The Wikimedia Foundation’s Erik Moller problem
The Wikimedia Foundation, which you will most likely know as being the folks responsible for Wikipedia (and a whole host of other projects), has a bit of a problem on their hands. Specifically, I’m talking about their recent hire in the Deputy Director position, Erik Moller. More specifically, it seems that has a rather … deep interest in child sexuality, and some “interesting” positions on it to boot.
I’m not the first to pick up on this, either. Valleywag quotes Erik as saying “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.” Obviously, that’s leaving something important unsaid — namely, are children really mature enough to decide if they do want sex; and if they say they do, does that make it appropriate? And then there are his rather interesting essays on the subject.
But there are some other things that haven’t come to light yet. I’ll just list them off and let his words speak for themselves.
Erik created the Wikipedia article on Child sexuality in 2003, and it was definitely not a stub article (Wikipedia’s parlance for short, introductory articles intended to be expanded upon by others).
He inserted the following text into the article on Human sexual behavior:
It is generally acknowledged that children are capable of feeling sexual pleasure, even if they are not yet able to engage in sexual intercourse with each other, and/or are not yet biologically able to reproduce.
In the article on Homosexuality and morality, he writes:
“A small minority believes that children are capable of consenting to homosexual acts with older men, but all major pro-homosexual groups have rejected that view.”
And he has a rather curious definition of pedophilia:
Again, someone who sexually abuses a minor is not necessarily a pedophile (”exclusively” ”attracted” to ”preadolescents” — emphasis on every word), but may simply be acting out of opportunity. The title “pedophiles and pederasts” is redundant — pedophilia ”includes” pederasty. This does not in any way mitigate the definitional problems of this article.
So, why am I bringing this all up? I don’t think Erik is a pedophile, but he has some very wrong and dangerous views on the subject that cannot bear to be left unopposed. There is no room for sophomore philosophizing and moralizing on such a damaging subject, nor should we allow the subject to be normalized by turning a blind eye to such outrageous claims as those made by Erik. Erik embodies one of the main problems with Wikipedia: it allows people with no real training or knowledge in a subject area to nevertheless insert their own personal views into the encyclopedia by sheer force of being a prolific Wikipedian. It’s bad enough when such a person is writing the articles, but it’s terrible when they’re #2 in the line of people running the whole place!
Erik needs to speedily retract and denounce his earlier comments on the subject, not defend them. They are indefensible. If this keeps going the way it is, it puts the Wikimedia Foundation on a collision path with a huge PR nightmare that we really do not want to face; after all, can you really think of a subject that plays more badly in the media and in the general public than pedophilia? Erik needs to get apologetic or he needs to get out, and if he does not make that decision soon, it needs to be made for him.
May 8th, 2008 at 21:23
As I’ve remarked elsewhere:
First, I have a little sympathy with Erik. He wrote a terrible, extremist, pseudo-profound, libertarian essay some years ago, and now it has come back with a vengeance. Whilst some will want to infer more than that, there is zero evidence to suggest it. Damn to hell what he wrote, but give him a break.
The essay is naive in the extreme. You can play Californian free-software free-knowledge free-love intellectual masturbation on many issues. You can take insane debating positions to make a point. But when the question is children, adults and sex, the answer has to be an unequivocal NO WAY. That’s for two reasons: a) there are some genuine abusers making the same libertine psychological arguments as a matter of self-deception and in search for respectability, and there is no way we give these people an inch. (It is logically possible that there might be some correlation between race and intelligence - but anyone who thinks that you can openly debate that whilst ignoring the green flag you are giving to racist scumballs doing real harm needs to get their head out of their ass). b) although I do think that paedophile-paranoia is unhelpful, it is incredibly naive not to realise that prevaricating for a second before condemning paedophiles is socially unacceptable. Whatever Erik’s views are (and perhaps the whole thing was simply an immature rant on his part) anyone who has any concern for their own reputation, career and on-line standing should know NEVER to touch an issue like this. Here be dragons.
