Anthony wrote:
The subject is "Pedophilia and the Non
discrimination policy".
Obviously, the discussion's scope has expanded.
I've opted to participate to dispel the notion,
suggested by you, that a
perfectly productive editor was blocked simply because the editor
happened to be a pedophile.
I never claimed that the editor in question was "perfectly productive"
(and I noted that he created numerous inappropriate redirects and
disambiguation pages), but it certainly appears that he was blocked
for being a pedophile (and not because of any disruptive editing,
apart from the belief that editing by a known pedophile is inherently
disruptive).
This is a hypothetical which I don't believe will
ever arise in reality,
What is?
and certainly not often enough that there is a harm in
simply blocking
pedophiles on sight.
Are you suggesting that we needn't even address a contention of unjust
editing bans, provided that the number of affected individuals is low?
Jesse mentioned "the idea that paedophiles are
inherently evil and can do
no good". I'm not saying that, but I do find the idea that someone who
openly admits to being a pedophile (*) could also be a good encyclopedia
editor, to be a bit far-fetched.
(*) Which implies that they don't think there's anything wrong with being
a pedophile.
I reject the premise that someone who "openly admits to being a
pedophile" inherently "[doesn't] think there's anything wrong with
[that]." This accurately describes some, of course, but I don't
regard any of this as relevant. We routinely ban editors who
habitually cause disruption (irrespective of our prior knowledge of
them), and I see no need to formulate blanket assumptions that
particular societal classes cannot be productive contributors.
I don't expect to convince anyone of this. In
fact, I suspect a number
of Wikipedians on this very mailing list would take the pedophiles side
on the issue of whether or not there's "anything wrong with that".
Wow, that's entirely uncalled-for. It's disheartening that you would
equate opposition to an outright ban on editing by known pedophiles
with approval of pedophilia.
> Yes, and the same applies to murderers, rapists
and neo-Nazis in our
> midst. This is not a "slippery slope" argument (a contention that
> we'll be banning those editors next). I'm asking how it would be
> worse for an investigative journalist to discover that a pedophile is
> editing than to discover that a murderer, rapist or neo-Nazi is
> editing.
Of those three, I think neo-Nazi is the most closely
analogous, and I
don't see why they should be allowed in Wikipedia either.
Then perhaps this is a slippery slope, after all.
I'm Jewish, and I would unreservedly oppose any attempt to prohibit
neo-Nazis from editing (in accordance with the same rules to which we
hold other contributors).
As for "murderer" and "rapist",
I'm not quite sure what you're getting
at.
Fred referred to the negative publicity that could arise if an
investigative journalist were to determine that a pedophile is editing
Wikipedia (or another Wikimedia wiki, I presume). Most societies
condemn murder and rape with comparable vehemence.
If someone was convicted of murder 20 years ago and
they are now out
having served their time, I don't think this sets a precedent that we can
ban them. On the other hand, if someone posts to message boards bragging
about how they like to rape people, but that rape is legal in their
country, I don't see any problem with banning them from Wikipedia.
I do.