Wikipedia censorship of MAP related topics

Wikipedia (f. January 2001 by Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger) is an online encyclopedia website that claims to be "consensus driven". Material is frequently deleted at the behest of Wales and select administrators (Arbitration Committee) when it is deemed to be politically unfavorable. This flouting of principles is particularly obvious in relation to articles on the subjects of child sexuality and paraphilias. Because of this, most Wikipedia articles that focus on Minor Attracted People and Adult-child sex for example, tend to have a medical/psychiatric bias, expressed thru a combination of undue weight, advocacy science and weasel words.

Whilst much of the material now removed from Wikipedia appears to be legitimate, sourced content from a neutral or contrarian perspective, previous bans on a small number self-identifying pedophile editors (in late 2006 and early 2007) exacerbated perceptions of any editing that may be considered similar in style. Users who "may bring the project into disrepute" were blocked "per directive" by the arbitration committee - a select group of site administrators who converse in private.

In practise, it is common for anti-pedophile administrators to simply block editors who they dislike (or deem to be pedophiles), with the full knowledge that ArbCom will not oppose their actions. For example, the Administrator seicer re-affirmed an appealed block on 12 February 2009 by simply stating that he did not like the editor involved. This is not exceptional behavior among Wikipedia administrators.

Timeline of events

The censorship of MAP-related information from Wikipedia has a long history, which can be broken down into roughly three distinct eras. For the first part of its life, from 2001 to the "Pedo Wars" of the late 00s, Wikipedia took a pragmatic approach to editors who self-identified as MAPs or displayed sympathies. At this point, the publicity risks were considerably lower, and the need for a growing base of quality content was first priority. This was the era before organized 2nd-wave MAP activism, so examples of dissent were limited to productive editors who had made controversial statements.

Activism begins

The first MAP activists to edit Wikipedia (2004 onward) didn't attempt to hide the fact. Users such as Rookiee (the host of Pedologues), Zanthalon (AP) and Clayboy were blocked because of the publicity risk they posed to the project. One controversy involved a "userbox" which identified an editor as a Pedophile on their user page - leading to arguments among Wikipedians over freedom of speech - something that would be considered a near-impossibility nowadays. The crucial period of this 2nd era, started with an uptick in the level of anonymous editing in 2007. This was a period in which numerous edit wars raged, information was removed due to the perceived motivation or bad faith of editors, and the associated publicity risks. This was the "witch hunt" we refer to as the "Pedo Wars", and our narrative of that period continues after the short commentary below.

Interlude Commentary - Wikipedia's inherent weakness

One inherent weakness of collaborative online information resources such as Wikipedia is their vulnerability to special interest groups and their lobbying efforts. On average, it is likely that moderate editors (those with no partisan leanings), will have less natural interest in a subject, less knowledge on it, and are less likely to care about saving their edits from hostile actors. This rule applies particularly to hot-button topics, meaning unlikely consensus has to be found on emotive, polarizing topics such as CSA. Negative bias can also creep in to some articles such as "Pro-pedophile activism", since any perception of "objectivity" towards topics that elicit visceral reactions might lead to self-censorship. At the time pro-MAP activists first appeared on Wikipedia, there was a politically-correct, "victimological", psychiatry-led bias throughout most of the "Pedophilia Article Watch" suite of articles. This was due to a general unwillingness of specialist editors to cite a range of sources, particularly outside of medicine. There was also a marked naivety among high-ranking non-specialist editors, towards lobbyist imposters posing as CSA specialists - usually to pedal grifts such as recovered memory.

Pedo Wars

It was at this time, around 2007, that pro-MAP activists responded to the previous blocks en-masse by creating anonymous accounts and attempting to alter editorial consensus. Favored edits introduced citations refuting the pathological theory of Pedophilia, and cited examples of CSA research contesting the narrative of universal harm (material such as Rind et al). This sparked a number of edit-wars and confrontations, attracting both administrators and anti-pedophile activists to the articles and their discussion pages. At this point, some high level Wikipedians personally contacted some of the more influential activist editors, attempting to explain the publicity risks of rampant, polarized special interest editing. This was of course a just warning, albeit against exactly the type of editing Wikipedia had tolerated for many years from victimological, therapeutic-interventionist and traumatology-led editors posing as disinterested specialists. It was for this reason, the appeals fell on deaf ears. The reaction that followed, towards "inclusionist" pro-MAP editing patterns - was sometimes indiscriminate, leading to arbitrary accusations of sockpuppetry and "pro-pedophile disruption" - an often stated rationale for blocking. As this "witch-hunt" reaction snowballed, accounts were often blocked regardless of activist affiliation, for editing patterns no more outlandish than citations of peer-reviewed research on related articles. It is also believed that highly abusive (i.e. "simultaneous") sock-puppetry was used on multiple occasions by anti-MAP activists in order to skirt around the "three revert rule" and to fabricate editor consensus. Many pro-MAP activists fought on, creating new identities after their initial bans - some getting through 10 or more identities before giving up. According to one editor, it was a running joke to compare the number of edits they got to before being banned, with 150 the marque of a skillful activist editor.