And that leads me to an interesting thought. We now recognise that “googling” has the potential to do things to reputations, the consequences of which we are only beginning to understand. Youthful indiscretions, or idiotic rants, are accessible for ever. Political misspeaks will never be left behind. Indeed, one of Daniel Brandt’s complaints about his Wikipedia bio, was that it referenced some old essay he’d long like to have forgotten, and would have ensured anyone trying to find anything out about him would be drawn to it. Is Wikimedia’s deputy-director now to be a victim of the same unforgiving internet memory? Doubtless, whatever he now accomplishes in the free-software movement, any on-line profile will want mercilessly to add “and he’s the guy that defended pedos”. Google will never forget it. Between Essjay, Jimbo’s lovers and expenses, Carolyn Doran, and Angela Beesely’s unwanted wiki-bio, I am beginning to wonder if the WMF leadership is intent on demonstrating to the world the dangerous nature of the intrusive net-culture it itself is doing so much to build. Who’s next?
May 8th, 2008 at 21:24
Amen, my friend. His views are more than questionable.
May 8th, 2008 at 21:33
Wow… Where to start? I normally subscribe to the “there are three sides to every story” theory, but in this case, I don’t really think so. Here’s the challenge as I see it, though… Simply asking for or demanding a retraction doesn’t solve the main issue; namely, Eric’s views are oft stated and run counter to any normal and responsible human being’s normal train of thought. Put into a situation of authority, these thoughts are ill advised at best, and morally and ethically wrong in so many ways.
I rarely am shocked by or stirred to action by articles. I agree that there should be (needs to be) some sort of public condemnation of these views. I’ll stop short of censorship though. Wow… This is really “out there.”
May 8th, 2008 at 21:41
> Valleywag quotes Erik as saying “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.” Obviously, that’s leaving something
> important unsaid — namely, are children really mature enough to decide if they do want sex; and
> if they say they do, does that make it appropriate?
The other thing it leaves unsaid is that there’s somehow a set of circumstances in which it’s OK for an adult to try to determine if a child is interested in having sex (with said adult). It’s very hard to imagine how anyone is going to come up with a set of acceptable guidelines for *that*. It’s definitely NOT ok to just skip over that issue entirely and start to draw the lines of acceptability based on the child’s response or lack of one. Sorry, but it’s already too late - you’ve already crossed a line that it simply has to be unacceptable to cross in the first place. If you’re really not into sexual abuse of children it should be obvious that that’s the first thing that should be red-flagged, not the child’s response!
May 8th, 2008 at 21:44
Terry Jones: Good point, it leaves multiple things unsaid.
May 8th, 2008 at 21:46
Erik’s best strategy here is to stonewall. Any statement at all can only hurt him. At the moment, it’s just some noise on some blogs. If he’s lucky, it’ll blow over. If he’s not, the Foundation will have to fire him; if he’s especially unlucky the United States will yank his visa and he’ll be deported.
May 8th, 2008 at 21:51
First, thanks to Erin Kotecki/QueenofSpain for the pointer (from Twitter).
Most importantly, people with Mr. Moeller’s views are inexplicable. How can anyone else — any one of right mind — explain or agree to that point of view?! I can only echo what tomwhitejr, Rick and Doc glasgow have already said and I’m sure others will say.
Forget about how this may impact Wikipedia. The fact that Mr. Moeller has any influence on anything searchable on the Web is flat-out inappropriate. He needs to simply go away — by himself and as far away from any child as possible.
Being a married father of four children, people like Mr. Moeller scare me even more than the most violent of those who prey on children.
-Mike
May 8th, 2008 at 21:51
I really don’t care because I don’t look up pedophilia related stuff on the internet. I would never stumble across that wikipedia article he wrote so it’s trivial to me. I think this guy is being singled out for a with hunt cause. I don’t agree with his views but I don’t think you should let them overshadow his other contributions. He’s only human and has his faults. Sure he’s mental but we need more nerds like him. Just not ones that think hookin up with kids is in any way OK.
The author brings up a very good point that people who are not credible in areas are writing information on the wikipedia and I think that needs to be brought to light. I agree he needs to denounce what he said instead of defend it. He should be smart and just take a 3 month vacation and let it blow over. Afterall there will be some stupid new thing on the social media news sites to gawk at instead.
May 8th, 2008 at 22:01
“the solution to bad speech is to have more speech.” — Justice Powell
At least Erik Möller did us the service of attaching his name to the positions he has advanced on Wikipedia. We can see every single thing that he’s done there, with perfect accuracy, and consider it as part of the whole of his writings on the subject. Once we fully understand his position, we can refuse it and take our concerns and criticisms back directly to him, to his employers, and to his neighbors. As a society if we find his views, his words, his advocacy to be intolerable we can let him know.
It even seems that some people have tried to fight back against his views in the past (search for Erik), but not too competently.
