I've recently noticed that we have a small number of self-confessed paedophile Wikipedians - who, as you can imagine, edit paedophile-related articles apologising for paedophilia, encouraging us to accept it as normal. Should we not kick these people out of Wikipedia. At the very least they are encouraging others to commit crimes (by arguing that paedophilia is perfectly acceptable).
By way of example - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LuxOfTKGL and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zanthalon.
I know Wikipedia is a broad church, full of people with different backgrounds and beliefs. But whichever way you look at it, paedophilia is against societal norms. As it is we have to warn teachers and parents that Wikipedia is not child-safe because of certain explicit images - do we also want to have to tell them it isn't child-safe as we welcome paedophiles as equals?
(Incidentally, the developers would be well-advised to do IP checks on these users and tell the police whatever they find out, as it is clear that self-confessed paedophiles need to be watched very carefully.)
Jon (jguk)
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail
By way of example - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LuxOfTKGL and
This seems fine. The user is clearly not encouraging anyone to commit crimes. Nor does he admit to any of his own. He wants some laws to be changed but that's not a crime.
This seems fine too and quite similar.
- - -
I don't think we should throw anyone out for what they *are*. If you can show some troubling diffs where these users violate a Wikipedia policy that would be more relevant.
IANAL and IANJ.
Regards, Haukur
I agree, and this brings up the subject of Nazi wikipedians, or satanists, or communists and anarchists for that matter. People are allowed to be themselves, so long as it doesn't break a rule. Being these things isn't against our rules.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 7/9/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
By way of example - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LuxOfTKGL and
This seems fine. The user is clearly not encouraging anyone to commit crimes. Nor does he admit to any of his own. He wants some laws to be changed but that's not a crime.
This seems fine too and quite similar.
I don't think we should throw anyone out for what they *are*. If you can show some troubling diffs where these users violate a Wikipedia policy that would be more relevant.
IANAL and IANJ.
Regards, Haukur
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
FWIW, I agree with you guys. We shouldn't throw people out for what they do or believe in if it's not breaking any wikipedia rules. Anyone can make a good wikipedian as long as they abide by our policies.
--Mgm
On 7/9/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
I agree, and this brings up the subject of Nazi wikipedians, or satanists, or communists and anarchists for that matter. People are allowed to be themselves, so long as it doesn't break a rule. Being these things isn't against our rules.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 7/9/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
By way of example - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LuxOfTKGL and
This seems fine. The user is clearly not encouraging anyone to commit crimes. Nor does he admit to any of his own. He wants some laws to be changed but that's not a crime.
This seems fine too and quite similar.
I don't think we should throw anyone out for what they *are*. If you can show some troubling diffs where these users violate a Wikipedia policy that would be more relevant.
IANAL and IANJ.
Regards, Haukur
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I agree, and this brings up the subject of Nazi wikipedians, or satanists, or communists and anarchists for that matter. People are allowed to be themselves, so long as it doesn't break a rule. Being these things isn't against our rules.
Well put, Jack. And besides, there's no way we can stop paedophiles, nazis etc. from editing. We could forbid them to state their bias on their user page but that would be counterproductive.
Many people state their bias on their user page, be it religious, political or more personal. This is sometimes useful for other editors - it can help to know where someone is coming from.
Knowing someone is a paedophile, for example, alerts others to places where she may be letting her personal desires cloud her judgment.
Other people prefer to be as anonymous as possible and give no personal information on their user page to make sure that they are judged entirely on the merits of their edits. That's fine too.
Regards, Haukur
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jon wrote:
I've recently noticed that we have a small number of self-confessed paedophile Wikipedians - who, as you can imagine, edit paedophile-related articles apologising for paedophilia, encouraging us to accept it as normal. Should we not kick these people out of Wikipedia. At the very least they are encouraging others to commit crimes (by arguing that paedophilia is perfectly acceptable).
By way of example - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LuxOfTKGL and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zanthalon.
I know Wikipedia is a broad church, full of people with different backgrounds and beliefs. But whichever way you look at it, paedophilia is against societal norms. As it is we have to warn teachers and parents that Wikipedia is not child-safe because of certain explicit images - do we also want to have to tell them it isn't child-safe as we welcome paedophiles as equals?
(Incidentally, the developers would be well-advised to do IP checks on these users and tell the police whatever they find out, as it is clear that self-confessed paedophiles need to be watched very carefully.)
Jon (jguk)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must remain balanced. We don't say whether paedophilia is right or wrong, we say what it is, why people may do it, what causes them to do it, and society's views on it.
If these people are making statements saying paedophilia is morally right, or in fact, morally wrong, then that is not acceptable. If they are providing encylopediac information relating to why people may be paedophiles, etc. I think that is beneficial for Wikipedia.
Be careful of using emotive language, and banning people for their thoughts is not what I'd like to see. Ban people for their actions, but not for what they think.
Chris
- -- Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org