[WikiEN-l] more WP:OFFICE shenanigans

[Delirium]

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.
>
Should we extend this to a general policy?

No Polish nationalists editing articles on Poland.  No strong religious 
believers (or strong atheists) editing articles on religion.  Etc.

All do have some degree of merit---I would be more skeptical of an 
article on Christianity written by the Pope than I would be of one 
written by someone relatively neutral.  But are we actually going to 
have policies like that?

-Mark