This is in contrast to most edits to Wikipedia which are anonymous like scribbles on a bathroom stall. We can’t understand long term patterns of pro-pedophle activism by those editors because we can’t link their edits. It does, however, show that Wikipedia can provide accountability if only they would drop their rather extreme advocacy of anonymity.
I hope Erik will understand all the speaking against him that he’s going to start seeing now that his views are known outside of the small circle of fringe groups like
Martijn, but based on how he’s clearly written off people concerned with child safety calling them hysterical and even harmful to chldren, I doubt it. From his writings it is clear Erik is opposed to censorship above almost all else. Justice Powell tells us that the ability to respond is a better alternative for society, but as a self-proclaimed anarchist I think Erik thinks that he should be able to do whatever he wants without risk response or reprisal. Why else would he clearly advocate such a fringe and controversial view so carelessly? He appears to have missed that fact that no man is an island. I think society s about correct him on this matter.
May 8th, 2008 at 22:47
[...] at Cyde Weys Musings, Cyde draws attention to Erik Moller’s unusual views on pedophilia. Here are some of the ideas held by Mr. Moller, the second in command over at [...]
May 8th, 2008 at 23:06
[...] Weys, on his personal blog, unearthed a number of other gems from Erik’s Wikipedia editing [...]
May 9th, 2008 at 00:06
[...] it’s being discussed are personal blogs such as with Ben Yates, Danny Wool and Ben McIlwain (Cydeweys), and their comment threads. Yes, trollish banter from anonymous commenters are inevitable, but you [...]
May 9th, 2008 at 03:21
Doc glasgow said, “Indeed, one of Daniel Brandt’s complaints about his Wikipedia bio, was that it referenced some old essay he’d long like to have forgotten, and would have ensured anyone trying to find anything out about him would be drawn to it.”
I’d like to correct this for the record. I do not object to anyone other than Wikipedians reading this essay. In fact, when SlimVirgin started that stub on me, this essay was posted on the NameBase site, and I even pointed it out to her in October 2005. However, within a week or two I figured out that she had an agenda, and figured out how Wikipedia works. The first thing I did was take down that essay. Over the next two years I had to get it taken down from about five other websites to keep Wikipedians from reading it and citing it.
You see, the problem is that Wikipedians would read this autobiographical essay for the express purpose of finding something to use against me. Chip Berlet did this with his own copy of my essay. I consider his addition to the Public Information Research article, which cites my essay, to be borderline defamatory. When I told SlimVirgin about this essay in October 2005, this was shortly before I realized that for months she had been working closely with Berlet.
I still stand by that essay; it was one of the best things I’ve ever written. The big problem is that Wikipedians are too immature to put aside their anti-Brandt agenda as they read it. Another problem is that they are too young to know much about U.S. political and cultural history in the sixties and seventies. In other words, they lack sufficient context, and therefore cannot understand my point of view. That’s why I’ve had to keep it off the web for the last 2.5 years.
May 9th, 2008 at 03:46
Apologies to Daniel Brandt. I’ve honesty never read the biography in question - your correction is noted.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:32
So are the trackbacks good spam or bad spam? I assume you’dve turned them off if you didn’t like them, but maybe they work a different way than I think.
I may be misunderstanding some people’s view, but I’d swear I’ve seen a couple people agree that someone else’s opinions are wrong. Last I checked, you can’t do that. But who am I to say what’s valid in an argument?
In any case, if you’re objecting to the fact that he’s stating these opinions as someone in a position of authority instead of as a random Joe, that would make more sense.
May 9th, 2008 at 18:14
Doc glasgow says: “Apologies to Daniel Brandt. I’ve honesty never read the biography in question - your correction is noted.”
For the record, Brandt’s correction included claims that I had an agenda when I started his stub, and that I’d worked closely with Chip Berlet. First, my only agenda was to turn a red link blue, and my only collaboration with Chip on Wikipedia (or elsewhere) was to stop LaRouchies from turning the LaRouche pages into the Adoration of the Magi.
Sarah
May 9th, 2008 at 23:44
So, are you proffering yourself as a person with ‘real’ training or knowledge in this subject area? Or are you in the habit of applying your standards to everyone but yourself?
Gotta love those “wrong” ideas. I’m glad that there is absolute ‘wrong’ and (by extension) ‘right’. Thanks for clearing that up. Too bad you were born too late: they could’ve used someone like you during the Inquisition.
