Jump to content

Talk:Justin Berry/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Justin Berry
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.40.61.83 (talk) at 15:51, 12 March 2006 (→Reverts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Total rewrite?

I'd like to see this article totally rewritten by uninvolved wikipedians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 04:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry...is this part of some project? JHMM13 (T | C) 04:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's called Wikipedia. --kingboyk 23:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree. This article was founded with verifiable facts and sources. All "controversial" areas were placed directly as such and in the open, and left for reader interpretation as per Wikipedia policy. If you don't believe me, judge for yourself. --Rookiee Revolyob 23:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect instead?

I think that this article should possibly be a redirect to Kurt Eichenwald. Academic Challenger 04:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The subject of the article called Jimbo personally and was very upset about something in the article. So we're going to go through and rewrite being very careful about sourcing. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
"and was very upset about something in the article"—Aww, poor baby. Why doesn't Justin simply log into the article and adjust it himself? After all, this is the "encyclopedia which anyone can edit". Could it be he can't disprove anything I've said? Could it be my sources are correct?
Do you seriously expect a victim of child abuse (self identified) to edit an article written by a pedophile (self identified)? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Which of my sources were unverifiable? This article does not belong on a redirect to Eichenwald because it is a biographical article on Justin, not Kurt. This article was not removed because of unverifiable sources. It was taken off because it pissed Justin off at other people have a say in the truth and there's nothing he can do about it. --Rookiee Revolyob 23:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It was removed because Jimbo ( not Justin) decided to remove it. It was restarted over so that non pedophiles can write it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Rookiee wanted to reply to you, but found himself blocked again, indefinitely this time, by Neutrality for "pedophile trolling". Clayboy 10:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


I've contacted Neutrality anout the block and an waiting for his reply. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible references

These are the sources used in the old version of the article; they are a good place to start, I suppose. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I added them in as external links (except the last one, that's rather creepy) and rewrote this to have some semblance of relevance. It's bare bones, and I doubt (hope!) that those changes won't be disputed.--Sean Black (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The amazon wishlist is a big part of the story. You should read the times article. I also don't see why the previous article was completely trashed. From what I recall it was fairly well done. -JJay 09:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Just standard operating procedure in a case like this.--Jimbo Wales 14:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo, why don't you write the new article, since you are apparently the only person who knows what was wrong with the prior one, and you don't seem to be forthcoming with any details. Hermitian 22:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean because I'm not really privy to the details. I will say that I had previously read the article and didn't see anything outlandish. I'm also somewhat surprised that Mr. Berry would complain. Given how he achieved his fame (webcam, Times expose with which he fully cooperated, Oprah, etc), I wouldn't have thought he was opposed to exposure. -- JJay 18:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Photo

Is there any reason why we can't have the photo Image:JustinAt15.jpg in the article? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a copyvio.--Jimbo Wales 21:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm so it is. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Bone to Pick...

Alright, now that I have my VOICE back, having been blocked... let me start out by asking a few simple questions. I will try the best I can to stay to the point and stay rational.

  • Why was I blocked? I did nothing to deserve a blocking. I broke no rules. I made an article; a controversial one, yes, but as far as I know, that does NOT constitute blocking someone from responding to an issue, and you did just that, Jimbo.
  • Why was my article removed? I posted NOTHING infamatory, NOTHING that was "personal research", and I stayed as best I could to the facts presented by credible sources including but not limited to:
    • The New York Times article
    • Archive.org's unrefutable content
    • Oprah.com
    • Justin Berry's own words
    • Google Groups
    • Slate.com articles
  • Why were all previous histories of the page completely wiped from the database? What is this, the third reich??
  • Did Justin Berry complain about my article, and if so, what was his grounds for the article's complete removal? As I said before, I made SURE that all facts had supporting sources. Did you check my sources before removing it? I've said nothing that he either did not present himself or that other noted sources did not present.
  • If there were any disputes about this article, why did the usual due-process of disputation not take place rather than this full-on, blatent cover-up of the entire article?
  • Jim, with all due respect, who placed you as the almighty voice of the truth? I thought this was a democracy. I might have a controversial POV, but I am definately capable of restraining myself, and in my opinion, I had done so in the writing of this article.

