his series of posts about me.

That’s because I know I know the trigger: an anonymous e-mail smear campaign. I know that because Jimmy Wales received a tip-off from a blogger, who forwarded to Jimmy a long, rambling smear letter he had received. The e-mail called me “a man who would actually put Jimmy Wales to shame for his decrepitude”, and went into a long series of snippets from various writings, throwing in some bizarre and mean-spirited insinuations for good measure (for example, it stated that “I can only imagine why Google blocked one page of his blog” – which was, in fact, because of a temporary WordPress vulnerability –, and that it was no wonder that I had “planned on moving to the Netherlands before the Wikimedia gig took off”).

I was able to confirm that the email was sent to multiple bloggers; the only recipient who ran with it was Owen Thomas. His series of posts is almost entirely based on the original email (and probably some additional correspondence with its author).

I cannot confirm the identity of the anonymous defamer and will not speculate about it. Regardless, it’s evident that Owen Thomas had no problem copying even the most bizarre aspects of the smear letter, wrapping them under the headline “Erik Moeller, No. 2 at Wikipedia, a defender of pedophilia”, accompanied by an old photo. That initial post remains, as of this writing, result number 3 in a Google search for my name. It was also linked from the Fox News story. Again, at the time I didn’t want to dignify the Valleywag posts with a response. They were not journalism as I understand it; nobody had called me to verify facts or ask for a comment. I assumed nobody would take them seriously. And so I decided to remain silent.

My writings about sexuality

My writings about sexuality focus on the core topics of pleasure/affection, pornography, censorship, and children’s sexuality. Not a single article I published either as a journalist or as a blogger focuses on the topic of pedophilia. There’s a reason for that: I have never had any interest in the topic.

Indeed, in order to support the claim that I am a “defender of pedophilia”, the anonymous defamer had to dig deep into my writings. Nine years ago, at the age of 22, I wrote an article titled “Defending the Right to Pleasure“. The article has nothing to do with pedophilia; it doesn’t mention the issue. To find a snippet worth quoting, the defamer had to dig further into the comments section of the article, where I wrote a 3,000 word response addressing various comments.

Pulling from this long, carelessly written comment, the anonymous smear letter, followed by Gawker and later Fox News, quoted three sentences out of context: “What is my position on pedophilia, then? It’s really simple. If the child doesn’t want it [sexual contact], is neutral or ambigious [sic], it’s inappropriate.” It omitted the sentence immediately following: “This excludes most adult/child sexual contact, but only little child/child contact.”
If you read the entire piece, the context of the comment and the article are clear: They argue for a less zealous approach to policing consensual sexual relationships among young people of comparable age. From the article:

A 16-year-old girl from Oregon, a beautiful, intelligent young woman named Crystal Larkin, was sentenced to 6 years and 3 months in prison for consensual sex with a 12-year-old boy. Another 16-y-o boy was sentenced to the same sentence for having sex with a 13-year-old — again, consensual, and he was imprisoned against the explicit will of the girl and both families. This is the result of the sex abuse scare coupled with the "tough on crime" scare, as these sentences are mandatory minimums.

In other states, large groups of kids aging from 7 to 17 having sex with each other were split up into "victims" and "offenders", half of them sent to prisons, the other half to "therapy". Again, the sexual relationships were playful and non-violent. Teenagers have been imprisoned for making photos of each other while having sex — producing "child pornography".

The intent of the comment was precisely to differentiate between adult/child and child/child sexual contact. The only borderline cases are those of the type described above — statutory rape cases covering consensual sex between teens, one of whom may be a legal adult. Certainly, if I had anticipated at the time that a blog comment would be used 9 years later to defame me, I would have taken greater care to make myself absolutely clear. But, it takes deliberate malicious or sensationalist intent to construct out of this a “defense of pedophilia”, knowing the full context of the comment and blog story, which have nothing to do with pedophilia.

I have consistently defended the right of children of comparable age to engage in consensual, harmless sexual interactions with each other – what’s commonly called “playing doctor”, and also safe sex among teens. I have never defended the “right” of pedophiles to abuse children; child sexual abuse is a crime, and there is no such right. Children also don’t have the ability to consent to sexual activity with pedophiles, and such activities are sexual violence against children by definition.

All my writings (including the above comment in context) are consistent with this view. One particularly pertinent article that I wrote about the topic of children’s sexuality is called “Gefaehrliche Doktorspiele” (“Dangerous doctor games”), which describes the results of several weeks of journalistic research I had done into the criminalization and pathologization of consensual child sexual activity. Many of my views on the topic are also well-reflected by Judith Levine’s excellent book “Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex”.

Sexual violence against children, like all violence against children, is abhorrent. 9 years ago, as a 22-year-old student, I wrote about these topics with an eye to issues and questions that gave me pause – the implied consensus that children are asexual creatures, that sexuality is a switch that is flipped on with adulthood, that non-violent adult pornography is harmful to minors, etc. I didn’t believe those things then, and I don’t believe them now.

The difference between then and now is that those topics are no longer the focus of anything I write about or do. If I did write about them today, I would take greater care to reassure any reader that I, too, believe that sexual violence against children is a horrific crime inflicted upon the weakest members of society. I have always believed that, and any suggestion to the contrary is false.

