Eek! Wikipedia Accused of Harboring Pedophiles

slfisher 1 Tallied Votes 338 Views Share

Just weeks after Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales came under criticism for being overly zealous about removing information, particularly images, that could be considered to be child pornography from the electronic encyclopedia, the site is being accused by Fox News of harboring pedophiles.

"Wikipedia has become home base for a loose worldwide network of pedophiles who are campaigning to spin the popular online encyclopedia in their favor and are trying to lure more people into their world, an investigation by FoxNews.com confirms," according to an on Fox News.

Eek.

In reading the article on the investigation, one learns that it is based on the fact that people who hang out in pedophile chat rooms have talked about writing Wikipedia articles in order to ensure that the subject was covered in a fair and balanced way.

"This means that students who use Wikipedia to research the academic subject of pedophilia will immediately find a page on the topic that is being targeted by the pedophiles," Fox News exclaimed. "Wikipedia's "Pedophilia" page also is the first "hit" when you search the term in Google or Bing."

Um, isn't that the idea? Assuming that a student would actually be researching "the academic subject of pedophilia"?

Fox News also accused pedophiles of "gaming" the Wikipedia system by voting against removing pedophiliac content -- in other words, using the Wikipedia system just like any number of other groups. (Including conservatives -- who set up their own "Conservapedia" site in response to what was perceived as a liberal bias in Wikipedia.)

Fox News had also been behind the expose' on child pornography images in Wikimedia, resulting in criticism that the news organization had crossed the line into advocacy. "We cannot be a free encyclopedia if we delete files to make Fox happy," commented one user at the time. "It's intellectual corruption."

Involved in the investigation is Xavier Von Erck, a pseudonym for the person Fox News identified as "the director of the online pedophile watchdog organization Perverted Justice Foundation and Wikisposure.com, its offshoot project devoted to tracking pedophiles and pedophile activism on Wikipedia." Von Erck, who was involved with Dateline's controversial "To Catch a Predator" feature, was also accused of posing as a woman online in order to discredit a critic.

No word yet on whether Connecticut Attorney General and Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal is going to add Wikipedia to Craigslist and Google Streetview to his list of dark sides of the new Internet era.

Dani AI

Generated

This thread raises two useful points at once: sensational headlines and how collaborative projects handle controversial subjects. brought the news item to attention, correctly calls for skepticism about leaps from a few editors to broad accusations, and ’s joke about partisan forks highlights a real alternative people sometimes create. Rather than accepting headlines, look at the evidence on the article itself.

A short checklist for evaluating any sensitive Wikipedia article:

  1. Inspect the references — prefer books, peer‑reviewed papers, and established journalism over forums or single blogs.
  2. Read the Talk page for disputes, templates (neutrality, cleanup, citation needed) and the arguments people are making.
  3. Check View History for repeated reverts, many tiny edits from the same accounts, or large unexplained rollbacks — patterns often show organized campaigning.
  4. Note page protection or administrator actions; protection is used when edit warring or vandalism is occurring.
  5. For research, follow citations to the original sources instead of citing the encyclopedia itself.

If manipulation looks likely, respond the Wikimedia way: add reliable sources, summarize them neutrally, explain concerns on the Talk page, and ask for wider review (WikiProjects or noticeboards) rather than edit‑warring. For academic work treat Wikipedia as a starting map that points to primary and secondary sources, not as the final citation.

Headlines sell. Critical inspection of references, history and discussion is what separates hype from real problems — and that approach answers the concerns raised in this thread more usefully than broad accusations.

BrettGlass 0 Newbie Poster

That's all we need: a "Republicopedia" and a "Democratopedia" that don't agree on definitions! This would will really help our legislatures, which have already been prevented from working together productively by political parties, to do the right thing. Not.

10000Argonauts 0 Newbie Poster

It's funny how Fox writes that Wikipedia is "harbouring" pedophiles, but uses pedophiles' failed attempts to influence Wikipedia as evidence, quotes Wikimedia's leader as saying "pedophile activism is not tolerated", and still people fall for the nonsense. Abso-*******-lutely ridiculous.

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.