I want a full copy of the previous, unmolested article for my own records. (Pun intended.) I would like it sent to my email address listed under my personal preferences, and I would like a sincere apology from the Wikimedia Foundation for this blatent act of discrimination and prejudice. I can understand knee-jerk reactions, but nothing excuses what happened today.

As stated by Jimbo himself on his User page: "Freedom of speech is critical for all cultures." All except the childlove community, apparently.

"Be bold", my ass.

--Rookiee Revolyob 05:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to answer you here. So here goes.

You were blocked because jimbo decided to block you while he sorted out the complaint made about the article. It's only a short block, I realise you feel hard done by but Jimbo has to look at the whole picture.

He blocked me because he decided to block me. Interesting reasoning. --Rookiee Revolyob 22:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, on what grounds did he have the right? According to Wikipedia:Blocking_policy, I did not fit into a single one of those categories. My original question remains open and unanswered. --Rookiee Revolyob 22:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The histories were wiped from the database because there was a complaint made about the article. Jimbo has stated that he wants the article written by neutral editors.

Define "neutral". I'm pedosexual, and you're most likely heterosexual. Either of us are going to have a bias; a POV. Everyone has a POV. There is no such thing as a "neutral" editor. This is stated by Jimbo Wales, himself: "Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points."[1] I'm going to guess most people would assign me to the role of "the man who will not concede". I argue just the opposite. Because the majority push their own ideologies of pedosexuality as "correct", they leave the rest of us hopefully rational thinkers in the dust. Because of this bias, and because of Wikipedia's self-proclaimed stance to allow all ideologies to have a fair say, Wikipedia has become probably one of the only potentially open and available forums for us minor-inclined individuals to offer our point-of-view. Lately though, it would seem that the opposite is happening. Articles which were previously deemed as fair or balanced are now being reverted, altered, or recategorized by a small handful of elitist editors to reflect heavily on what they believe the majority opinion is. An invisible hierarchy is forming. Furthermore, the media is now beginning its process of manipulation, outcasting and discrediting the childlove community with biased commentary. In one such article entitled: "Online Encyclopedia is a Gathering for Online Predators", (which I might add I was featured in), the author goes so far to state right out: "It has come to the attention of the Parents for the Online Safety of Children (POSC) that there is a underground cabal of pedophiles who edit WikiPedia, trying to make WikiPedia a distribution center for pedophile propaganda."[2] Words like "underground cabal" are used to make this sexual minority appear to be deceitful with their intent. They are essentially equating free speech to "online predation of children". Folly. It is because of this recent trend on Wikipedia and the surrounding online communities that I believe the article was removed and wiped without due-process of disputation.
The argument that the article must be written by "neutral" peoples is flawed. Jimbo, himself, appears to be contradicting his own statements. When the article was pulled, he commented: "I would like to see the article written by uninvolved Wikipedians."[3] First he's admitting that everyone has an ideology. NOW, he's stating that apparently there are apparently some who don't have ideologies? He's saying two completely different things! By using subjective terminology such as this, he is discrediting himself. Either way, as stated by many others before me, it's impossible for truly "neutral" editing to occur happen in the real world unless both POVs have their say. He is essentially barring me from doing so by calling me "involved". The only other explanation for his argument is to go on the assumption that perhaps he means "those who have not been directly in contact with the subject of the article." Theresa, I have not been a customer of Justin's, and presumably, neither have you. I don't know a single one of his customers, and as far as I know, neither do you. Furthermore, I don not know a single one of his former partners-in-crime. In any way you look at it, Jimbo's reasoning for having pulled my article is flawed, and moreover, completely irrational and unexcusable.
