Dronebogus

[RetroidHooman]

I've been thinking about this issue for years and recently began writing essays about it.

Have you published any of these essays, like in a substack or blog or something? I'm interested in reading them.

[Philomath]

I have not, although I intend to. I'm in touch with a couple of publications that are interested in this topic. One of them said they wanted to "help me take down Wikipedia" , so that's encouraging. If anything I write gets published, I will post it on this forum.

As for self-publishing, I haven' done this, but I should. I've only recently begun to write down my thoughts on Wikipedia, after years of thinking about it, so some of my prose is overly dense. Having my work read and critiqued would be very healthy.

I did recently write a draft article, intended for a general reader with no knowledge of Wikipedia's inner workings. It explores the absolutely Orwellian Wikipedia slogan "verifiability is truth", and it addresses the following 4 questions:

1) Why does Wikipedia matter?
2) What has happened to Wikipedia?
3) Why is this happening?
4) What can be done?

It is intended as the introduction to a longer series of essays, which will aim to recruit concerned citizens to places like this forum, as well as to Wikipedia itself.

I'm trying to attach it here, so that you may read it if you're interested. However, it doesn't look like I can attach a PDF or Word document. Mods - what's the best way to share the essay?

[Bbb23sucks]

I have not, although I intend to. I'm in touch with a couple of publications that are interested in this topic. One of them said they wanted to "help me take down Wikipedia" , so that's encouraging. If anything I write gets published, I will post it on this forum.

The user Ognistysztorm on this forum has also been attempting similar things, you should contact him and maybe you two could work together.

I'm trying to attach it here, so that you may read it if you're interested. However, it doesn't look like I can attach a PDF or Word document. Mods - what's the best way to share the essay?

I don't know. Could you send me a link and I'll take a look at it?

[Philomath]

Ah, I realized that I could simply "publish" the essay from Google Docs, and thereby create a link. Here it is:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2P ... zAHzfu/pub

Note - this article is a rough draft of an article I'm working on for submission to the Grayzone, so there are references to the outlet in the piece. The article about that outlet is one of the most egregiously biased articles about modern politics, so much so that Larry Sanger and Glenn Greenwald mentioned it in a podcast the other day.

[Bbb23sucks]

Ah, I realized that I could simply "publish" the essay from Google Docs, and thereby create a link. Here it is:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2P ... zAHzfu/pub

Formatted for this forum:

Wikipedia is the world’s most influential psyop. Here’s a broad overview of how it works and what you can do about it.

By Susokukan

Wikipedia is the most widely-disseminated medium of government and corporate propaganda in human history. It is, in my view, one of the most dangerous threats to freedom of thought, and it is also one of the least discussed. In this article, I will pose, and try to answer the following four questions: Why does Wikipedia matter? What, exactly, has happened to Wikipedia? Why has this happened? And what can be done about it?

Why does Wikipedia matter?

Wikipedia is, as of July 2023, the 7th most visited website on Earth. It is more popular than even Amazon, TikTok, or PornHub. According to the Wikimedia Foundation’s data, the English Wikipedia alone receives over 10 billion pageviews per month, from 1.7 billion unique devices.

Incredible numbers of people turn to Wikipedia every day as a source of reliable information about the world around us. Including information about current events and hotly-contested political matters.

Although not explicitly designed as a news outlet or a source of information about the modern political landscape, Wikipedia towers over all others in this regard, as well. No legacy media outlet comes anywhere close to the readership and influence of Wikipedia. Its reach vastly exceeds even the most prominent new media figures, like Joe Rogan.

Another thing that makes Wikipedia important is its promotion by Big Tech companies. Alphabet’s Google includes a Wikipedia article in the first page of practically every search. Google’s YouTube has, for several years, included “infoboxes” below videos about controversial topics, often linking to Wikipedia articles about things like COVID-19, January 6th, and the war in Ukraine. Amazon’s popular product Alexa, when asked about a topic, will often read verbatim from Wikipedia. The largest corporations in the world are funneling their users to Wikipedia and encouraging them to view Wikipedia as a neutral source of true information.

So, Wikipedia is molding our collective sense of “truth”, with the aid of Alphabet, Amazon, and a host of other large corporations. Decisions about what this “truth” will consist of are made by small groups of highly-motivated and highly-opinionated anonymous individuals with opaque motives. This is why Wikipedia matters and why we should care about what is happening there.

