[WikiEN-l] more WP:OFFICE shenanigans

[SPUI]

Tony Sidaway wrote:
> On 3/13/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>
>>>You don't suppose, do you, that involvement of a self-identified
>>>pedophile in authorship of an article on this particular subject might
>>>pose problems for Wikipedia's credibility?
>>
>>Not if everything is accurate and sourced. We don't have an obligation
>>to the assholes who wouldn't believe the article just because of its
>>author. They're probably gone anyway because we have articles about sex.
> 
> *I* wouldn't believe the article because of its author.   There's more
> to accuracy than just citing sources.  Pedophiles can probably write
> as good an article about mathematics, psychology, anatomy, politics,
> history or theology, but when it comes to articles about the
> exploitation of minors I would be as likely to give an article by a
> pedophile as much credit as I'd give to an article about global
> warming written by a road lobbyist.

So are we now going to ban road lobbyists from writing articles on 
global warming?