Ultimately, all of this is beside the point: Justin has absolutely no right or basis to complain about the article. I did my research on the man. Again, I must stress, the sources I used for the article are public, unrefutable, and are still readily available for anyone who chooses to look at them. Nothing relating to Berry that I have stated in the article is untrue or unsupported. Justin, himself, has stated on the Oprah.com message board, (a resource I didn't even bother citing on the article), that he did make bad choices and decisions in his life. Both he and Kurt Eichenwald have publically admitted that Justin was able to and could have used better judgement during the five-year period in which he performed as a sex worker.[4] Justin then instantly turns around and begins blaming others: "It's the pedophiles' fault! They molested me! They lured me at 13! They fed me drugs! Poor me!" This is completely unacceptable. In another example, both he and Oprah skip around chronologically to push an anti-pedophile argument. The teaser trailer is proof enough of that. Her opening words state: "An honor-roll student."[5] Justin was (and is) a smart cookie. They prevaricate around the fact that for the first 2-3 years of his activities, he did not take drugs nor did he meet up with anyone! He was acting of his own sound mind and body, in his own room, behind his parents' backs, and did what he did because he desired money and gifts. He betrayed himself. He betrayed his better judgement because of materialism. Whether or not there were adult men and women who wanted to see him naked (God, forbid...), he chose do to it, and not only did he admit he didn't care, but he did it for profit! Assuming he's a strictly heterosexual male, he most likely would not have done it for any other reason. (We cannot speculate on his sexual orientation at this point.) He might have thought it gross. Alternatively, he might have gotten a big kick out of it! (He was able to achieve an erection, remember...) Thus, being in full knowledge and consent of the act, however illegal, he was and is capabale of understanding it was his choice to do so. I stated these facts in as plain and unbiased a way i could muster. He does NOT have a case for complaint.
In conclusion, because of his contradiction of words, I presented both sides of the controversy evenly. I stated that most believe him to be genuinely regretful of his actions, while others feel it's a cover-up to make himself look like the victim to avoid federal charges. This is indeed the word "out on the street"; the arguments being made by everyone, not just pedophiles. According to Wikipedia's own Official Policy on NPOV: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." I have done just that. I was thoughtful of everyone's side of the story.
I'm just going to add a bit of insight into what's being said between the lines. What Jimbo is essentially saying is that I am not allowed to edit or contribute to the article on Justin Berry because I am of a particular sexual orientation. Under that token, it's safe to assume that any article written on heterosexuality must be written by a 110% homosexual because any heterosexual would be considered "involved". He is barring me from having a voice when his own mission statement is that "Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia that everyone can edit." He is tripping over his own words and ideologies to save his butt from a lawsuit. He is being discriminatory.
Afternote: I am fortunate that a fellow Wikipedian was kind enough to have retained an "undefaced" copy of the article (using his words) and send it to me. I have posted it to allow people to judge for themselves whether or not my facts were indeed credible or are grounds for removal based on being libel. Any other basis for removal is inherantly flawed and unexcusable. Just because Justin does not want certain truths to come out doesn't mean he has the right to change history to fit it the way he wants it. "Conflict of Interest" is the term that comes to mind... --Rookiee Revolyob 22:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes he did complain. The grounds for removal was because that's what Jimbo thought was the best course of action.

You thought wrong when you thought this was a democracy. It is not. Jimbo can do whatever he thinks is best.

Pity. You should post that on the frontpage when you guys redesign it. I know it's under consideration for revisal. Be honest with the public. Don't purport and portray this as an open forum when it really is not. --Rookiee Revolyob 22:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Your pun was not in the least bit funny.

Some puns aren't intended to be, my dear... --Rookiee Revolyob 22:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

In short we dont want self identified paedophilles editing articles about people who claim to have been molested and abused as children. We will write the article ourselves thank you. Personally i don't object to paedophilles editing pages about peadophillia but writing articles about abuse victims is simply not on.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the key words here are "claim to have been molested." Justin was an Internet sex entrepreneur and a high paid male prostitute, who had numerous opportunities to get out of the business had he wanted to do so. It is only society's blind and blanket characterization of everyone under the age of 18 as having been "molested" when they engage in problematical sexual activity, which permits Justin to make a quick transition from selling his body to selling his victimhood. Rookiee's article was fact-based and properly sourced. That Justin didn't like it when the facts weren't spun from a victimologist perspective is immaterial.
Wikipedia pretends that it's run by consensus as long as volunteers are happily creating multiple millions of dollars in free intellectual property for Jimbo. Once that task is largely complete, the truth is revealed, which is that this is basically Jimbo's private BBS where he can do anything he feels like, and the contributions he paid nothing for are his to exploit any way he wishes.
No they aren't his to do whatever he wants with. He is bound by the terms of the GFDL. But he is certainly free to delete contributions if he sees fit. Of course everyone has the right to fork - that's what's so good about the GFDL. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
NPOV is a good measurement for the quality of an article. The sexual orientation of one or some of the editors is not. You can check each of my contributions to this wiki, and you will find that every single one is constructive, neutral, ice-coldly fact-based. From what you are saying, it seems Jimbo has decided that for this article, you are not allowed to edit it if you are of pedophile or ephebophile orientation, regardless of your attitudes or moral values. So, a class of Wikipedians are prohibited from contributing, under the threat of blocking. I believe that Rookiee's original article was pretty badly POV, but I wish we could have fixed that by applying NPOV and fact-checking, instead of defining a lower class designated for "the back of the bus". But these are just the times we live in, I suppose. Clayboy 19:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


As I see it this "high paid male prostitute" was in fact a child. Anyone paying for sexual services from these prostitutes is abusing a child. Anyone writing about this child (even though he is an adult now) who self identifies as a paedeophille is perpetuating the abuse. Pedeophiles should not write about child protestutes. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Keywords: "As I see it". You are not the authority. No one is. This shows you are biased. And you expect the rest of humanity to allow you and other like-minded editors to be the only ones to edit the article? I think not. --Rookiee Revolyob 22:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
What a complete crock. By calling everyone under the age of 18 a "child", which the dictionary correctly defines as a human between the ages of infancy and puberty, you can make everything even remotely sexual sound salacious and evil. Teenagers are insulted to be called "children," and if you start using terms like "teenage sex" and "teenage sex with adults" to describe problematical behavior by kids old enough to know better, the "poor little abused children" angle is more difficult to sell. Maybe we should just go to the ultimate extreme, and legally define everyone under 18 as a "baby." Then all sex with minors could be "poor little babies being abused and raped," which would no doubt please the Judith Reisman's, John Ashcroft's, and David Finkelhor's of the world. When such semantic games have to be employed to sell an agenda, with disqualification of everyone holding a different perspective as "perpetuating the abuse", what you have is pseudo-science and flim-flam, and not unbiased reporting.Hermitian 20:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
What do you want me to say? First you put words into my mouth and then go off on a rant. I'm English BTW. Our age of consent is lower than yours, I know who Operah is but I never watch her show, I have no idea who Judith Reisman, John Ashcroft or David Finkelhor are I'm afraid.
"Our age of consent is lower than yours"— Again, this shows the subjectivity in which people view situations. The ages in which Justin was an active sex worker was 13-18. In the article written by Eichwald, he states: "When Justin became 18 he turned from victim to predator." Yet in your case, the statement would have to be altered... "When Justin became 16, he turned from victim to predator." ... Huh?? Does this make sense? This minor is a victim, meanwhile shows like Queer as Folk are able to legally portray a 15 year old hitting up an older man for sex at a club, and while controversial, it becomes a smash hit! When the show was ported to the U.S., the minor's age jumped from 15 to 17. This shows the hypocricy in our culture of what becomes acceptable behavior for a minor. Give me a break! Justin could consent, and he did. It's quite obvious. --Rookiee Revolyob 22:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
How would I be "perpetuating the abuse" by participating in the writing about the subject in an encyclopedic, neutral, cited, verifiable style? Some obscure form of voodoo? If I really would have abused him by writing things that someone else would have written anyway, just because my sexual orientation is called something particular, if that really, really is true, I will certainly abstain from writing, because I would sooner die than abuse a child. But so far I think you are pretty far fetched. The five pillars by which we judge the quality of an article remains; the sexual orientations of the writers is not amongst them. Clayboy 20:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


It's true that someone else will write them anyway. It's much better all round if the person who writes them is not someone who self identifies as a Pedeophile. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Should we make the same argument for those who self-identify as Jews writing Holocaust articles? The only possible rationale I could see for prohibiting self-identified pedophiles from writing articles on people claiming child abuse is that it provides right wing cranks with an opportunity to publicly attack Wikipedia. Given the collaborative process, it certainly isn't going to make any difference in the quality of the resulting article, and most minor attracted adults editing Wikipedia aren't going to publicly announce their orientation anyway.Hermitian 21:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
And why would we want to give anyone (right or left, crank or sane) ammunition to publically attack us? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo should've thought about that before deciding to make this website and proclaiming the ideology of "open and free editing for all!". Are you saying this is no longer the case? --Rookiee Revolyob 23:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
What i am saying is that an article on a child prostetute should not be written by a self claimed pedophile. This website is above all an encylopedia. The free editing for all is a means to that end not an end in itself. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles usually aren't written by just one person, but as a collaboration. As this article moves along in its new purified version, how much could a pedophile collaborate? Would adding a small paragraph here and there be OK? Would fixing POVs or factual errors be OK? Would fixing typos be? Or should we just steer clear? It's a little hard to play when you don't know the rules, as I think Rookiee is finding out. Clayboy 00:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
To be honest i don't know what Jimbo's views are on this. Personally I'd like for people who state that they are pedophiles (or activists in the childlove movement etc) on Wikipedia (or off wikipedia for that matter if the connection can be made) to not edit articles on live people who claim to have been molested when they were children. That is my personal opinion - I am not on the board so have no particular authority here. My worry is that victims of molestation should not have to suffer criticism from people who proudly identify with their molesters ( and like it or not that is how you are perceived). I'm not saying that this article shold present justine in an entirely glowing light. I have no problem with negative comments about his own part in his sordid entry into the porn industry. However those comments should not come from self identified pedophiles. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Theresa, the scariest thing I have seen in this whole discussion is your assertion that there is a class of people who should be restricted from editing certain areas of the Wikipedia regardless of their ability to add useful information to the Wikipedia. Essentially you are advocating the establishment of a virtual ghetto (or Wikighetto) where people like Rookiee, myself, and others who make you uncomfortable should stay. At least you do state that it's your "personal opinion" - for that I am thankful, as there is certainly nothing logical or rational about your position.
Theresa... perhaps you should read this? Like Rookiee and Clayboy, I am a self-identified Pedo, BUT this does not in any way make me a child molester. I've never even touched a child, so if you think that our orientation makes us child molesters, then you are quite badly mistaken. Another thing, since Justin was a teen when he pimped himself, the ones who alegedly abused him were not pedophiles(child lovers) but ephebophiles(teen lovers), so leave us alone about this, huh? = Silent War = 07:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

(losing indent) I am not advocating a ghetto at all. I'm avocating an exclusion zone. I'm happy for you to edit all wikipedia articles except articles of victims of child sex abuse who are currently still alive.