What is happening to Wikipedia?

Wikipedia has become a powerful and efficient tool of mind control that is beyond anything Aldous Huxley or George Orwell could have imagined. While most articles about innocuous things like TV shows, sports, and the weather are reasonably encyclopedic, articles about anything even remotely controversial are jarringly different. They read, not like encyclopedia articles, but like carefully constructed aggregations of pro-establishment propaganda. Look no further than the Wikipedia article about this outlet, The Grayzone, although there are many hundreds of similar case studies. No reasonable person attempting to be neutral, objective, and encyclopedic would write an article like The Grayzone’s Wikipedia article as it exists in August 2023. It is an article that could only be written by someone with disdain for the subject - or so it appears. How could a crowd-sourced wiki accessible to anybody end up producing such bizarre content?

Here is the important point: Wikipedia articles about contentious political topics read like propaganda on purpose.They are not this way by accident, but by careful design. Why is this happening? Let’s dig deeper.

Why is it happening?

There are three main reasons this is happening: Wikipedia’s policies, Wikipedia’s internal culture, and malign outside influence. Let’s explore each of these three causes in some detail.

Policies

Wikipedia’s policies have come to be interpreted in such a way that they can be selectively applied and selectively enforced by administrators and veteran editors to justify any outcome.

One of Wikipedia’s core policies is “neutral point of view”, or NPOV. As Wikipedia defines it this means “...representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic”. However, a multitude of slogans and informal but widely-disseminated essay written by veteran editors render NPOV obsolete. As Wikipedia’s co-founder Larry Sanger says, “Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View is dead. The original policy long since forgotten, Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality policy.”

Here’s just one example. On the NPOV page, Wikipedia editors are counseled to “avoid stating opinions as facts”, and also to “avoid stating facts as opinions”. In order to do this, we need an epistemology - an agreed-upon way of distinguishing between facts and opinions”. How do Wikipedia editors solve this dilemma?

Wikipedia’s administrative bureaucracy and “intelligentsia” has, unbeknownst to the vast majority of readers, created an entirely new epistemology - a new, previously unknown method for determining what is true.

When most people read something on Wikipedia, they assume that it is “true”. And it is - except that on Wikipedia, “truth” has been redefined to mean something unrelated to normal concepts of truth. Once one understands this clearly, and sees what it implies, the frightening magnitude of the Wikipedia problem becomes evident.

For a claim to be stated as a “fact” on Wikipedia, it need only meet one condition: it must be verifiable that the claim was stated as fact in a “reliable source”. What is a reliable source?

Wikipedia offers a list of commonly discussed sources, which it calls “perennial sources”. This list of sources, rated by editors themselves, is worth careful scrutiny. There is a strong preference for left-of-center, pro-establishment news generated by western governments and large corporations. Among the most highly regarded sources are corporations such as ABC and CNN, and newspapers like The Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Huffington Post. Also given a glowing rating for trustworthiness are Western state-funded media like the BBC, Deutsche Welle, and NPR, and US-funded CIA cutouts like Bellingcat, Coda Story, and Radio Free Asia.

Among the sources deemed least reliable, we find, essentially, every popular “conservative” source of information, as well as virtually any source that wavers from the pro-establishment “mainstream” narrative. “Generally unreliable sources'' include Breitbart, The Daily Wire, Sky News Australia, Fox News, The New York Post, The Grayzone, Democracy Now, and many others.

Also dismissed is any state-funded outlet that is not consistently aligned with Western interests, such as RT. Note that at the perennial sources list on Wikipedia, the BBC is referred to as “publicly funded broadcaster”, Deutsche Welle is a “state-owned international broadcast” and NPR is not even noted as having government connections, while RT is described as “a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation”.

The most scorned outlets, so-called “deprecated” sources, cannot be cited in any Wikipedia article under any circumstances. Even attempting to do so may result in disciplinary action, or a stern warning to stay in line, at the very least. The Grayzone is among the list of “deprecated” sources, based on vague insinuations that the Grayzone publishes “false or fabricated information”.

