There are very few views that are viewed as so taboo as paedophilia. And let's be honest here - you wouldn't ask either of those two users to babysit for you, so let's stop the nonsense about "open-mindedness". I'm not open-minded about grown men wanting to have sex with pre-pubescent girls - and I imagine that goes for 99%+ of the population.
As far as you asking me not to be emotive about it - that's silly - who wouldn't be emotive about it (and I'm not even a parent)!
Let me ask the question again - is Wikipedia a haven for paedophiles? If so, I can see many parents banning their children from using it - to the detriment of us all.
Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hash: SHA1Jon 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.%3E > 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 saywhether paedophilia is right or wrong, we say what it is, why people maydo it, what causes them to do it, and society's views on it.If these people are making statements saying paedophilia is morallyright, or in fact, morally wrong, then that is not acceptable. If theyare providing encylopediac information relating to why people may bepaedophiles, etc. I think that is beneficial for Wikipedia.Be careful of using emotive language, and banning people for theirthoughts is not what I'd like to see. Ban people for their actions, butnot for what they think.Chris
- --Chris Jenkinsonchris at starglade.org-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.orgiD8DBQFC0AuOEq6+ijeBrJ8RAvceAJ9GOw+isv9G8DUER3JVet... PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------------------------- How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jon wrote:
There are very few views that are viewed as so taboo as paedophilia. And let's be honest here - you wouldn't ask either of those two users to babysit for you, so let's stop the nonsense about "open-mindedness". I'm not open-minded about grown men wanting to have sex with pre-pubescent girls - and I imagine that goes for 99%+ of the population.
As far as you asking me not to be emotive about it - that's silly - who wouldn't be emotive about it (and I'm not even a parent)!
Let me ask the question again - is Wikipedia a haven for paedophiles? If so, I can see many parents banning their children from using it - to the detriment of us all.
(your reply appeared very messed up - what email client are you using?)
No, I wouldn't want them to babysit my children, but then again, that's not Wikipedia is about!
Let me be clear - I am totally against all kinds of paedophilia and child-molesting, I find it abhorrent and anyone who commits an act of this kind deserves to face trial. But that's not what we're talking about here!
Wikipedia is not a "paedophile haven", that comment is absolutely ludicrous. Wikipedia is/should be a neutral source of information on all things, including paedophilia. It's not our role to tell people what to believe, it's to give others the information in a fair and unbiased way so they can make up their own minds what to believe. I think it's wrong - - but Wikipedia is not a platform for my beliefs. If these people are using Wikipedia as a soapbox, that is not on. But if they are adding in encyclopediac content, that is absolutely fine by me.
Chris
- -- Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
(your reply appeared very messed up - what email client are you using?)
Yahoo mangles all.
- -- Alphax OpenPGP key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/cc9up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
On 7/9/05, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Let me ask the question again - is Wikipedia a haven for paedophiles? If so, I can see many parents banning their children from using it - to the detriment of us all.
Let's not be silly. Wikipedia provides no mechanism for private communication: all communication between Wikipedia users (exclusive of emails) is in full public view. Because of this, there is no risk whatsoever that a pedophile will "recruit" on Wikipedia: anyone who does will get quickly caught.
Pedophiles are people too, and they're entitled to their opinions, and to express their opinions, as long as they don't act on them.
Kelly
Jon wrote:
There are very few views that are viewed as so taboo as paedophilia. And let's be honest here - you wouldn't ask either of those two users to babysit for you, so let's stop the nonsense about "open-mindedness". I'm not open-minded about grown men wanting to have sex with pre-pubescent girls - and I imagine that goes for 99%+ of the population.
As far as you asking me not to be emotive about it - that's silly - who wouldn't be emotive about it (and I'm not even a parent)!
Let me ask the question again - is Wikipedia a haven for paedophiles? If so, I can see many parents banning their children from using it - to the detriment of us all.
Failing to condemn paedophilia does not mean supporting it.
Ec
"Jon" thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote in message news:20050709175125.81541.qmail@web25403.mail.ukl.yahoo.com... [snip]
Let me ask the question again - is Wikipedia a haven for paedophiles?
No, Wikipedia is a haven for **info**-philes. We crave information. What people then do with it is between them, their deity of choice, and the local ordnances and bylaws.
Thinking about X is not a crime. Doing X might be, and for certain values of X is almost anywhere in the world.
If so, I can see many parents banning their children from using it - to the detriment of us all.
To the detriment of said children: if parents are so stupid as to let their children surf the internet without adequate supervision, they might as well be letting them wander around their local red-light district (which is likely perfectly respctable during daytime) at midnight.
With great power comes great responsibility.
The Internet is one of the most powerful things anybody has access to these days.
Wikipedia might well be one of the most powerful things on the Internet.
Do the math.