I never said you were a child molester. I said it was distressing for people like Justin to have a page on him edited by people who identify with the people who molested him. In the real world pedophile is generally used to indicate anyone who has sex with an underage kid. To use to mean "I want to have sex" is unusual and not understood by the public. Also ephebophiles is not used by the public. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but I certainly do not identify with child molesters. Do you identify with heterosexual rapists? You don't have to answer; I know you don't. But if I thought you did, you would find it pretty offensive, wouldn't you? Clayboy 10:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes I would, and I am sorry to offend you. However, despite this, I am still asking you not to edit articles like this. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You People are A Joke

Wikipedia has come a long way baby! Wasn't the idea to promote informative articles? Isn't Justin Berry a public personality, and isn't his story worth telling? No sex please, we're Wikipedia! Nothing controversial please, we're Wikipedia! When the NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW (God bless the view from nowhere) gives Wiki-pedestrians the license to delete entire articles, full of facts, then Wikipedia has lost it's reason for being. But I figured that out 4 years ago! Pity on fools who continue to believe in the Wiki-fantasy. Anon-o-Christ 01:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Wikipedia works like Orwell's "Animal Farm", all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. As usual, anything written by a pedophile (even if entirely correct, well researched and entirely documented) is subject to scrutiny and censorship by the "normal" people. I resent the hell out of this! Your UNREASONING hatred is apparent when you delete (burn a book) a well written article that relies on solid research. This stinks of Hitlerism and medieval witch burning! Shame! Shame! Shame! - Jeffrey Gold --JeffreyGold 01:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


Eichenwald

One thing that caught my attention when I read the NYT article was the claim that Justin gave his "customer records" to the Times, and they checked the 1500 "pedophiles" and found they were from all walks of life. Now, at the time Justin shut down his porn operation, he was a legal adult, and was running a web site indistinguishable from any other pay adult site, replete with the required notice that "All Models are over 18 years of age, records on file." Does that mean that anyone who paid for access to that Web site with a credit card got lumped in with the people who paid Justin for webcam performances when he was 14? This is the kind of shoddy agenda-laden reporting typical in these cases. Does anyone remember when the US government busted an age verification service because two web sites that used their codes, located in foreign countries, had underage material on them? They then characterized everyone who'd bought an age verification code as "people who had paid for access to child porn," and shopped the customer list around to a bunch of other countries for sting operations.

Any reporting on alleged child porn in the US suffers from a number of problems, most notable of which is the fact that even journalists are legally prohibited from looking at the material in question to report to readers whether its content is being lied about. It's basically a situation in which you can write anything, no matter how outrageous, about "international pedophile rings" and "luring" and "poor little abused children" and it will get published with no fact-checking, and in an environment in which no one can be publicly suspicious about its claims, for fear of attracting negative attention to themselves.