Also note - YouTube videos, podcasts, blogs, and practically every other non-legacy form of media are defined en masse as unreliable. This means the entire new media ecosystem is shrugged out of existence on the website that was created to document the sum total of human thought. Exceptions are made, of course, for videos released by the likes of CNN. Those are considered “as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability”. Individuals and non-corporate news entities are defined as unreliable sources of information. The only way to be “reliable” is to be a part of the pro-establishment corporate press.
So, now that we know what “reliable sources” are, let’s turn back to Wikipedia’s internal epistemology. As stated previously, for something to be a “fact” on Wikipedia, it just has to have been stated in a declarative sentence in a “reliable source”. Keep in mind that for something to be a “Wikipedia fact”, it does not have to actually be a fact. It’s not even required that “Wikipedia facts'' have anything whatsoever to do with empirical reality. They need only be “verified” as having been issued by a “reliable” source.

Ambitious up-and-coming Wikipedia worker drones soon come to accept the contradiction that something can be objectively false, but a “Wikipedia fact”. Even more skilled and subtle Wikipedians come to see that, outside what has been proclaimed by “reliable sources”, there is no objective reality we can talk about, so the appearance of a contradiction is merely an illusion.

This leads to the following maxim, the essential core of Wiki-epistemology, which has been restated and circulated by influential editors:

“Verifiability is truth.”

In other words: if you can verify that a “reliable source” said something, you can then restate that thing as fact on Wikipedia.
No matter how meritorious, dubious, or opinionated a claim might be on its face - if the pro-establishment center-left, resistance-liberal media utters it without explicitly calling it an “opinion”, it becomes truth. Let me repeat that. In prevailing Wikipedia culture, any declarative sentence published by the mainstream corporate press is not figuratively, but literally a “fact” because it was uttered by the mainstream corporate press. And the more media outlets that echo a claim, the truer it becomes, regardless of the claim’s actual epistemic status, simply because the claim has become more “verifiable”.

I’ll drive this point home with a silly but illustrative example. If I were wealthy and influential, and I paid 15 writers in the corporate press to declaratively state in their articles “Joe Biden is demented”, Wikipedia policy would dictate that, since it can now be verified that reliable sources describe Joe Biden as demented, editors must, with a straight face and without reservation, edit Joe Biden’s Wikipedia page to describe him, factually, as demented. It is not enough to say, “Joe Biden has been characterized as demented by some media figures.” No - that is an attempt at “whitewashing the facts”. We must say that Joe Biden is demented. He may or may not have been demented before the mainstream press declared it to be so, but it has become the truth, because Wikipedia editors can “verify” that many corporate journalists have said so. Because verifiability is truth.

Of course, since the opinion that Joe Biden is cognitively compromised runs counter to the pro-establishment resistance liberal narrative, editors would almost certainly find some loophole to avoid this, probably by simply agreeing by consensus to ignore their epistemology’s implications “this time”, but the logic of “verifiability is truth” is rigorously and passionately applied whenever the mainstream press frames an issue in a way that’s in harmony with the worldview of the the administrative bureaucracy and their community of NPCs.

The “verifiability is truth” model has staggering, unbelievably problematic implications.

With these three words, we’ve completely discarded the normal distinction between truth and falsehood & opinion and fact, and also dispensed with the concept of an objective reality that exists independently of our observations.
Combine this with the fact that Wikipedia culture generally considers a reliable source’s claim as an “opinion” only if it is within a specifically-labeled opinion piece. That means that any declarative sentence in a Wikipedia-endorsed source is a factual statement, by definition. Without the “reliable sources”, there is no objective reality. There is no way of discerning fact from opinion, other than trusting what the establishment media tells you. This is the stuff of Big Brother’s dreams.

Another problem with the “verifiability is truth” model is that it’s predicated on the assumption that propaganda and smear campaigns do not appear in mainstream English-language media. In a world where “verifiability is truth”, government and corporate narratives will always drown out those who are skeptical of government and corporate power, simply because the pro-establishment narratives are proclaimed (or implied) prominently and incessantly in the mainstream press.

Yet another absurdity arises when we consider that, by the “verifiability is truth” model, a smear campaign pursued by the establishment press is nearly the pinnacle of truth, approaching the heavenly heights of pure mathematics and scientific theory, because when 10 mainstream media outlets repeat the same talking points, and no mainstream media outlets go out of their way to provide a counter-narrative, they become more and more verifiable, and therefore, truer and truer in Wikipedia terms.

