![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
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. |
A Horse With No Name |
![]()
Post
#4
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 4,471 Joined: Member No.: 9,985 ![]() |
Wikipedia society is counter evolutionary. Whereas Wikipedia Review is merely counter-revolutionary. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif) Most people on Wikipedia see themselves like this, not realizing that they are actually more like this. This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: |
CharlotteWebb |
![]()
Post
#5
|
Postmaster General ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,740 Joined: Member No.: 1,727 ![]() |
Most people on Wikipedia see themselves like this, not realizing that they are actually more like this. Well, the resemblance is uncanny. |
A Horse With No Name |
![]()
Post
#6
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 4,471 Joined: Member No.: 9,985 ![]() |
Most people on Wikipedia see themselves like this, not realizing that they are actually more like this. Well, the resemblance is uncanny. Personally, I imagine Charlotte looks something like this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif) |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |