Talk:Justin Berry/Archive 1

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)

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)

Possible references

• "Through His Webcam, A Boy Joins A Sordid Online World" - The New York Times (December 19, 2005)
• "NY Times Internet Documentary" - The New York Times (December 19, 2005)
• "The New York Times Legal Aid Society" - Slate Magazine
• "KurtEichenwald.com: The Back Story" - Slate Magazine
• "A Heartbreaker From Eichenwald And The Times" - CBS News
• Justin's Amazon.com Wishlist.

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)

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)

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)