[Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

[David Levy]

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.