[WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

[Mark Gallagher]

G'day Ben,

> Katefan0 wrote:
> 
>>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.
> 
> I feel like we're repeating the McCarthy era, only instead of
> Communists, this time it's pedophiles.  Where exactly are these alleged

I assume you're American.  Only an American (or a very radical non-) 
could consider a comparison of Communists and paedophiles to be appropriate.

Why is it, anyway, that you're upset at what Katefan0 had to say?  It is 
a fact that paedophiles have POV-pushed on certain articles (such as the 
three she pointed out above).  This doesn't mean you're a dupe for 
standing up for them in relation to a different article, so you have no 
need to be offended by Katefan0.

Er, that is to say, *I* think you're a silly sausage, but Katefan0 never 
even implied it, so get off her back, sort of thing.

> pedophiles?  I've heard a lot of accusations of pedophilia being thrown
> about (even by Jimbo, which is most unfortunate), but I haven't really
> seen any actual evidence of pedophilia, just people pointing at the
> anti-censorship types and yelling "PEDOPHILES!!"  Do you have any

Now, now.  Some of us have been pointing to the anti-censorship types 
and saying "why the hell are you in league with the paedophiles?" which 
is, I'm sure you'll agree, not nearly so bad ...

As for who the paedophiles on Wikipedia is ... have you *read* the 
articles Katefan0 points out?  There's a number of self-declared 
paedophiles on Wikipedia, who (surprise, surprise) spend a lot of their 
time editing articles about sickos to say "we're not sickos really, it's 
the government that's sick!".  Granted, there's not as many paedos as, 
say, Communists (tee hee), but then Commies who go out of their way to 
POV-push ("we're not sickos really, it's the Capitalists who're sick!") 
tend to wind up before ArbCom, in my experience.

The only example of an open paedophile editing Wikipedia who springs to 
mind is User:Silent War, but he's far from being the only one.  There 
*are* paedophiles on Wikipedia, they *do* POV-push, and you've got no 
need to deny it simply because you're involved in a debate unrelated to 
Childlove movement or any of the other  articles mentioned.

> specific evidence of pedophiles trying to co-opt Wikipedia for "mass
> grooming" or whatever?

I don't have any evidence, and neither does anyone else ... fortunately, 
nobody here has actually tried to assert that this is happening (see 
also: silly sausages).  It's a bloody scary thought, though, innit?


-- 
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/301 - Release Date: 4/04/2006