I’ve been sitting on this story for quite some time waiting for something significant to make it relevant. Now that time has come. About two years ago, rumors started floating around about Wikipedia’s involvement with child pornography and the pedophile agenda. First there was a row about this image on Wikipedia depicting child nudity.

Then there was the long-standing allegation by Perverted Justice that:

Pedophiles have long sought to use Wikipedia to justify and promote their agenda. They organize together in order to create Wikipedia accounts and then seek to use Wikipedia’s all-inclusiveness to promote their point of view. When pointed out, Wikipedians themselves often don’t believe that there is an organized campaign to subvert the user-edited encyclopedia in order to promote the pedophile agenda.

Well now these allegations have risen to a new level. Last week, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger reported the site’s parent organization to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, saying he believes the Wikimedia Commons “may be knowingly distributing child pornography.”

According to Sanger:

The clearest instances I found (I did not want to look for long) are linked from [the pedophilia page] and [the lolicon page]. I don’t know if there is any more, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there is-the content on the various Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons and various others, are truly vast.

You can see on [the history of the category page] that the page has existed for three years. Considering that Eric Möller, a high-level Wikipedia manager, is well known for his views in defense of pedophilia… surely the existence of this page must have come to the attention of those with the legal responsibility for the Wikimedia projects.

Erik Möller was recently elevated to Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation which controls Wikipedia. In 2000, long before his Wikipedophilia days, Möller gave a speech in Nuremberg entitled “Kinder sind Pornos” which means “children are pornography.” Even in Google’s rough translation, the gist is clear enough: Möller argues that nonviolent child pornography does no harm.

Other sites have also discussed Möller’s seeming fixation on child sexuality and child pornography. According to the blog Cyde Weys:

Erik Möller 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?

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.”

Now that judicial opinions, newspapers and scholarly reports increasingly cite to Wikipedia, it doesn’t take too much imagination to believe that individuals with agendas see Wikipedia as a perfect vehicle to promote their viewpoint. Anonymous editors and anonymous contributors with anonymous oversight, little or no authoritative peer review, and almost universal knee jerk acceptance make Wikipedia a powerful and dangerous place.

As we cede more and more control of our intelligence to the Googles and Wikipedias of the world, we need to remember that sophisticated invisible forces can easily manipulate our view of reality. Just who is editing and controlling Wikipedia? There’s more than just the Lower Merion School District in your child’s bedroom. Wikipedophilia might be the most dangerous threat of all.

3 Replies to "Wikipedophilia"

  • astroloji
    June 11, 2010 (3:13 am)

    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.

  • Ross
    June 23, 2010 (4:45 am)

    Pedophiles make up only a tiny percentage of wikipedia editors, and are far less organized than other special interest groups who also “wikilobby”. The graphic images on wikipedia should hardly be of great concern to anyone. If a kid see’s masturbation or god forbid sex, it’s not going to turn him into a rapist or mass murderer. If an adult sees a naked image of a child, it’s not going to turn him into a pedophile.Whats more the vast majority of the naked children pictures in question, are not of a sexual nature.

    The real danger on the internet are preditors who use it to meet children. This is not something that is easy to do via wikipedia.

    Underage pregnancy is not exactly at an all time high. People are losing their virginities at older ages than they did as recently as the 80’s. Seeing porn on the internet has apparently not turned our youth into wanton sex addicts.

    Most child molestors know their victims families. While many try to use the internet to lure children into sexual acts, few ever suceed. Let’s just try to keep it that way and not spend so much time worrying about pictures of adults having consensual sex.

    October 24, 2011 (2:57 pm)

    A variety of Wikipedia articles on several child abuse issues misrepresent child abuse and ritual abuse issues. Attempts to correct these articles have resulted in bullying, threats of banning editors and the outright banning of editors from Wikipedia. Several legitimate websites exposing child abuse and ritual abuse crimes have been banned from Wikipedia, including

    Two websites detailing this situation are:

    Information on PRESS RELEASE – Wikipedia “Satanic Ritual Abuse” article promotes PEDOPHILIA


    The Truth about Satanic Ritual Abuse – Wikipedia rebuttal

    An accurate article on child abuse and ritual abuse issues is at:

    This article covers the many missing sources from the Wikipedia article that have been deleted from the ritual abuse article there. The Wikipedia Board has been notified of the problems with this and other articles, but no replies have been received.

    Bomis, found in 1996, was founded by Jimmy Wales and Tim Shell, and provided support for the free encyclopedia projects Nupedia and Wikipedia. Bomis ran a website called Bomis Premium at until 2005, offering customers access to premium, X-rated pornographic content. Until mid-2005, Bomis also featured the Bomis Babe Report, a free blog, publishing news and reviews about celebrities, models, and the adult entertainment industry.

    The Babe Report prominently linked to Bomis Premium and frequently posted updates about new models joining Bomis. Bomis has also operated, a free repository of selected erotic photographs, and continues to host The Babe Engine, “a precision babe search engine”, which indexes photos ranging from glamour photography to pornography. Bomis is best known for having supported the creation of the free-content online encyclopedia projects Nupedia and Wikipedia.


    Wikipedia’s accuracy rate has been questioned.

    Comparison of ITWikipedia-IT and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles Findings – The study did reveal inaccuracies in eight of the nine entries and exposed major flaws in at least two of the nine Wikipedia articles.

    Overall, Wikipedia’s accuracy rate was 80 percent compared with 95-96 percent accuracy within the other sources. This study does support the claim that Wikipedia is less reliable than other reference resources. Furthermore, the research found at least five unattributed direct quotations and verbatim text from other sources with no citations.;jsessionid=B5971624ED12D3D4BFBFFC762150B834?contentType=Article&contentId=1674221


    “Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.”

    “However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.”

    “Wikipedia is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors or engage in casual peer review, they have no legal duty to do so and thus all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever.”

    The problems with Wikipedia are:

    1) There is no guarantee its information is correct.
    2) Its editors are anonymous and may be biased about the topic they are writing about and may be unqualified to write encyclopedia articles.
    3) There is inconsistent or no fact checking, depending on the article.
    4) The rules of wikipedia at times are used to control article content and delete other content from strong sources.
    5) Experts working on certain topics in wikipedia may be derided and discouraged from contributing to certain articles.

    Therefore, one is probably better off reading a real encyclopedia or journal article, due to the high potential for reading inaccurate information and a slanted or biased article.