Disgruntled Ex-Wikipedia Guy, Larry Sanger, Accuses Wikipedia Of Distributing Child Porn

from the desperate-much dept

It's no secret that Larry Sanger is no fan of Wikipedia. He's often credited as being a co-founder of the site, though some dispute this. He was involved in the creation of Nupedia, Wikipedia's predecessor, which was more of a traditional expert-edited online encyclopedia. While many involved in Wikipedia these days downplay his role there, Sanger has made a pretty compelling case that he was heavily involved in the early days. Either way, since he left, he's gone way out of his way to distance himself from Wikipedia, while setting up a competitor (again, an expert-edited encyclopedia) that doesn't get much usage. Every few months or so, he seems to find some way to pop up in the news, often using his connection to Wikipedia as the hook for why the press should cover his competitor, which appears to get almost no traffic whatsoever.

His latest tactic is really pretty low. SimonTek points us to a Fox News article all about Sanger calling on the FBI to investigate Wikipedia for distributing child porn. While Fox of course plays up Sanger's Wikipedia credentials, they leave out the fact that he has been working on a failed competitor for years (they mention the company name, but not that it's a competitor). They also leave out much of the animosity between Sanger and Wikipedia.

This story actually got some attention a few weeks ago on Slashdot, where many commenters, rightfully, took Sanger to task. Sanger responded to the criticism by arguing a few points, saying that he was required by law to report his findings to the FBI. To some extent, on that point, he is correct, though it is an issue with the law that focuses on criminalizing even those who accidentally run across questionable material, rather than focusing on those who create and purposely distribute the material (the real problems). However, he does appear to go somewhat out of his way to publicize this claim. He could have just alerted the FBI and been done with it... but he republished his letter to the FBI on a mailing list. That certainly raises some serious questions.

On top of that, his complaint is not about actual photographs of child pornography, but drawings. Indeed, the courts have found that even such depictions count as child pornography -- though many people find that arguable about whether or not a made up drawing exploits a child in any way.

The real problem, of course, is that this (like so many arguments over this stuff) takes away from the real issue: which is stopping those actually responsible for child pornography. Attacking Wikipedia is not the answer and does little to help the issue -- especially when the attack comes from someone with a long history of animosity towards the site, and a failing competitor. Why not focus those resources on actually dealing with the real problem? Wouldn't we all rather that the FBI is focused on actually stopping those involved in the production of child pornography than wasting time going after Wikipedia? Part of the problem is certainly with the way the law is structured today, but it does seem that Sanger went out of his way to try to broadcast this attack when that absolutely was not necessary.

He makes it even worse in the Fox story by claiming that he was doing this to alert educators that Wikipedia is dangerous for school children. That's flat-out ridiculous. For the most part, it is not. It's quite unlikely that anyone is going to accidentally stumble onto those drawings on Wikipedia -- and they're equally as likely to find similar (or worse) stuff elsewhere. To call out all of Wikipedia as being unsuitable because of this is clearly going way too far.

Filed Under: child porn, larry sanger, wikipedia

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2010 @ 2:33pm

    "Of course no single instance of child porn will normalize pedophilia, adult-child sexual relations, or whatever you want to call it. But that isn't my argument, it is your silly straw man. My argument is that Wikipedia is an important project, and precedent-setting, and if the government takes a stand here, it will do significant good in the fight against the normalization of pedophilia."
    No. Your argument was that "the legalization of drawings of the sexual violation of children would be a decided step in that direction". In other words, to allow Wikimedia Common's "child porn drawings" to exist is to draw one step closer toward the normalization of pedophilia. Sorry, but that's bullshit.
    Of course, being the Anonymous Coward that you are, you might want children to be able legally to "consent" to sex with children, but I and most sane people don't.
    And just a second ago you were accusing me of trotting out silly straw men. For shame. I don't wish to legalize actual child abuse, but drawings of fake child abuse should not be illegal and in any case should not be used as ammunition against the likes of Wikimedia Foundation.
    Listen, genius, this *is* an emotional issue, and rightly so, because we are talking about the safety of children here.
    Bullshit. We're talking about drawings here. To say this is about the safety of children is nothing less than mindless chest thumping.
    I doubt you have children, and I doubt you have the first clue about what this means or is all about
    I don't have children, but all it takes is a look at a random sampling of parents to realize that being a parent in no way guarantees that you're a competent judge real versus imagined risks. These drawings are purely an imagined risk.
    I'm sure some people have to have some life experience deeply caring for the upbringing of children before they really get this.
    Parents are often irrational about their children's safety.
    You obviously didn't understand my point about the Fifth Circuit. They knew about the earlier Supreme Court ruling perfectly well, and understood it far, far better than piddling little Anonymous Cowards such as yourself.
    That they knew about the Supreme Court ruling is not in dispute. The point is that they chose to ignore binding precedent. That I am a piddling little Anonymous Coward does not alter that fact.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.