[WikiEN-l] Peodophiles and wikipedia

[doc]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 
> Someone self-describing as a pedophile is a much less serious issue.
> It isn't really advocating it, it's just a statement of fact. I'm not
> really sure what's best in that situation.
> 
> _______________________________________________

If someone is self-describing - and particularly if they are doing it 
"loud and proud" on their userpage, there are really only two possibilities:

1) Most likely they are trolling. In which case, we ask them to desist 
from trolling. If they don't we show them the door, regardless of their 
own beliefs or inclinations. This is incredibly disruptive and trolling 
is intolerable.

2) Possibly they are what they say. In which case they are trying to 
present their inclinations as "normal" or "within the spectrum of 
legitimate wikipedian views". They are presenting them as no different 
from "user is a democrat" or "user is Spanish". Now, if that's not an 
attempt to promote or advocacy, I don't know what it. It may not be 
encouraging pedophilia, but it is certainly encouraging the acceptance 
of it. Semantics of "of they are referring to an inclination not an act" 
are silly - the disruptive effect is identical.

Bottom line is wikipedia isn't a free speech zone. It is a project to 
write an encyclopedia. Using that project to present something most 
people view as unacceptable as normal is a misuse of wikipedia and 
brings us into disrepute.

Ask yourself this: is the project best served by stamping hard on this 
activity, and losing a few trolls/advocates/"girl-lovers", or are we 
best taking a permissive line and losing goodwill, public relations, 
concerned parents who edit? Forget ethics and rights, and be pragmatic - 
what is least disruptive of our mission. You really want to wait till 
there's a "Wikipedophile" story in the New York Times: they link it with 
a negative spin on our Bomis roots and this will cost us dearly.

Ethics, of course, is the clincher for many of us. Children first - zero 
tolerance: but I'm happy to ally my ethics with those who agree for 
utilitarian, pragmatic, and positivist reasons.

No, is is fairly clear. We will not hound people for their personal 
beliefs, but disrupting the project in this way will not be tolerated.

Doc