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.
Absolutely right. Wikipedia is, when you get right down to it, just an informational website. We aren't here to be a platform for *anyone*, much less pedophiles.
Preserving the sanctity of the project demands banning self-identified pedophiles, as has happened many times in the past. For those who might protest that pedophiles have a right to voice their feelings, there are plenty of other online forums for them to do so. Wikipedia is not one of those. This is no different than Jimbo banning that little cadre of neo-nazis a while back.
On Dec 24, 2007 7:58 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 24/12/2007, G MZ solebaciato@googlemail.com wrote:
I completely agree with at policy, but wonder if it is well enough known. Perhaps it ought to be more publicised. A month or so ago I came across a suspect User (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roman_Czyborra) whose User page photograph of himself was a "seemingly" adolescent boy full frontal (anyone who is the father of sons would know instantly) but it still took a couple of weeks to get the image deleted - and then only after the user showed his true colours and was banned. That is not good enough really. I do think the message has to be stronger and more visible. Not to a state of witch-hunt but certainly so we all know when to be decisive and fast to respond.
That's another issue entirely. Any such image where we can't be reasonably sure the person is over 18 should be immediately deleted. If that's not on CSD, it needs to be added.
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.
There are all sorts of permutations and possibilities, including serious scholarship, which it is possible to misinterpret as advocacy. Not sure describes my reaction as well, but we've been blocking the more egregious editors and deleting much of what seems to be advocacy. Children, or apparent children, possibly law enforcement, who present a sexual persona are a special case. There is no need to go through an involved process to delete such material or block such accounts. Explicit detailed discussions are likely to defeat our purpose, which could simply be expressed as "No".
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l