Defamation in the age of the web

What’s remarkable about this entire episode is how decade-old web writings have been used against me in a blog-based smear campaign, which then, after another two years, successfully escalated into a mainstream news publication. This is an eye-opening example of how defamatory information can be spread – all going back to an anonymous smear letter distributed in 2008 – and how helpless and incompetent mainstream media can be when dealing with such challenges.

Michael Arrington proclaimed last month that “reputation is dead“. The truth is, however, that we’re in the dangerous transitional period where media, especially old media, are still received with a degree of trust that is not necessarily warranted. This defamation will probably continue to damage me and my employer. I can only appeal to you to reject a smear campaign for what it is – and to let it reflect on the people who have engaged in it instead.

I want to make a few final points.

First, I am very grateful to have my employer’s support. Throughout this, the Wikimedia Foundation has supported me without wavering. I am grateful that I work for an organization that is loyal and not easily frightened. I know that’s not true of all employers, and I’m glad it’s true of mine. I do also want to explicitly say that although I voluntarily asked various people at the Wikimedia Foundation to review this post and help me ensure it’s clear, I have not been asked by the Wikimedia Foundation to submit it for approval, nor have they asked me to censor myself in any way.

I also want to explicitly express my thanks to my colleagues — Wikimedia staff and editors — for their personal support. Wikipedia is a high-visibility website, and like anything high-profile, it attracts its share of cranks, detractors and media. Wikipedia editors and staff have sometimes been stalked, publicly maligned, and threatened. I am sad for everyone who has been targeted as a result of their involvement with Wikimedia, and I am grateful for the personal messages of support that I’ve received from others, including those who have themselves been targeted.

I also want to explicitly say this: at this point, I intend this blog post to be my definitive and final comment on this issue. The entire episode has been deeply distressing and a distraction from my work. If you are a journalist who calls me for further comment, I will likely direct you here and be done with it. I have no interest in wasting my time or my employer’s time rebutting false accusations: I have work to do.

Erik Moeller
April 2010

Erik Möller wrote: Two years ago, a Silicon Valley gossip blog operated by Gawker Media, called Valleywag, began a smear campaign against Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation which runs it. Following attacks focused on the personal life of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, in May 2008 the blog ran a series of posts by Owen Thomas which defamed me by calling me a “defender of pedophilia”, deriving its claims from articles and comments I wrote in 2000 and 2001, mixed with malicious fabrications and insinuations.

The defamatory claims which originated in that blog were repeated in a small number of other blogs without deeper reflection. They were not picked up by mainstream media at the time.

The defamation campaign by Gawker was deeply hurtful to me. At the time, I also met with an attorney specializing in defamation, who assessed the claims and confirmed his opinion that they constituted legal defamation, but who also made it clear that trying to have the posts taken down would be very expensive and time-consuming. It was also obvious that any legal action would serve to amplify the visibility of the original posts, and would drive traffic to Valleywag.

I had no reason to believe that Valleywag would engage in a responsible dialogue: quite the opposite. And I didn’t want to increase its public profile. Therefore, I decided then that it was best to ignore the claims, rather than responding to them. It may not have been the right decision, but at the time I believed it was the best among many bad options available to me.

On April 7, 2010, Larry Sanger made public statements to the effect that Wikipedia’s media repository, Wikimedia Commons, knowingly hosts illegal child pornography, and that he had reported the Wikimedia Foundation to the FBI. It’s a false claim related largely to some historic early 20th century drawings, as described in the summary published by the Wikipedia Signpost. The Wikimedia Foundation’s General Counsel examined the drawings and concluded that they do not violate federal laws; we have not received any communication from the FBI to the contrary, and when and if we are asked by authorities to remove images that are illegal, we will do so.

In that context, Sanger repeated the two-year-old defamatory claims about me, adding his own defamatory comment that I was “well known for [my] views in defense of pedophilia”. This resulted in some additional visibility for these claims, most notably the April 27 Fox News story “Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI” . Moreover, two years since the original Gawker publication, the associated blog posts remain accessible and highly ranked in a Google search on my name, thanks to Gawker’s heavy search engine optimization.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 5:47 pm

It's a more clear piece, but it's still filled with weasel words, self pity and counter smears.

I'm not sure how much it helps him.

I still get the creeper vibe from Erik.

Someone calls you a pedophile in print and your response is to ignore it???

The defamation campaign by Gawker was deeply hurtful to me. At the time, I also met with an attorney specializing in defamation, who assessed the claims and confirmed his opinion that they constituted legal defamation, but who also made it clear that trying to have the posts taken down would be very expensive and time-consuming. It was also obvious that any legal action would serve to amplify the visibility of the original posts, and would drive traffic to Valleywag.

I had no reason to believe that Valleywag would engage in a responsible dialogue: quite the opposite. And I didn’t want to increase its public profile. Therefore, I decided then that it was best to ignore the claims, rather than responding to them. It may not have been the right decision, but at the time I believed it was the best among many bad options available to me.

It sheds some light on your poor decision making skills while employed for the WMF.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 5:55 pm

"If the child doesn’t want it [sexual contact], is neutral or ambigious [sic], it’s inappropriate. This excludes most adult/child sexual contact."

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 7:24 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:Wow, thanks so much for the link to an unsigned blog post in the world-renowned "Cyde Ways Musings" which quotes a Valley Wag article that seems to no longer exist.

The link was moved from http://valleywag.com/372140/erik-mller-no-2-at-wikipedia-a-defender-of-pedophilia to http://gawker.com/372140/erik-mller-no-2-at-wikipedia-a-defender-of-pedophilia.