[WikiEN-l] more WP:OFFICE shenanigans

[Erik Moeller]

On 3/14/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:

> *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.

The only thing you're going to accomplish is that said pedophiles will
continue to edit the article without admitting that they are
pedophiles. What deters most people from violating the rules - the
risk of losing a reputation - does not exist for them. They are
already the single most hated group in society, what do they have to
lose? So they will simply create a new identity and edit again.

At least when they identify as pedophiles, we know that we have to
watch out for their bias. So the question is: What do you care more
about? That some media outlet doesn't pick up the fact that "tHERE ARE
PEDOPHiles  IN WIKIPEDIA oHM YGOD!!" or that our articles are neutral
and well-sourced? If it's the former, you're making the typical
mistake of thinking that hiding something will make it go away, only
to have it blow up in your face when you don't expect it. If it's the
latter, forcing people to hide their convictions is not a good way to
go about it, no matter how despicable you may find them.

Moral panic should not be a force of policy. The outcome is either
arbitrary or a terrible precedent (e.g. should Mormons then be banned
from editing LDS articles?). That WP:OFFICE is already leading to such
outcomes is worrying.

Erik