On 2/7/06, uninvited(a)nerstrand.net <uninvited(a)nerstrand.net> wrote:
c.f.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_…
Our actions have real-world consequences. Wikipedia is no longer a
closed society where we may make our rules and policies as we please.
Instead we are a prominent web site in a larger world that imposes
standards of behavior and conduct rather more stringent than
Wikipedia's own. When we have a lapse in judgement, we put "an
encyclopedia that anyone can edit" at risk. Our ability to live up to
"your changes will be visible immediately" without interference from
the courts, the government, the press, and other powerful institutions
depends increasingly upon our ability to demonstrate that we can
conduct our affairs responsibly. Responsible websites don't joke around
about pedophilia; they shut down any discussion that has the least hint
of a solicitation for sex with minors. A user who places a userbox
reading "this user is a pedophile" might be seen by some as soliciting
minors. We can't take the risk.
Too late:
http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article=11
Somehow I doubt we will see a change in US law just because of one userbox.
I applaud Jimbo's actions in dealing with this
matter decisively and in
desysopping a few people who clearly lack the judgement to be
administrators at Wikipedia.
Decisively? No. This isn't over.
Wake up and smell the coffee, everyone. With our new
Alexa rating,
we've had our very own September That Never Ended, and the rules have
changed.
Yes it would appear we are more worried about PR than doing the right
thing. You had better go and delete our [[Race and intelligence]]
article before the media find out about that. Or what if the media
start asking questions about the [[Autofellatio_2.jpg]] image?
--
geni