Richard Weiss controversy

The pinnacle of the Pedo-Wars controversy and a major turning point, was the politically-influenced decision to retain the services of the British-born, renowned anti-pedophile edit warrior, Richard Weiss (Squeakbox) and his sockpuppets. This remains to this day, one of the all-time most blatant abuses of administrative privilege on the encyclopedia - if it is to be held that Jimbo Wales was not behind the decision.

Through various suspected sock puppet reports, it was established that accounts were being used throughout Pedophilia Article Watch to fabricate consensus and escape the three-revert-rule. These edits, particularly by the account Pol64, always reverted to the initial edits of Weiss, an avowed fighter of "pedophile disruption" known for previous sock puppetry and attempts to silence other editors by labeling them pedophiles. Interestingly, these edits also contained grammatical/typographical errors that uncannily resembled those made by Weiss. It was noted by investigating editors, that Pol64 would typically compile a list of edits that appended perfectly on to the end of Weiss' earlier session, and vice versa. These concerns were initially ignored due to Weiss' use of geographically unrelated proxy IPs to evade detection. This inspired the user Dyskolos to compile an exhaustive list of timed edit sessions, effectively proving that Richard Weiss was regularly and frantically switching between his main account and Pol64. Indeed, as the detailed list revealed, Weiss was barely leaving enough time between these puppeteering vacations to afford himself a simple tea break. The report, was nevertheless dismissed out of hand, confirming that Wikipedia would now not be willing to punish even the most obvious examples of abuse, if it were deemed to be countering the "pedophile point of view". One editor familiar with these exchanges recalls seeing at least one admin's comments expressing skepticism towards Weiss' activities being "rolled back", strongly suggesting the involvement of oversight from ArbCom or above.

It is a comic irony, that in a belated 2010 investigation into pedophile-related editing activity on Wikipedia, Fox News implied that Weiss (Squeakbox) had posted on BoyChat soliciting votes against the deletion of Marthijn Uittenbogaard's article. Of course, a BoyChat user had ironically used Weiss' screen name to troll him on BC, and prevent his own Wikipedian identity from being revealed.

2008: Adult-Child Sex - the last stand

Having effectively lost the war over editing privileges, there was one last significant attempt by MAP-aligned or amenable Wikipedians to incorporate value-neutral information on CSA. This was the Adult-child sex article - the concept being to create a new article as opposed to altering an existing one. Amazingly, this article (which we took over, and edit to this day) survived one deletion vote handsomely, and hung on for a few months until new anti-MAP activist editors appeared to be called in to the vote.

A return to the old normal

The Pedophilia Article Watch is now incredibly quiet after the cessation of MAP activist editing, and MAPs are frequently warned against editing Wikipedia without taking precautions such as computer security and checking their edit pattern. The events of 2007 are frequently used as a precedent to suppress "tendentious" editing, and most articles are now policed and sanitized as a matter of course. One positive outcome, is that due in part to the events of 2007, regular Wikipedia editors are now far more aware of the special interest editing patterns that led to the poisoning of many psychology, psychiatry and sexology related topics in the preceding era. In this sense, we are now able to link to a number of less contentious Wikipedia articles that are unlikely to fall foul of advocacy editing, and thus reduced the burden on our own content producers.

List of notable editors involved in the -2007+ controversy

Deletionist/Special Interest/Anti-MAP

• AbuseTruth aka ResearchEditor (3000 edits, special interest, multiple socks, Leadership Council?)
• AWeidman aka DPeterson (Dr Arthur Becker Weidman, Anti-ped Attachment Therapist who eventually got a lifetime block in 07 for ban evasion. Associated with Phillip John Eide on wiki)
• East718, El_C (Pedophobic Admins)
• Jack-A-Roe (Highly tendentious special interest editor and Civil POV pusher)
• Fred Bauder (Admin who was hugely influential in policing pedophilia and enacting blocks)
• PetraSchelm (Typical Jack/PhDarts style victimological agenda-pusher, possible $$ grift)
• Phdarts aka HeadleyDown (Similar to the above, one was reincarnation of the other)

