http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adult-child_sex...
This AfD raises a number of interesting questions for Wikipedia -
* How does Wikipedia handle pedophilia related articles? Haphazardly, in a coordinated way, not at all?
* Is there a method for protecting editors from the sort of exposition that goes on at sites like Wikisposure.com?
* Can we reasonably expect an article like this that appears to be a POV-fork to become sufficiently referenced and erudite such that it isn't a magnet for pedophilia POV-warriors?
* In the past, self-identified pedophiles have been banned immediately based only on that identification. Now that they have learned to not self-out (as evidenced by some of the diffs linked to on the Wikisposure page) is there a 'next step' for dealing with tendentious editing on this issue?
* The Pedophilia Article Watch (might be messing up the name) is essentially a research group that seeks out and counters pro-pedophilia or seemingly pro-pedophilia articles and article edits (I think). This is obviously a POV-based project, but it represents a POV that I think few would disagree with. Still, what is the status of a project like this?
Interested to hear a spectrum of opinions about this,
Nathan
This is actually a very important issue, how should we handle these. Basically, the more trusted editors who have them on their watchlist and keep an eye on them, the better. NPOV is extremely import here. Sadly, NPOV can also be held against us in this case.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 21:58 -0500, Nathan wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adult-child_sex...
This AfD raises a number of interesting questions for Wikipedia -
- How does Wikipedia handle pedophilia related articles? Haphazardly,
in a coordinated way, not at all?
- Is there a method for protecting editors from the sort of exposition
that goes on at sites like Wikisposure.com?
- Can we reasonably expect an article like this that appears to be a
POV-fork to become sufficiently referenced and erudite such that it isn't a magnet for pedophilia POV-warriors?
- In the past, self-identified pedophiles have been banned immediately
based only on that identification. Now that they have learned to not self-out (as evidenced by some of the diffs linked to on the Wikisposure page) is there a 'next step' for dealing with tendentious editing on this issue?
- The Pedophilia Article Watch (might be messing up the name) is
essentially a research group that seeks out and counters pro-pedophilia or seemingly pro-pedophilia articles and article edits (I think). This is obviously a POV-based project, but it represents a POV that I think few would disagree with. Still, what is the status of a project like this?
Interested to hear a spectrum of opinions about this,
Nathan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
As to the Watch project, I would agree that it's POV. But Wikipedia has also taken a customary stance against pedophiles on the wiki, so it's a POV supported by the project at large, to my way of thinking. Considering the backlash on net over pedophiles on the wiki, contentious characters who do the job of countering pro-pedophilia bias is something that I think we just have to live with. They're not organized in any way, but there have been plenty of selected users who have obviously been out to advocate for pedophiles. In the best of interest of the encyclopedia, we have to fight that. I often wish some would be less fanatical about it though.
On Jan 19, 2008 7:08 PM, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
This is actually a very important issue, how should we handle these. Basically, the more trusted editors who have them on their watchlist and keep an eye on them, the better. NPOV is extremely import here. Sadly, NPOV can also be held against us in this case.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 21:58 -0500, Nathan wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adult-child_sex...
This AfD raises a number of interesting questions for Wikipedia -
- How does Wikipedia handle pedophilia related articles? Haphazardly,
in a coordinated way, not at all?
- Is there a method for protecting editors from the sort of exposition
that goes on at sites like Wikisposure.com?
- Can we reasonably expect an article like this that appears to be a
POV-fork to become sufficiently referenced and erudite such that it isn't a magnet for pedophilia POV-warriors?
- In the past, self-identified pedophiles have been banned immediately
based only on that identification. Now that they have learned to not self-out (as evidenced by some of the diffs linked to on the Wikisposure page) is there a 'next step' for dealing with tendentious editing on this issue?
- The Pedophilia Article Watch (might be messing up the name) is
essentially a research group that seeks out and counters pro-pedophilia or seemingly pro-pedophilia articles and article edits (I think). This is obviously a POV-based project, but it represents a POV that I think few would disagree with. Still, what is the status of a project like this?
Interested to hear a spectrum of opinions about this,
Nathan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 20/01/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
As to the Watch project, I would agree that it's POV. But Wikipedia has also taken a customary stance against pedophiles on the wiki, so it's a POV supported by the project at large, to my way of thinking. Considering the backlash on net over pedophiles on the wiki, contentious characters who do the job of countering pro-pedophilia bias is something that I think we just have to live with.
Not at all we banded the head of perverted justice. So far banning the more extreme members of both sides appears to be a reasonable approach.