Erik writes:

I am absolutely confident that if a pedophilia or child abuse related article was brought before the ArbCom, and they consulted with an "expert" on child sexual abuse, the chances are pretty good that said expert falls into the group of questionable psychologists described above, and that they would strongly recommend to entirely ban any mention of Rind et al. from child abuse related articles.

Erik, this is a valid concern, and precisely the sort of thing that we need to look for. But your very well-written letter here sort of shows that your concerns are not a string rebuttal to Jimmy Wale's point: You proved that Wikipedia articles already expose these "experts" as crackpots!

Any fair ArbCom on such subjects would _not_ base its decisions on such subjects by listening to the views of people who make bizarre claims of child abuse, child rape and child kidnapping for *profit*, as these "psychological experts" do. They have created a virtual industry in which they have claimed that *millions* of American children are raped, and even claim that hundreds of thousands of American citizens practice "Satanic Ritual Abuse" on children.

I agree with all your points about how these self-appointed experts are dishonest, and have built their careers by maligning others through ad homenim attacks. I just think that our articles already show this. And I am glad that people like you are helping us build articles on these topics! People like you can help the ArbCom select geunine experts, rather than those self-appointed experts for profit.

Robert (RK)

__________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html