![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
gomi |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 3,022 Joined: Member No.: 565 ![]() |
I felt a sincere need to highlight this post by Everyking (T-C-L-K-R-D)
here on the Review:
I can't see the basis for blocking someone for real world activity. Obviously he's being punished in the real world, and he's using a legal means as a conduit to editing Wikipedia. If people are to be blocked for something like "possessing child porn", what about other crimes? Credit card fraud? Terrorism? Do they both warrant Wikipedia sanctions, or neither? The context was a discussion of an apparent convicted pedophile editing Wikipedia, and Everyking seems to have taken another step or five away from any social norms or objective reality in his position that someone -- someone convicted of sourcing just about the only kind of pornography from the Internet that is still illegal -- should in no way be hindered from editing Wikipedia. Call someone an "asshole" -- lifetime ban. Commit a felony involving child porn -- welcome! What a strange world you inhabit. |
![]() ![]() |
Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ??? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,693 Joined: Member No.: 9,267 ![]() |
Are there not reasons why pedophiles are prohibited from teaching in schools, running boy scout troops and the likes?
Has real life society learned 'nothing for no reason'? The only reason to allow a pedophile or pederast to continue editing the Wikipedia is to compile sufficient evidence against them to protect children or prosecute them. The Mediawiki Foundation, whilst have no such sophisticated mechanism, indeed probably seeing them as personal infringements, protects pedophiles and pederasts rights to push their POV. There are good reasons why real life society has evolved to do so. Wikipedia society is counter evolutionary. |
everyking |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Postmaster ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,368 Joined: Member No.: 81 ![]() |
Wikipedia society is counter evolutionary. Whereas Wikipedia Review is merely counter-revolutionary. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif) What we're really asking here is: if we know someone identifiably falls into a certain category, even when they are not violating any laws by editing (nor any internal regulations), should we bar that person from participation? Pedophilia is something that stirs particular outrage in people, but there are other classes of people we could consider in the same light. My view is that letting pedophiles edit Wikipedia seems substantially the same as letting them wander about town, participating in normal economic and social activity. Generally there is no problem, and they can contribute to society in various ways, although people are going to view them warily. However, if they are hanging around outside the local elementary school, people should be very worried and should talk to the police--hopefully they would take action or at least pay close attention to the person. And of course there are analogous things one could be doing on Wikipedia that would warrant administrative action, or at least close attention. Personally, I doubt very much that the risk from pedophiles is any higher if one adopts an "identify and monitor" approach rather than a "ban immediately" approach--keeping in mind that anyone can start a new account, I think the important part is identification, although I'm sure that's less intuitively satisifying. Another thing to consider is that you would rarely have definitive evidence: I'd imagine you'd expect to see editing pushing a POV sympathetic to pedophilia, but you wouldn't expect to have knowledge of actual criminal convictions or an open declaration of sexuality. My view may, of course, be poorly informed and poorly considered. I'm interested to know if this is a purely theoretical issue, or if there are known cases of this? I'm also curious as to how other websites have handled this issue. |
taiwopanfob |
![]()
Post
#4
|
Ãœber Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 643 Joined: Member No.: 214 ![]() |
My view is that letting pedophiles edit Wikipedia seems substantially the same as letting them wander about town, participating in normal economic and social activity. Generally there is no problem, and they can contribute to society in various ways, although people are going to view them warily. However, if they are hanging around outside the local elementary school, people should be very worried and should talk to the police--hopefully they would take action or at least pay close attention to the person. And of course there are analogous things one could be doing on Wikipedia that would warrant administrative action, or at least close attention. Personally, I doubt very much that the risk from pedophiles is any higher if one adopts an "identify and monitor" approach rather than a "ban immediately" approach--keeping in mind that anyone can start a new account, I think the important part is identification, although I'm sure that's less intuitively satisifying. Man, will you ever make any sense at all? Ever? Pedophiles are deeply aware of their station as one of the few -- the chosen! -- True Scumbags of Society. It's an interesting question where society as whole would rank them. Above or below a tax collector? A politician? So it is to be expected that as soon as you identify someone as a pedophile, you have, from their perspective, banned them. The gigs up! They will seek a new account. So you might as well ban them, and ban them as quickly you identify them. QUOTE Another thing to consider is that you would rarely have definitive evidence: I'd imagine you'd expect to see editing pushing a POV sympathetic to pedophilia, but you wouldn't expect to have knowledge of actual criminal convictions or an open declaration of sexuality. Except ... it appears that with relatively little effort an entire cadre of these people have been reliably identified. Regardless, however, of how easy or hard the job is, dirty or clean, it is a job that must be done. If you allow someone to walk around a crowded room with a hunting knife in their hands -- on the theory it is better to "monitor them" than just arrest the idiot, and remove him from polite society -- you are empowering the guy with your lazy-ass negligence. And that's what this all boils down to, isn't it, Everyking? You are a lazy fuck. You can't do the job of a real editor, so you "convert" your demonstrable inability a virtue, and even insult those who can do the job, and aren't afraid of doing it. "Vile deletionists", you call them. Now it is clear you can't even do the job of sweeping out the trash. But hey, let's not be negative there ... let's convert your inherently irresponsible position into one of pure Good via the time-honored tactic of FUD production. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |