From: Conrad Dunkerson conrad.dunkerson@worldnet.att.net Reply-To: conrad.dunkerson@worldnet.att.net, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:29:33 -0500 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] No more blocking people for who they *are*?
W. Guy Finley wrote:
Umm, no. Some things just aren't funny -- try going into an airport and joking about having a bomb and see how far your "I was just joking!" excuse gets while you're being cuffed and hauled to jail. "Joking" that you are a pedophile is no different in my mind.
Joking about having a bomb in an airport or actually having one is illegal. Joking about being a pedophile or actually being one is not.
Still no difference in your mind?
No. Molesting children is a crime. Let me guess, the next splitting hair argument of "well he's a child so being attracted to children is okay". "Pedophile" in common usage is a pejorative term.
Bomb 'jokes' are illegal because they create a risk of panic which could lead to injuries. Ditto shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater unless it actually is on fire. Likewise verbal plans or exhortations to commit criminal acts. Everything else is 'free speech' and allowed in most countries.
That's right, and I'm certain having people who claim to be pedophiles as contributors isn't going to cause any panic on the part of people or fear of risk of exposure to an environment where molesting children is condoned, and people are encouraged to put such ridiculous statements on their user pages. Lovely.
If we want to be TECHNICAL then Wikipedia allowing people to say 'I am a heterosexual' but not 'I am a pedophile' (or 'I am a homosexual'... as some of the anti-pedophile crowd were also advocating banning) is discriminatory under US law. Ditto allowing 'I am a Christian' but not 'I am a Satanist'. Since we aren't getting government funding or paying people to work on the encyclopedia we're actually allowed to discriminate, but don't expect it to be universally popular.
Hence my statement that this whole userbox fiasco continues to spin out of control where no common sense can be used or a line drawn because removing blatantly obvious and ridiculous boxes like these and blocking those who create or use them is seen as somehow clamping down on free speech. Wonderful. Can't wait for "This user rapes women" and "This user bombs Israeli markets" to make their appearance. Those will certainly be good for a chuckle and good guffaw and a group of folks who will snicker at just how unbelievably clever they are while this project continues to be sullied with their nonsense.
--Guy (User:Wgfinley)
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of W. Guy Finley
Umm, no. Some things just aren't funny -- try going into
an airport
and joking about having a bomb and see how far your "I was just joking!" excuse gets while you're being cuffed and hauled
to jail.
"Joking" that you are a pedophile is no different in my mind.
Joking about having a bomb in an airport or actually having one is illegal. Joking about being a pedophile or actually being
one is not.
Still no difference in your mind?
No. Molesting children is a crime.
Sure. But saying you are a paedophile isn't. It might be stupid, but last time I looked, stupidity wasn't a crime and the world is full of such people slowly driving in the fast lane and getting in the way at revolving doors.
Let me guess, the next splitting hair argument of "well he's a child so being attracted to children is okay". "Pedophile" in common usage is a pejorative term.
You say this with the benefit of your advanced years. The world may seem very different to a sixteen year old. Cut the lad some slack. I don't see too many people saying he did the right or bright thing, but he seems to have reacted promptly to criticism and removed the userbox.
What more should we ask? Maturity, maybe? Should we have a minimum age limit for editing? How do we enforce that?
Peter (Skyring)
I'd like to quickly butt in to point out that I'm 14 and totally not happy with the pedophile thing.
Yes, we should require maturity. In older times, the encyclopedists were the finest academics of all time.
Why not cut vandals some slack? I mean they don't know that adding a penis to an article is harming a reputable resource. They think it's fun. So why ban them?
On 2/7/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of W. Guy Finley
Umm, no. Some things just aren't funny -- try going into
an airport
and joking about having a bomb and see how far your "I was just joking!" excuse gets while you're being cuffed and hauled
to jail.
"Joking" that you are a pedophile is no different in my mind.
Joking about having a bomb in an airport or actually having one is illegal. Joking about being a pedophile or actually being
one is not.
Still no difference in your mind?
No. Molesting children is a crime.
Sure. But saying you are a paedophile isn't. It might be stupid, but last time I looked, stupidity wasn't a crime and the world is full of such people slowly driving in the fast lane and getting in the way at revolving doors.
Let me guess, the next splitting hair argument of "well he's a child so being attracted to children is okay". "Pedophile" in common usage is a pejorative term.
You say this with the benefit of your advanced years. The world may seem very different to a sixteen year old. Cut the lad some slack. I don't see too many people saying he did the right or bright thing, but he seems to have reacted promptly to criticism and removed the userbox.
What more should we ask? Maturity, maybe? Should we have a minimum age limit for editing? How do we enforce that?
Peter (Skyring)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ilya N.
I'd like to quickly butt in to point out that I'm 14 and totally not happy with the pedophile thing.
Yes, we should require maturity. In older times, the encyclopedists were the finest academics of all time.
Why not cut vandals some slack? I mean they don't know that adding a penis to an article is harming a reputable resource. They think it's fun. So why ban them?
Having a bit of fun on your user page and doing the same thing in articlespace are two quite different things. Judging by accepted community standards here, adding a penis to (say) [[George W Bush]] is quickly reverted, but doing the same on your user page won't spur anyone to quickly revert you.
Peter (Skyring)
On 2/8/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to quickly butt in to point out that I'm 14 and totally not happy with the pedophile thing.
Yes, we should require maturity. In older times, the encyclopedists were the finest academics of all time.
Why not cut vandals some slack? I mean they don't know that adding a penis to an article is harming a reputable resource. They think it's fun. So why ban them?
We do cut them some slack. Normaly they get at least two warnings.
-- geni
On 2/7/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
Why not cut vandals some slack? I mean they don't know that adding a penis to an article is harming a reputable resource. They think it's fun. So why ban them?
We do cut them some slack. Normaly they get at least two warnings.
I'm not sure why. If someone shows up and the first thing he does is stick his penis in an article, an immediate block -- a short one -- is far more efficient and equitable than our current practice of giving a warning, then another warning, then a couple days later another warning. I don't think anyone accidentally puts penis in an article; and those who do so should be shown unambiguously that we are not amused.
jpgordon
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Josh Gordon
I'm not sure why. If someone shows up and the first thing he does is stick his penis in an article, an immediate block -- a short one -- is far more efficient and equitable than our current practice of giving a warning, then another warning, then a couple days later another warning. I don't think anyone accidentally puts penis in an article; and those who do so should be shown unambiguously that we are not amused.
[[WP:DICK]] might apply here.
Pete, a member of Wikipedia