Dangerous views, too? Funny, I always thought that it was actions that were dangerous. I guess in the Brave New World, Thoughtcrime will finally be a reality. Oh wait, that was just a (series of short stories that inspired a poorly-written) movie.
Tsk, tsk. Well, you’re young. Wait until you have a few more rings around the tree. You’ll ‘get it’ then. Maybe.
May 10th, 2008 at 03:10
Why there isn’t anybody from any other country in the world except USA so upset about the issue? Maybe we should all take a deep look in a mirror and think!
May 10th, 2008 at 05:29
Because people from outside the US feel America’s “war on terrorists/atheists/gays/blacks/people with unorthodox views on paedophilia” is a disgraceful, barbaric farce and want nothing to do with it?
None of you have even attempted to refute whatever it is Moller wrote. You attack merely because he’s perceived to have refused to follow whatever groupthink you happen to subscribe to. It’s sickening.
My grandmother lost her virginity at age 13 to an 18 year old boy on the eve of his being shipped off to war to fight the Nazis. What a sick paedophile, huh? Well, sorry, I can’t give you his current address so you can come over and skin him alive; he was killed in action. It would be nice to think his sacrifice wasn’t in vain, but listening to you intolerant, bigoted, closed-minded fucks baying for the blood of anyone who says anything you don’t want to hear, I wonder if he should have just stayed at home.
Ah, America, land of contrasts - 1% geniuses who invented the modern world, 99% religious fanatics straight out of the dark ages who hate anything and everything not identical to their parochial little small town worldview. America, land of paranoia, intolerance and hate. America, land of wilful ignorance so great schoolchildren can’t find the other 95% of the world on a map but they can tell you where the bible tells you to hate gays.
I don’t know exactly when that top 1% will leave for a better country so the rest of the world can finally ignore the noisy, bankrupt rednecks from the West, but I hope it’s soon. I recommend Russia for maximum irony.
May 10th, 2008 at 09:11
hk: I’m not sure you’re getting it. If you read Erik’s comments, you’ll see he draws a careful distinction between pedophilia (attraction to pre-pubescent children) and ephebophilia (attraction to post-pubescent teens). His writings were in defense of pedophilia, so your example isn’t worth anything.
And I highly doubt that other countries are as okay with pedophilia as you seem to claim. I think you’re just a sicko on the lunatic fringe.
May 10th, 2008 at 11:02
Well, you were goin’ good, there, Cyde, and then you steered it right into the curb at the end. Ending with a blog-worthy flourish takes some practice, eh?
May 10th, 2008 at 11:15
Good thing I have run-flat tires …
Also, I should point out that sexual mores have changed since the World War II era. 18 year olds having sex with 13 year olds is a lot less socially acceptable now than it was then. Of course, it’s still irrelevant, because as I pointed out before I popped the curb, what is at issue here is pedophilia, not ephebophilia.
May 10th, 2008 at 15:53
hk wrote” My grandmother lost her virginity at age 13 to an 18 year old boy on the eve of his being shipped off to war to fight the Nazis.”
I believe you’re lying.
May 10th, 2008 at 17:05
It doesn’t surprise me that Wikimedia would put a person like this in charge at their organization. Wikipedia is chock full of ignorance, from the top to the bottom. I’ve disregarded that site’s existence in its entirety, just out of the fact that I’m incapable of editing the article on my home town, because some jerk five counties away is a “long time” wikipedia editor and wants to debate me.
Wikipedia is a good idea, but hardly possible to manage accordingly.
-Eric
eric@norcrossmedia.com
May 10th, 2008 at 17:32
I think it’s possible that he edits Wikipedia with a sockpuppet called AnotherSolipsist.
May 10th, 2008 at 19:42
Does that count as satisfying Godwin’s law?
Also, I’m not sure of the subject of wompr’s comment. Is it this post?
May 11th, 2008 at 00:16
@William, the subject was Cyde’s posting directly above it.
May 11th, 2008 at 03:33
Actually, it’s you who doesn’t get it. You’ve wilfully misread and misunderstood the essay in question.
The title of the essay is “Kinder sind Pornos”, “Children are porn”. It’s meant to be a criticism of the current social treatment of any image of any naked child, no matter the circumstances, as pornographic or potentially pornographic. It’s a rhetorical question without the question mark - are children so naturally pornographic that even a photograph of a father’s child in a bathtub is child porn?