Ask any probing questions about this, and you will be given a curt directive to “look at policy XYZ”. It is assumed that you don’t know any better, and simply naive, but surely, once you read the policies, everything will make sense. Question these underlying policies more deeply, constructively and in good faith, and someone, usually multiple people, will sternly warn you to knock it off. This speaks to the culture among Wikipedia editors.

Culture

There is an entrenched “Wikipedia culture”, consisting of, at most, a couple thousand administrators and long-time editors. I call this the “administrative class” of Wikipedia. Some of these people have known each other for 10, 15, or 20 years. These “insiders” will always give preferential treatment to each other, and seeing one of these insiders chastised for breaking the code of conduct is about as common as seeing a corrupt cop getting arrested by his co-workers.

The members of this administrative class are remarkably similar to one another. Most of them share a worldview, which could be summarized as “pro-establishment resistance liberalism”. Popular views include “Black lives matter, trans women are women, Donald Trump is a criminal who conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 election, Ukraine urgently needs more U.S. military support, and anyone who disagrees with any of the above should keep quiet or be deplatformed”. Of course, not every editor would subscribe to every word of this, but this gets to the heart of the ethos among veteran editors and administrators that control much of Wikipedia.

They are, on average, the personification of the obnoxious phrase “remember, reality has a well-known liberal bias”. They are not liberals or leftists in the traditional sense, but a new creation, a unique product of the post-Trump era - enthusiastically in favor of limiting the realm of “acceptable” discourse by censorship or, more commonly, by mocking and name-calling anyone who challenges the Overton window. They are the type of liberals who, if you critique their worldview from the left, will call you a “right-winger” or, if they find you exceptionally annoying, a “far-right extremist”. Their ideology is akin to a combination of neoliberalism, neoconservatism, fascism, and cultural leftism (i.e. “woke ideology), with a sprinkling of vague nods towards socialism.

Of course, they would be aghast at the suggestion that they support censorship - in their minds, they sincerely oppose censorship. They merely promote “reliable” information while protecting people from “unreliable” information. Who would be against that, except people who want to spread unreliable information? Of course, by chance, all of the “reliable” information happens to confirm their worldview, and all of the information that contradicts their worldview just so happens to be “unreliable”.

These are people who hubristically, but sincerely, believe that their opinions (which they have received directly from mainstream, pro-establishment media) are not opinions, but empirical facts. They believe this, not because they are evil, but because they are incurious, and they’ve never encountered a reason to doubt their presuppositions. They are NPCs; useful worker drones who would never even consider making an edit that The Party would dislike.

As T.J. Coles puts it, “This principle applies to Wikipedia: set the overarching “values” and its contributors-mainly young, white, middle-class liberals-will reflect those “values”. They include progressive slogans but reactionary policies, humanitarianism but pro-war positions, and conformity to consensus opinion even when the consensus is wrong (e.g., “regime change” in Libya and Syria.)”

Outside influence

In 2007, Virgil Griffith developed and introduced a tool he called “WikiScanner”. In basic terms, this de-anonymized certain types of Wikipedia edits, allowing one to discover who controls the IP address used to make the edits. What this uncovered was that, over 15 years ago, the CIA, FBI, and numerous corporations were editing Wikipedia to advance their interests.

According to an ABC News Australia report at the time, “The Wikiscanner site shows the CIA has edited entries on many issues relating to the United States Government, including presidential biographies and descriptions of military operations. It has also edited topics as diverse as Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and the singer Richard Marx”.

Many of these edits by government agencies and corporations were crude - sometimes, they simply removed unflattering content, and were consequently flagged as vandalism and reverted. This was not an effective strategy. Of course, one would have to be naive beyond belief to think that the CIA’s interest in Wikipedia was fleeting. It can be safely assumed as a given that the CIA, FBI and other government agencies have significantly increased their activity on Wikipedia, both through anonymous edits and through the use of accounts with usernames.

WikiScanner had one major shortcoming - it could only trace anonymous editors editing with an IP address - it could not trace the origin of edits by users with usernames.

