On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:37 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Jake Wartenberg jake@jakewartenberg.com wrote:
I am not talking about "pedophilia activism", but instances where the individual in question is not disruptively editing.
There are a wide variety of reasons to permanently block people who were elsewhere identified (more commonly, self-identified) as pedophiles but edit here apparently harmlessly, including bringing the project into disrepute (Jimbo's wording, I think), the latent threat to underage editors, that they'd have to be watched continuously to make sure they did not start advocating or preying on underage users.
That sounds reasonable to me; but it should be made clear. We can't have a foundation policy that appears to contradict this, and if this is the standard we are going to follow it should be written down.
The Foundation and en.wp community policies are generally to be excessively tolerant of personal opinion and political and religious beliefs, etc. We do not want to let one countries' social mores, political restrictions, civil rights restrictions limit who can participate and how.
However, there's no country in the world where pedophilia is legal. It's poorly enforced in some, but there are laws against it even there.
There is a difference between having a disorder and acting on it. The former is of course legal.
What it comes down to - the very presence of an editor who is known to be a pedophile or pedophilia advocate is disruptive to the community, and quite possibly damaging to it, inherently to them being who they are and them being open about it.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l