Beyond this image, there are lots of problems with pedophilia-related
articles.
I don't think that most of the censorship stalwarts in the Lolicon debate
were pedophiles, but it's certain that there are pedophiles fighting for
certain things to be included in articles like [[NAMBLA]], [[Childlove
movement]], [[Curley v. NAMBLA]], etc. An infusion of experienced, neutral
editors into fights over articles like these would be appreciated.
k
On 4/4/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/4/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
It's not a matter of being a "pedophile". I find the image
interesting and appealing (even humorous). However I am well aware
that it is not wise to share this perspective with a 12 year old
girl. It is fundamental reality that a substantial part of our
readership is in the junior high school range. I know from my own
experience that I seldom consulted an encyclopedia after I was about
13. There is a saying, "You take your victim as you find them" We
need to be aware and responsible.
The thought of pedophiles using Wikipedia for mass grooming is...
disturbing, to say the least. I don't think we need to be set off into a
mass panic or a witch-hunt, but it does give me that "brrrr" sensation.
Ryan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l