As to the Watch project, I would agree that it's POV. But Wikipedia has also
taken a customary stance against pedophiles on the wiki, so it's a POV
supported by the project at large, to my way of thinking. Considering the
backlash on net over pedophiles on the wiki, contentious characters who do
the job of countering pro-pedophilia bias is something that I think we just
have to live with. They're not organized in any way, but there have been
plenty of selected users who have obviously been out to advocate for
pedophiles. In the best of interest of the encyclopedia, we have to fight
that. I often wish some would be less fanatical about it though.
On Jan 19, 2008 7:08 PM, Ian A Holton <poeloq(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This is actually a very important issue, how should we
handle these.
Basically, the more trusted editors who have them on their watchlist and
keep an eye on them, the better. NPOV is extremely import here. Sadly,
NPOV can also be held against us in this case.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 21:58 -0500, Nathan wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adult-child_se…
> This AfD raises a number of
interesting questions for Wikipedia -
> * How does Wikipedia handle
pedophilia related articles? Haphazardly,
> in a coordinated way, not at all?
> * Is there a method for protecting
editors from the sort of exposition
> that goes on at sites like Wikisposure.com?
> * Can we reasonably expect an article
like this that appears to be a
> POV-fork to become sufficiently referenced and erudite such that it
> isn't a magnet for pedophilia POV-warriors?
> * In the past, self-identified
pedophiles have been banned immediately
> based only on that identification. Now that they have learned to not
> self-out (as evidenced by some of the diffs linked to on the
> Wikisposure page) is there a 'next step' for dealing with tendentious
> editing on this issue?
> * The Pedophilia Article Watch (might
be messing up the name) is
> essentially a research group that seeks out and counters
> pro-pedophilia or seemingly pro-pedophilia articles and article edits
> (I think). This is obviously a POV-based project, but it represents a
> POV that I think few would disagree with. Still, what is the status of
> a project like this?
> Interested to hear a spectrum of
opinions about this,
> Nathan
>
_______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l