What are the odds that the CIA and other powerful interests have infiltrated Wikipedia by creating user accounts and building respect and credibility within the website’s community? While direct evidence for this is difficult to establish, I postulate that the odds are 100%. Some of the most influential and respected editors on Wikipedia, especially those intimately involved with shaping the current policy landscape, are almost certainly connected to large outside players in some way. This is self-evident.

Unfortunately, WikiScanner, and the entire smorgasbord of tools Griffith developed and called “WikiWatcher”, are no longer available.
Of course, the CIA’s influence over Wikipedia runs even deeper, since the “reliable sources” used to generate Wikipedia’s content are almost certainly, in whole or in part, controlled by the CIA. If Operation Mockingbird compromised 400 news writers in the late 1960s and early 1970s, how many are compromised in 2023? Unless one takes the absurd view that the CIA has lost interest in influencing U.S. public opinion, we must assume that the number is much higher than it was a half-century ago.
And we have not even addressed the topic of funding. Wikipedia’s domain is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). The WMF had only 5 paid employees in 2006. But per Wikipedia’s own article on the WMF: “The Foundation has grown rapidly throughout its existence. By 2022, it employed around 700 staff and contractors, with annual revenues of $155 million, annual expenses of $146 million, net assets of $240 million and a growing endowment, which surpassed $100 million in June 2021.”

Given that Wikipedia is free to use, with no advertisements or subscription offerings, one might wonder how, exactly, the WMF generates over $150 million in annual revenues and has accumulated almost a quarter of a billion dollars in the bank. One might even question why it’s necessary to spend $146 million dollars a year to run Wikipedia. Where does this money come from?

According to the Wikimedia Foundation’s website, benefactors of at least $1,000 include American Express, Apple, AT&T, BAE Systems, BlackRock, Boeing, BP, Chevron, Coca-Cola, Deutsche Bank, Google, the IMF, JPMorgan Chase, Pfizer, UnitedHealthcare, and Verizon. This is just a small sample.

This does not include the donors to the shadowy $100m+ WMF endowment, which includes $5+ million from Amazon, $2+ million from Google and George Soros, and $1+ million from Craig Newmarth, the founder of Craigslist, who has dedicated tens of millions of dollars to combating supposed “misinformation” and “fake news”.

It’s possible that the leaders of BlackRock, Google, the International Monetary Fund, Pfizer etc. have sent enormous sums of money to Wikipedia to experience the joy of selfless giving. It’s much more likely that these donors see their donations as investments - investments that will surely yield returns. What do these entities receive in return for their donations?

The influence exerted by donors on the WMF, and the WMF’s subsequent influence over Wikipedia’s policies and culture is subtle and complex. An article can, and should, be devoted to this topic alone.

In short, Wikipedia is controlled by the WMF, which is controlled by its aforementioned donors. Wikipedia acknowledges as “reliable” those sources which tend to align with the worldview and interests of these donors. Whatever is uttered by these sources is considered verifiable, and therefore true, per Wikipedia’s carefully crafted policies. This status quo is maintained by an administrative bureaucracy numbering several hundred individuals, and the norms are enforced by several thousand highly-motivated NPCs who do not engage in critical thinking outside of the Overton window.

What can be done about it?

There is a lot of talk in some parts of the United States of an impending ‘civil war’. However, I argue that the civil war has already begun. It is not primarily fought at the physical level, with guns and tanks used to gain control of land. Instead, the new civil war is waged at the administrative level, in boardrooms and on email chains, with memos, regulations, and bureaucratic procedures, and the battles are fought to gain control of institutions.

You and I, and our children, will be deeply affected by the outcome of these battles. However, we are barred from participating in most of them. We cannot easily influence the policies of Meta, CNN, or the United Nations. However, Wikipedia is different. Right now, you are just a few clicks away from the front lines of battle. More and more dissenting voices are raising concerns on the platform, and heated policy debates are underway on an hour-by-hour basis. Each person reading this can become an equal participant in these debates - debates that are reflected in the articles read by billions of people each month.

Wikipedia is one of the most important institutions that exists in the English-speaking world, and the battlefield for its control is fierce and unforgiving, playing out on obscure noticeboards and talk pages 24/7. However, unlike a debate in the New York Times newsroom, or behind closed doors at Davos, every person reading this can join Wikipedia and enjoy almost unlimited editing privileges.

