[WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 23, Issue 42

[Robert]

Erik writes:
> I am absolutely confident that if a pedophilia or child
> abuse related article was brought before the ArbCom, and
> they consulted with an "expert" on child sexual abuse,
> the chances are pretty good that said expert falls into
> the group of questionable psychologists described 
> above, and that they would strongly recommend to entirely
> ban any mention of Rind et al. from child abuse related
> articles.


Erik, this is a valid concern, and precisely the sort of
thing that we need to look for.  But your very well-written
letter here sort of shows that your concerns are not a
string rebuttal to Jimmy Wale's point:  You proved that
Wikipedia articles already expose these "experts" as
crackpots!

Any fair ArbCom on such subjects would _not_ base its
decisions on such subjects by listening to the views of
people who make bizarre claims of child abuse, child rape
and child kidnapping for *profit*, as these "psychological
experts" do.  They have created a virtual industry in which
they have claimed that *millions* of American children are
raped, and even claim that hundreds of thousands of
American citizens practice "Satanic Ritual Abuse" on
children.

I agree with all your points about how these self-appointed
experts are dishonest, and have built their careers by
maligning others through ad homenim attacks.  I just think
that our articles already show this.  And I am glad that
people like you are helping us build articles on these
topics!  People like you can help the ArbCom select geunine
experts, rather than those self-appointed experts for
profit.



Robert (RK)





		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html