On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 3:57 PM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
This is the risk that we run when we begin banning editors because we dislike beliefs and behaviors unrelated to their participation in the wikis. We might avoid some negative attention that would accompany their involvement, but what sort of project are we left with? Certainly not the sort that I signed up for (and not one that will engender positive publicity as the open community that it's purported to be).
We have one single class of editors who, as a class, for non-wiki-behavioral reasons, we ban. This class' participation is problematic both for our other users safety and for Wikipedia's reputation and integrity of content.
There is no slippery slope. Nobody has seriously proposed expanding the list in any way. Nobody is in favor of banning Communists, Republicans, Gays, or Moslems. There is no question that other groups do not pose a risk, as a group, to our other users' safety or our reputation or integrity of content.
Pedophiles have a near unity risk of reoffending. Even the ones who say they have never abused anyone and never intend to, according to surveys and psychologists, essentially always do.
There is a reason they are, after conviction (in the US) not allowed anywhere near children in organized settings.
Wikipedia is a large organized setting, with children present as editors. We owe them a duty to not let known pedophiles near them. We can't guarantee that unknown ones aren't out there - but if we do become aware, we must act.
We also, to continue to be taken seriously by society at large, not allow ourselves to be a venue for their participation. Being known as pedophile-friendly leads to societal and press condemnation and governmental action, all of which would wreck the project.
I understand that some do not agree. But the reasons for this policy are well founded.