What I call for is not a war on Wikipedia, but a war for Wikipedia - a carefully-conceived and implemented plan to undermine the current administrative bureaucracy of Wikipedia with the goal of eventually rendering it powerless and allowing Wikipedia to return to its original mission of allowing all human beings to work together in harmony to present the sum total of human knowledge, discovery, and thought, neutrally and without overt political bias. If Wikipedia returns to these principles, it can contribute immensely to the cause of human freedom.

The first battle in this war is to break the manufactured consensus surrounding “reliable sources” The “verifiability is truth” model must be brought under such intense and unrelenting scrutiny that it withers away and dies. Every blacklisted source, and every so-called “reliable source”, must be analyzed anew. The idea of “reliable sources” must be reconsidered from the bottom-up, to build in safeguards against propaganda and accommodate the revolution of new alternative media, such as YouTube, Rumble, podcasts, and outlets like this one.

This will not be an easy task, but it is one of the most important fronts of the institutional civil war that is currently underway. By engaging in this struggle, you can be a revolutionary on the cutting-edge of the fight against the totalitarian impulses of the 21st century. You can help undermine the Matrix. This is a worthy cause if there ever was one. Read our next article on Wikipedia to learn 10 steps you can take to effectively participate in this struggle.

For more information about how to fight the propaganda machine on Wikipedia, you may contact the author at FightForWikipedia@protonmail.com

[Ognistysztorm]

Sure, I'll write you a PM.

There are two scandals I and some know of which could bring an end to Wikipedia as a reputable website if they are published. Besides even if you and like-minded folks took back Wikipedia through the ways you described, that will ironically accelerate the downfall of Wikipedia since not too long ago there was a Holocaust distortion scandal. They will use it to accuse Wikipedia has a right wing bias and by then, Wikipedia is no match to the powerful machines that will be used.

A major problem facing Wikipedia critics nowadays is that the wider world views them as too associated with the political fringes, for both good and spurious reasons. In most cases the outspoken critics are on political fringes while those at the mainstream who got wronged by Wikipedia gets drowned out by voice so has to simply keep their heads down. The exposure of the Holocaust distortion offers some hopes that the stereotype will be broken which is going to help immensely to our cause.

[Bbb23sucks]

Formatted for this forum:

Wikipedia is the world’s most influential psyop. Here’s a broad overview of how it works and what you can do about it.

Looks okay to me. BTW, it is not "Craig Newmarth", it's Newmark.

Which reminds me: his Wikipedia bio looks like something fans of a J-pop singer would have written. Freakshow.

Newmark describes himself as a non-practicing, secular Jew, joking that his rabbi was the late singer Leonard Cohen.[42] He is also a fan of Tori Amos, Lou Reed,[42] and the TV shows Pushing Daisies and The Simpsons.[43]

[Bbb23sucks]

I thought this was pretty funny: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _novel.png

This is also hilarious: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Comm ... n_Nude.png

You know it's bad when Beeb makes a good point:

You're basically making your own child porn. You should probably stop talking now. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, this is being discussed on WPO's private forum: https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 67#p315367

[Philomath]

Hahaha! That is funny! I was just in a grumpy mood after reading about Paul Lee, but this cheered me up. Apparently Dronebogus occasionally disconnects from the NPC program to draw & submit homemade child pornography at Wikimedia Commons. Nice. Why am I not surprised?

I also enjoy his defense, which appears to be "well, yeah, so I drew sexually suggestive nude pictures of a child...but I was imagining the child as an adult, I swear!" ...OK buddy.

[Bbb23sucks]

Hahaha! That is funny! I was just in a grumpy mood after reading about Paul Lee, but this cheered me up. Apparently Dronebogus occasionally disconnects from the NPC program to draw & submit homemade child pornography at Wikimedia Commons. Nice. Why am I not surprised?

I also enjoy his defense, which appears to be "well, yeah, so I drew sexually suggestive nude pictures of a child...but I was imagining the child as an adult, I swear!" ...OK buddy.

It goes a whole lot deeper:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Comm ... Dronebogus
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User:Dronebogus
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.p ... =691337028
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User ... Wikipe-tan
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... ex_new.png
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User ... ember_2022