On Dec 24, 2007 1:30 PM, Alex Sawczynec <glasscobra15(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[[User:Moreschi]] and I argued about this on IRC just
yesterday; while he
argued that allowing pro-pedophilia userboxes would allow us to more easily
identify these people,
...Not if our response to people using them is insta-ban.
Earlier, Oldak Quill wrote:
"[P]aedophiles are banned from editing
Wikipedia" is quite
meaningless. Surely something like "those advertising themselves as
paedophiles are banned from editing Wikipedia" is more actionable? We
can't ban thought, only action.
The implied semantics of "...who we haven't caught yet" applies to any
number of miscreant categories, from pedophiles (in thought or action)
to banned trolls.
We don't have to say so explicitly. Nobody's going to laugh at us
because we state something we can't strictly enforce without reading
minds. A policy which rather clearly says "no" in no uncertain terms
with no wiggle room is a lot easier to state and enforce than one
which acknowledges the grey area.
The issue of researchers who aren't themselves pedophiles or activists
for it raises one slight concern, but really, we're an Encyclopedia
not a research foundation or journal. Those people probably have
already figured out how to discuss the issue in research terms without
causing people to believe that they're for it, because you have to do
that to talk about it academically without everyone around you
reacting with revulsion. If they can't make that abundantly clear on
Wikipedia then their credentials are somewhat suspect...
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com