[Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

[John Vandenberg]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Bod Notbod <bodnotbod at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:06 AM, David Levy <lifeisunfair at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Let's just have Paedo-Wiki and be done with it.
>>>
>>> We have wikis for over 200 languages. It would be wrong not to allow
>>> paedos to express themselves.
>>
>> I recognize your sarcasm, but not your point.
>
> Well, I guess I just don't know where this conversation is going.
>
> A paedophile might know a lot about the Spanish Civil War and could
> usefully add stuff.
>
> A murderer might know a lot about Pokemon.
>
> A rapist might know a lot about physics.
>
> It's not like we're going to know the personality involved, so surely
> we just have to accept that editors come in all shapes and sizes and
> let them get on with it.

What about a known paedophile who knows a lot about kiddie topics?

Or a known murderer or rapist who edits biographies of potential
targets?  i.e. people that live in the same locality.

In many cases, we _do_ know the personality involved.
In this case, the block was endorsed by the English Arbitration
Committee, and the blocked user has the right to appeal to the
Arbitration Committee.

Just this year a pro-zoophilia person appeaed a ban, and the
Arbitration Committee agreed to unban them if they agreed to not edit
zoophilia topics.  The person declined.

In regards to paedophiles, there are a lot of occupations that
_require_ people to report suspicious activity to law enforcement.  It
is literally not safe for paedophiles to exhibit signs of paedophilia
activism or indulgence.

Wikipedia is a public space.

--
John Vandenberg