George William Herbert wrote:
Wikipedia's strong culture of pseudonymity and
anonymity makes protecting
anyone, or detecting anyone, a nearly lost cause if they have any clue
and sense of privacy. Unlike real life, we can't make guarantees with
anything approaching a straight face.
However - there's a difference between being unable to effectively screen
people by real world standards, and not having a policy of acting when we
do detect something. One is acknowledging cultural and technical
reality - because of who and where we are, we couldn't possibly do better
than random luck at finding these people. The other is disregarding any
responsibility as a site and community to protect our younger members and
our community from harm, if we find out via whatever means.
Witch hunts looking for people don't seem helpful or productive to me.
But if they out themselves somewhere else and are noticed here, then
we're aware and on notice. The question is, entirely, what do we do
then.
Do we owe the underaged users a duty to protect them from known threats?
In my view, we're doing nothing of the sort (and constructing a false
sense of security by claiming otherwise).
I doubt that many pedophiles will seek to recruit victims via our
wikis, but if this occurs, these account bans are highly unlikely to
counter it to any significant extent.
Do we owe the project as a whole a duty to protect it
from disgrace by
association?
I see the potential for negative publicity stemming from the
perception that we seek to create the illusion of improved safety and
integrity.