[Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

[David Levy]

> I think it is germane, because it means the choice we have is to ban a
> pedophile from the start, before s/he gets a chance to cause any damage,
> or to wait far too long to ban the pedophile, after much damage has
> already been done.  If the banning process were much simpler, efficient,
> and effective, and the ability of damage to become widely disseminated
> minimalized, we could better afford to give people enough rope to hang
> themselves with.

To be extra-safe, let's just ban everyone before they can do any damage.

We're too patient with edit warriors and the like, but if you think
that any sort of pro-pedophilia editing would be tolerated for any
length of time, you're mistaken.

Also, please address my point that banning self-identified pedophiles
from editing merely entourages pedophile editors to *not* identify
themselves as such (thereby increasing the likelihood that problematic
activities will be overlooked).

> > My point is that *all* editors should be accepted/rejected on the same
> > terms, with no regard for our personal opinions of them.

> But clearly you draw a distinction between what is merely "our personal
> opinions of them" and what is a legitimate concern which affects our
> ability to accomplish our goals.  I don't think this is the distinction
> on which we disagree.  Rather, I think it's more your other belief that
> "the idea of preemptively banning individuals on the basis that they
> _might_ engage in misconduct is unconscionable."
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation has granted the community the right to decide
> who can and who cannot access its servers.  That means we have the right
> to ban anyone, for any reason.

1. Suppose that the Hindi Wikipedia voted to ban Pakistani editors.
Would that be acceptable?  (Note that I'm not remotely equating the
exclusion of pedophiles with the exclusion of a nationality; I'm
addressing your claim that "we have the right to ban anyone, for any
reason.")

2. Please direct me to the discussion(s) in which consensus was
reached to ban all known pedophiles from editing.

> And ultimately, the basis that someone _might_ engage in misconduct in
> the future is the *only* proper basis on which to ban someone.

And we base this assessment on past behavior, not hunches.  Except,
evidently, with pedophiles.

> > However, I will acknowledge that the idea of disabling the e-mail
> > function crossed my mind and might be a valid consideration.

> Why is that not unconscionable?

Pragmatically, it strikes me as a realistic compromise.  There
obviously are many users who oppose editing by pedophiles, and I
believe that this would address one of the main issues (the
facilitation of private communication, potentially with children).

I don't believe that pedophiles are likely to seek out victims via a
wiki (as there are numerous online and offline fora that are far
better for making contact with people in a particular geographic
area), but I understand why the concern exists.

> > I've addressed the PR issue elsewhere in the thread.

> Not properly.

You're welcome to respond to those posts.  Otherwise, we can simply
agree to disagree.

> > I'm even more puzzled by the suggestion that they be barred from
> > editing articles related to pedophilia.  Provided that their edits
> > don't reflect a pro-pedophilia bias, what's the problem?

> The problem is that they've admitted to an inability to think rationally
> about the topic.

I certainly agree that pedophiles possess highly abnormal ideas on the
subject, but that doesn't preclude them from contributing to relevant
encyclopedia articles in a rational manner.  By all accounts that I've
seen, the editor in question did precisely that.

Pedophilia-related articles are heavily monitored, and inappropriate
edits (by pedophiles or anyone else) are reverted more promptly than
in the majority of articles.

> > > I do think some people's opposition is tantamount to approval of
> > > pedophilia, but not everyone's.

> > Whose is?  Is mine?

> I don't know.  Is it?

No, I condemn pedophilia.  I'm just curious as to the basis of your above claim.

> What "personal opinions" should we set aside?

Our condemnation of pedophiles (not pedophilia, mind you, as we
certainly mustn't allow any such activities to be promoted on our
wikis).

> I agree that we shouldn't judge him/her as one judges someone on trial.
> Rather, we should judge him/her as one judges someone applying for a
> volunteer job, working hand in hand with children, creating an
> encyclopedia.

The "hand in hand with children" wording seems to conflate physical
space with cyberspace.  Please see my relevant reply to George William
Herbert.