[Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists

[Phil Nash]

1: "pedophiles are being blocked even if  they are not advocating, if I 
remember correctly"
2: "they are blocked because their behaviour on the site is agains our 
principles"

Either they are advocating, or they are not. Either they are inappropriately 
trying to contact minors, or they are not. Either they are editing articles 
with a pedophile POV, or they are not.

In any case, nobody seems to have the wit and depth of understanding to make 
the distinction, and it seems Wikimedia would rather not take the risk, 
arguably for fear of lurid and uninformed media "exposure". As a result, 
some perfectly innocent editors at whom that label has been thrown, with 
little or no cogent evidence, have been banned without any recourse 
whatsoever. What pedophiles may imagine isn't acceptable to most people, but 
unless they follow up their desires on Wikimedia projects, there should be 
no reason for the Foundation or its various projects to take any action 
whatsoever. I'm quite sure that we have editors with criminal convictions, 
maybe even for homicide, and almost certainly some who have served terms of 
imprisonment, yet we don't seem to impose any sanctions apart from this one 
issue. And whereas criminals, by definition, have commited offences, it 
isn't also the case that pedophiles have also committed offences.

In short, the current position (whatever it is)  is a pusillanimous stance 
to maintain and not one that should be acceptable in any environment 
claiming to be a defender of knowledge, free or otherwise, and consistently 
adopting multiple policies that together predicate an intellectual purity.

Some clarity would be welcome here.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" <cimonavaro at gmail.com>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter 
lists


On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Am I being dense, or are you being silly? Blocking advocacy from a site 
>> with
>> a NPOV policy is a bajillion miles from being censorship.
>
> It may be a bajillion miles, I still think it's closer to it than
> giving the possibility to people to decide what they themselves see or
> not see is. Apart from that, pedophiles are being blocked even if
> they are not advocating, if I remember correctly.
>

In the absolute, to follow teh rather perverse logci, No.

Pedophiles are not blocked for their views, they are blocked
because their behaviour on the site is agains our principles, very
much like why we block people who by their actions want to censor
wikipedia.


-- 
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l