I haven't seen a single article in the mainstream press in the last ten years on the subject of child porn that wasn't deliberately inflammatory, dripping with value-laden terminology, and full of deliberate lying by omission, juxtiposition, and innuendo. Mr. Eichenwald's relationship with Justin Berry clearly violated almost every rule of objective journalism. Given that the NY Times article is a single source for the entire Justin Berry story, basing an encyclopedia article solely on that article, and on derivative journalism generated by it, is an example of "truthiness," not "factiness."Hermitian 20:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you arguing for deletion of this article as inherently unverifyable? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Well some facts about it can be verified. Justin is an Internet celebrity. Justin performed sex acts on his webcam for attention, money, and gifts. Justin later became a successful adult webmaster. Justin had a drug problem. But the NY Times treatment of all this, with its "sky is falling" approach to predators and underage sexual performances on the Internet, and calls for parents to seize and destroy all their childrens' webcams, is definitely the Kurt Eichenwald story, and not the Justin Berry story. I suspect we can keep the Justin Berry story short, and to the point, and put the soap opera version in the Kurt Eichenwald article where it belongs.Hermitian 20:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's stick to the verifyable facts only. That way everyone is happy, Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Please explain to me which of my facts are unverifiable and "soap opera"? This article does in fact belong on its own page because there are many issues which do not deal with Eichenwald. He is not the sole source of information on Berry. He is but one source. We cannot turn Eichenwald's bio page into a romping ground for controvery on another individual. --Rookiee Revolyob 23:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you talking to me or Hermitian? If me then I never claimed anything about any of your facts. All I've ever said is that you should not be the one to write an article on a child prostitute because you proclaim yourself a pedophile. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
And I suppose we pedophiles should just keep our learned articles to ourselves as the darkies and Jews had to do in times past? This is clearly unreasoning bigotry!--JeffreyGold 01:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Only the ones on living child pornographers and abuse victims, and only if you proclaim yourself a pedophile. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 02:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Three words: Ad. Hominem. Fallacy. The only valid standard by which an article's quality can be gauged is the information contained in the article itself. The alternative is to discriminate against an individual, and to set an arbitrary and dishonest standard which calls every article here into question. So some people are pedophiles. They're not accountable to you or anyone for that, and to pretend that they are invites other pedophiles to stop being open. What they're accountable for is the veracity of the information they provide. If any other standard is applied, the only possible conclusion is that those responsible consider their personal opinions of a given type of person more important than the facts. A source which does that should not be considered reliable, or consulted or contributed to by anyone who values objective fact and rationality above prejudice. Of course, open prejudice has been admitted to here. So I'll simplify your situation. You know that someone here is a pedophile solely because they decide to tell you they are. So you can knowingly have such articles edited by pedophiles, or you can unknowingly have such articles edited by pedophiles. The question of whether pedophiles should be allowed to edit these articles is moot - neither you nor Jimbo have any say in that unless you wish to abandon the open nature of Wikipedia (in other words, abandon the entire project). What is being attempted here is not only unethical and dishonest, but ultimately impossible.

[Catherine N.X. - [email protected]]10th March 2006

Oh yeah. I am not saying that pedophiles cannot edit aticles like this one.How the hell could we ever know? I am only saying that people who state "I am a pedophile" on their user page (or similar) should not edit articles like this. If someone claims to have been sexually abused as a child by a bunch of pedophiles( which is what Justing is claimimg is it not?) then they should not have articles written about here him by pedophiles because that victim will feel he is being victimised a second time. Now there is certainly some debate over who exactly is to blaim for his slide into pornography - how much is an adolescent responsible for his own behaviour? How much is his parents responsible and how much are the people who paid a minor to do things that he would not have done without those payments. If that debate should go into the article (and as long as it is attributed to actual sources then why not?) then it should be put in by someone who does not call themself a pedophile. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the logic is flawed. You are saying it is OK for a pedophile to edit such an article if they claim they are not a pedophile. User:Strait as a die

What I am saying is that if you claim to be a pedophile it would be better if you did not edit articles like this one. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


Justin Berry's feelings have no more bearing on the standard that should be applied to a wiki than those of Fred Phelps towards the wiki about himself. If Mr. Berry feels that the information in the article is invalid or biased (which is the only valid standard for editing it, if Wikipedia is to be objective), he can edit it himself. There is nothing harder about that emotionally than about reading it in the first place. Earlier you stated that you personally considered it further 'perpetuation of the abuse' for pedophiles to help with these articles (before thinking to project that onto what Justin Berry may or may not feel). Victimization takes one and only one form - direct action by one person against another, in a form which violates the latter's rights. There is no such thing as the right to be free from seeing things you don't like written by people you don't like.

The statement that it would be 'better' for non-pedophiles to edit these articles is purely arbitrary, and the entire question has no place here. The sole justification for this assertion has been your own personal feelings and what you suspect another person may or may not feel.

If factual veracity and a neutral point of view are no longer to be the sole standard by which articles are judged, then the Wikipedia experiment has failed. That certain parties don't like seeing factual information provided by pedophiles is a perfect test of whether Wikipedia has any rational backbone (the primary measure of its value). It is failing that test. The ability to apply an irrational standard doesn't come with the ability to avoid the consequences - biased information and lost credibility.

