[Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

[David Levy]

George William Herbert wrote:

> We have one single class of editors who, as a class, for
> non-wiki-behavioral reasons, we ban.  This class' participation is
> problematic both for our other users safety and for Wikipedia's
> reputation and integrity of content.

Integrity of content?  Please elaborate.

> There is no slippery slope.

I haven't argued otherwise.

> Pedophiles have a near unity risk of reoffending.  Even the ones who
> say they have never abused anyone and never intend to, according to
> surveys and psychologists, essentially always do.

And banning self-identified pedophiles increases our users'
safety...how?  Is it remotely realistic to assume that most pedophiles
will publicly identify themselves as such (and never seek to register
another account)?  Of course not, and we're only encouraging them to
keep quiet (thereby increasing the likelihood that any improper
actions will go undetected).

It's clear that this is a PR issue, and there is validity to the
assertion that allowing known pedophiles to edit would generate
negative publicity.  But would it generate more negative publicity
than the alternative (banning good editors and driving pedophiles
underground)?  I'm skeptical.  And either way, I believe that such a
practice contradicts the fundamental principles on which our community
is based.

> There is a reason they are, after conviction (in the US) not allowed
> anywhere near children in organized settings.
>
> Wikipedia is a large organized setting, with children present as
> editors.  We owe them a duty to not let known pedophiles near them.
> We can't guarantee that unknown ones aren't out there - but if we do
> become aware, we must act.

You're making the mistake of equating physical space to cyberspace.
In physical space, pedophiles are identifiable and traceable.  We're
dealing with an anonymous setting.  A known pedophile is less of a
threat than an unknown one, and banning the former only creates
incentive to remain the latter (which is as simple as not saying "I'm
a pedophile.").  Our child editors are no safer.

> We also, to continue to be taken seriously by society at large, not
> allow ourselves to be a venue for their participation.  Being known as
> pedophile-friendly leads to societal and press condemnation and
> governmental action, all of which would wreck the project.

I've addressed the PR issue, and I'd be very interested to read about
the "governmental action."

> I understand that some do not agree.  But the reasons for this policy
> are well founded.

I also wish to read the policy.  Where is it published?