This subtlety seems to have eluded you on your headlong rush to lynch the guy; sorry to rain on your hate parade.
And I can’t find any part of the essay in which he makes any defense of pedophilia. He points out that children are well-known to have proto-sexual relations on their own, with each other - the game of “doctors and nurses”, for example, and that no harm is known or thought to come from that kind of experience. He is trying to point out that since we generally accept that child-to-child sexual experience is not harmful, we should have a good scientific reason for claiming that adult-to-child sexual experience *is* harmful.
Now you might think that the mere asking of such a question is a de facto gesture of support towards adult sexual abuse of children, but it’s not. He’s merely asking for missing evidence in a popular theory, which I would have thought was a righteous thing for any scientifically-minded person to do.
Your article is a misguided, misinformed, reactionary rant which rejects curiosity and the spirit of open enquiry and debate in favour of a mindless witch hunt for even questioning the consensus belief. Well, that’s your right I suppose, but I find it pretty cowardly.
There you are with the pedophilia again. Quite obsessed with dropping that term whereever possible, aren’t you? No-one is talking about “pedophilia” or defending it.
Child rape is a sickening, indefensible crime - and photographs or videos depicting it are not much better. But a father taking a picture of his daughter having a bath should not be called a crime, and the resulting images are not child pornography. This is Moller’s main point and I agree with it.
His other main point is that we lack solid evidence that mild consensual sexual experience in children automatically causes long-term harm. This is a controversial statement but emotions aside, it’s also undeniably true. We haven’t even studied it because folks like you become enraged when the evidential deficiency in our laws is even pointed out.
Yeah, a sicko on the lunatic fringe of free speech, open debate, and dispassionate objectivity in writing laws. I guess we are pretty rare these days.
Anyway, that’s it from me, you can get back to your witch hunt now.
May 11th, 2008 at 11:57
hk: The problem is that those views are directly used by the “child love” advocates in rationalizing and defending their abhorrent behavior. They don’t exactly care about any of the nuances involved; they just want an excuse.
Incidentally, I don’t see how you can make the jump from “child on child is okay, so adult on child is okay”. You haven’t offered any evidence (in the form of links to the scientific literature), just your own uninformed sophomore philosophizing and moralizing on a damaging subject. You don’t have to look very far at all to find stories of women who had “consensual” sex as children with adults, didn’t make much of it at the time, but then became psychologically scarred as they grew up and realized how badly someone had taken advantage of them.
In short, you’re doing exactly what Erik is doing, so it’s not a surprise that you’re coming to his defense. But I don’t think you’ll find any sympathy with most of the rest of us.
May 11th, 2008 at 16:47
l’abominable article nous touche partichulièrement (accent auvergnat comme le dit souvent mon ami Tonton Bradipus de l’Atomium).
Avez-vous découvert cette diatribe de la peu fréquentable Alithia ?
http://wikipedia.un.mythe.over-blog.com/article-19464546.html
May 12th, 2008 at 04:04
I think hk’s main points are in paragraphs 5 and 6, and they don’t seem particularly invalid ones at that. He’s not saying that “adult on child” is okay, merely presenting the question “If it is bad, why is that the case?”
If you make the question a little more generic, it’s easier to see the question he’s asking in a little bit less biased light: “If X is not bad, what makes Y inherently bad?”
“Y is used as an argument by people committing immoral acts” isn’t really a solid answer to that, is it?
This would be similar to me condemning the Internet as a whole because it could conceivably be used to spread pedophilic images.
And while I don’t want to take sides, I would like to point to the Avert’s age of consent page as likely evidence for people from other countries likely having a different view on what does and doesn’t constitute pedophilia, so that may need to be accounted for in the event that this is an international discussion, though I’m not certain it is as yet.
May 12th, 2008 at 17:48
William: Just looking at the Avert page, I don’t see anything close to the age ranges Erik is talking about. If you read some of his essays on the topic in depth, you’ll start to get more of a sense of his claims. One point he harps on is that all sorts of evils in the world are caused by “repressing” sexuality in children. He goes on to recommend more of it. I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but it’s yet more uniformed sophomore philosophizing and moralizing.
May 12th, 2008 at 20:52
And I should point out that I’m arguing against Erik Moller’s views, not Hk’s views. I don’t particularly care about Hk because, like me, he’s a nobody, and his views don’t have the potential to bring down the WMF.