Mr. Wales has not stated whether he distinguishes between open and closeted pedophile contributors, but must obviously realize that those are the only two options.

Catherine N.X. ([email protected])

And I suppose if I am a negro then it is better if I do not edit any articles that describe American slavery?? No, this wiki is being capricious. This will not be dropped. We are talking about filing a civil complaint.--JeffreyGold 00:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Please don't make legal threats here. We generally block people for doing that. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone placed a link to the prior article, which has been archived off Wikipedia, and is no longer Wikipedia's responsibility, in the current article. Since this is a hot news story, and the new version of the article is a stub, I see nothing wrong with giving people a link to the old version while the new one is rewritten, so they at least have something to read. Justin is of course welcome to complain to anyone hosting the old article, but as you know, trying such things on the Internet just makes more people replicate the information on their sites, and is a fruitless exercise.

If someone can come up with a really good reason why we shouldn't do this, I am willing to listen, but barring that, I will happily use up my two reverts to maintain the link to the old article until the new one contains more than 2 sentences of information. Hermitian 00:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the external link to the mirror of the original article, in the Links section. Any further changes to this article should be discussed, rather than simply made without comment. Catherine N.X. - [email protected]

links to articles should have valid content and come from a reputable source. The whole point about the changes to this article is that this wasn't (or we are not yet able to prove it was, there is always potential for information to be readded in time of course.) So this link is not appropriate. And remember, you do not have two reverts to "use up". The 3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement. I'm happy to make this part of the office action on this article, but would prefer that the sensible reasons for not having the link are the reasons we use here. -- sannse (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Wales' stated reason is that he does not want a person of a certain sexual orientation to edit this article. No statements have been made by any Wikipedia staff about the veracity of the information, a tacit statement that there is no doubt there. The offsite article is fully referenced and factually correct. It is also directly based on reports in established newsmedia. Catherine N.X. - [email protected]
The link that keeps being removed is to an article that gleans information ONLY from reputable sources. If you have any proof that this is not the case, I think you should present it here before removing the link. Corax 21:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The fact that a complaint by a camwhore got an entire article deleted from Wikipedia is itself news, and that makes the prior article relevant and linkable from the current article irrespective of whether the old article meets or doesn't meet the standards for inclusion on Wikipedia. The link should stay.

Various sourced facts

Merely in a spirit of pendantic referencing, here are some sourced facts that can be added to the article.

  • According to the NY Times article(Eichenwalde, December 19, 2005), Justin was shown how to create a Pay Pal account in 2000, by someone he met online.
  • According to the article, the deal was that he would sit bare-chested in front of the webcam for three minutes in return for $50 dollars.
  • According to the article, Justin was an honnor roll student.
  • According to the article, Justin was found by the Times in June 2005.
  • According to the article, Justin has a younger sister.
  • According to the article, in 2000, Justin was living with his mother and step-father in Bakersfield, California.
I think you may be leaving out about several hundred other facts that are contained in the NYT article. Corax 02:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


Reverts

Why is a sourced, informative article being continually reverted to a stub? Tomyumgoong 05:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has asked for the page to be rewritten from scratch. By someone who does not self identify as a pedophile. People aren't doing that and so that is why the page is being reverted. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

So are you alleging that everyone who's trying to edit the article is a pedophile, or that they are simply copying from the old article? I don't see any evidence of the former, and clearly a new article, written without looking the prior one, will replicate some of the original article's sourced facts. Yet all recent additions to the article have been reverted, and when people complain, they are being banned for a variety of frivolous reasons. The "Wikipedians Against Censorship" project has been nominated for deletion by one of the admins doing the banning, apparently in retaliation for the censorship of the Berry article having been discussed there. Of course, all the banned people won't be able to vote on that, will they? 64.40.61.83 15:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Justin_Berry/Archive_1&oldid=43444433"