Beyond this image, there are lots of problems with pedophilia-related articles.
I don't think that most of the censorship stalwarts in the Lolicon debate were pedophiles, but it's certain that there are pedophiles fighting for certain things to be included in articles like [[NAMBLA]], [[Childlove movement]], [[Curley v. NAMBLA]], etc. An infusion of experienced, neutral editors into fights over articles like these would be appreciated.
k
On 4/4/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/4/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
It's not a matter of being a "pedophile". I find the image interesting and appealing (even humorous). However I am well aware that it is not wise to share this perspective with a 12 year old girl. It is fundamental reality that a substantial part of our readership is in the junior high school range. I know from my own experience that I seldom consulted an encyclopedia after I was about 13. There is a saying, "You take your victim as you find them" We need to be aware and responsible.
The thought of pedophiles using Wikipedia for mass grooming is... disturbing, to say the least. I don't think we need to be set off into a mass panic or a witch-hunt, but it does give me that "brrrr" sensation.
Ryan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l