QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sat 27th February 2010, 9:57pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 28th February 2010, 12:17am)
QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 27th February 2010, 7:09pm)
QUOTE(One @ Sat 27th February 2010, 10:29pm)
As I read everyking, their arguments are almost equivalent. Am I wrong about that everyking? Do you disagree with the statement in
this diff, and if so, why?
Of course I do. All I was saying was that I was skeptical of the idea of banning people who are following the law and site policy--the same principle applies to axe-murderers and terrorists. As I pointed out before, the actual situations we might see are nuanced and have to be considered in context. A person with a conviction on his record who edits articles on the Boer War may be unproblematic, but the same person might not be if he were doing other, more controversial things. A person with no known conviction but a disturbing POV might be allowed to edit for a time, but people would approach the matter with reasonable concern and action might be taken.
It is not about the fucking articles, moron. It is about the potential to exploit children.
Any adult has the potential to exploit children, is it up to you to decide which ones might?
I don't suppose you've been watching the movie Minority Report recently have you?
Mention paedo and there's a knee-jerk reaction every time. It's this over-the-top behaviour that takes away kid's childhoods. Every year kids get younger when they lose their innocence and learn that the world is a terrible place. And, Sunshine, it's not the paedos who are doing that... it's their paranoid parents jumping up and down every time it's mentioned in the media.
The fear of something is always far worse than the actual something, especially to the millions of kids who never come close to a molester's clutches.
99% of strangers online and offline are likely not child molesters. It is true that parents put fear of strangers into children to the point no one trusts anybody. As a child gets older, parents should be teaching their children that most people are not so bad, but train them in how to identify bad situations with strangers. Parents, guardians, and teachers do have a responsibility to monitor children's use of the Internet, including Wikipedia. I don't think anyone here is arguing otherwise.
The big problem with Wikipedia is when is it fairly obvious someone is up to no good. For example, AnotherSolipsist liked to hang around editors he knew were minors and he was persistent in editing pro-pedophilia articles. I would think that would send alarms to anyone.
Fair or not, Wikipedia editors are judged by the majority of their contributions. If I see someone editing nothing but pedophilia articles, that puts up a red flag. If I see that same editor hanging around editors I know or strongly suspect to be minors, that sends up another red flag (and most certainly an e-mail to ArbCom or someone like Alison or Lar). If you're going to edit in controversial or taboo areas like pedophilia, you had best explain your goals thoroughly and stay on the straight and narrow lest someone...
anyone... misunderstands your motives. Life's not fair, but them's the breaks.
The sad thing is that the ultra-libertarian people on Wikipedia see no problem with pedophile editors as long as they are building the encyclopedia. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)