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?