Inclusionist/MAP Activist/Adjacent

• Barry Jameson (171 edits)
• Catherine N.X. (Activist who helped the logic section of out Debate Guide)
• Digital Emotion (123 edits - profiled on Wikisposure)
• Enrico Dirac aka Hermitian (Often seen, likely connected accounts, reasonable editing style)
• Farenhorst
• Samantha Pignez
• GroomingVictim (176 Edits)
• Jillium (our former Web Admin/Producer of research lists)
• Jim Burton (Highly successful MAP-aligned editor, almost 1000 edits, defended right of editors to self-identify as pedophiles)
• Karla Lindstrom (46 edits)
• Louisa Petit-Ladoumegue (Alleged sock puppet of Voice of Britain. We know both individuals who operated these accounts! Administrative abuse by East718)
• Voice of Britain
• Jovin Lambton

Contemporary commentary

Anonymous Wikipedia Admin (via perma-banned ex-editor, Karla Lindstrom):

"I don't believe that Wikipedia is going to have a paedophile related article that is neutral in the proper sense of the word now or in the forseeable future. It appears to be an editorial decision that the subject matter is too sensitive, and the risk of appearing to condone (that is, not to condemn but appear impartial) the practice is one that the Foundation, Board, etc. are not prepared to take."

Anonymous (probably former editor, Enrico Dirac):

"It seems to me that characterizing criticism of the plethora of biased and misleading Wikipedia articles on sex and kids as "editors claiming adult/child sex is not harmful to children" just mirrors the tactics used by those pushing the CSA moral panic in regular society. Publish a paper debunking bogus numbers on the incidence of child porn and child abuse, propose a population-based peer-reviewed study which might produce an unpopular result, or suggest a change in the extremely value-laden terminology presently used in the CSA field, and no matter what your academic reputation, the usual Dr Lauras and Judith Reismans and "family values" organizations of the world will bombard the media with claims that "so-and-so says sexual abuse isn't harmful" and "so-and-so is pro-pedophile" and "so-and-so wants to legalize adult/child sex." This is always tremendously successful, and the resulting noise completely obscures any attempt to discuss the research on its merits.

Given that tremendously sucessful political strategies generally manage to get adopted in new venues, it's hardly a huge surprise that Wikipedia now has its own little cadre of True Believers, beating their little sex abuse drum, and running around shouting "pro-pedophile activism" every time they see something which violates the party line on the topic. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that what currently passes for NPOV* in some of these articles reads like a press release from some conservative religious pressure group.

Sexual abuse is certainly a bad thing, but the type of hypervigilance that leads to sex abuse witch hunts like Wenatchee and the daycare scandals of the 1980's, which put scores of people in prison based on fabricated evidence, is also a bad thing.

I can't ever remember anyone getting banned from Wikipedia for turning a sex abuse article into a hateful pejorative-laden rant. But I've seen a lot of people banned after their edits annoyed the current Kiddie Sex Cabal that has arrogated to themselves the right to make sure that all such articles on Wikipedia contain the approved amount of anti-pedophile innuendo and vitriol. Some are banned with vague references to Pro-Pedophile POV, whatever that is. Others just disappear at the hands of Arbcom after secret proceedings. Entire articles which have been worked on by hundreds of editors, and which certainly represent community consensus, just arbitrarily disappear if someone high up decides they don't have enough anti-pedophile innuendo in them. This isn't an open and transparent process, where actions may be reviewed and commented upon. It is a fiat process in which talk pages get protected, and replaced by Wikipedia's version of what Wikipedia alleges transpired.

Now Wikipedia is a privately owned resource, with complete and total control over what it publishes. Oh, there's a lot of handwaving about consensus, and how it's actually run by the editors, and editorials making fun of anyone who suggests a Cabal exists. But in point of fact, Wikipedia has a certain political tone, and although anyone is free to contribute, it is a hierarchy of plebian editors, admins, Arbcom members, with Jimbo Wales at the top, and each level learns what the level above it wants, and exerts veto power over the levels below it.

NPOV is in reality the official Wikipedia POV, and the official Wikipedia POV on Child Sexual Abuse is fully supportive of the current hysteria and moral panic, and cares not a whit about what the actual facts are, and will always favor innacurate "mainstream perspective" over the truth. Wikiality and Truthiness aren't just amusing words on late night TV. They are an accurate description of what is produced by the Wikipedia process"

*The term "NPOV" (Neutral Point Of View) refers to a Wikipedia policy whereby encyclopaedia content must be nonpartisan, even in relation to moderate or centrist points of view.