On 3/14/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
*I* wouldn't believe the article because of its author. There's more to accuracy than just citing sources. Pedophiles can probably write as good an article about mathematics, psychology, anatomy, politics, history or theology, but when it comes to articles about the exploitation of minors I would be as likely to give an article by a pedophile as much credit as I'd give to an article about global warming written by a road lobbyist.
The only thing you're going to accomplish is that said pedophiles will continue to edit the article without admitting that they are pedophiles. What deters most people from violating the rules - the risk of losing a reputation - does not exist for them. They are already the single most hated group in society, what do they have to lose? So they will simply create a new identity and edit again.
At least when they identify as pedophiles, we know that we have to watch out for their bias. So the question is: What do you care more about? That some media outlet doesn't pick up the fact that "tHERE ARE PEDOPHiles IN WIKIPEDIA oHM YGOD!!" or that our articles are neutral and well-sourced? If it's the former, you're making the typical mistake of thinking that hiding something will make it go away, only to have it blow up in your face when you don't expect it. If it's the latter, forcing people to hide their convictions is not a good way to go about it, no matter how despicable you may find them.
Moral panic should not be a force of policy. The outcome is either arbitrary or a terrible precedent (e.g. should Mormons then be banned from editing LDS articles?). That WP:OFFICE is already leading to such outcomes is worrying.
Erik