Everyking: pedophiles can be productive editors, WP's morality distortion field Options

[gomi]

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]

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]

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.

[NotARepublican55]

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.

1. It's more like letting a convicted pedophile get a job as a kids' day care provider.

2. How do you think people would react if a pedophile who's wandering around town walked up to a family and said "Hi I'm a pedophile, but I'm really a nice guy and I don't actually molest kids, I just like to hang out with them. So do you mind if I take your kid to go get some ice cream. Pretty please?"

3. Even if hypothetically, Wikipedia didn't have to worry about self-professed pedophiles using Wikipedia to stalk minors, what do you think the PR response would be if Wikipedia started openly allowing admitted pedophiles to edit, and worse yet, become admins?

4. Phail, phail, and mo' phail.

5. Do you mind telling us how old you are? Seriously.

This post has been edited by NotARepublican55:

[everyking]

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.

1. It's more like letting a convicted pedophile get a job as a kids' day care provider.

2. How do you think people would react if a pedophile who's wandering around town walked up to a family and said "Hi I'm a pedophile, but I'm really a nice guy and I don't actually molest kids, I just like to hang out with them. So do you mind if I take your kid to go get some ice cream. Pretty please?"

3. Even if hypothetically, Wikipedia didn't have to worry about self-professed pedophiles using Wikipedia to stalk minors, what do you think the PR response would be if Wikipedia started openly allowing admitted pedophiles to edit, and worse yet, become admins?

4. Phail, phail, and mo' phail.

5. Do you mind telling us how old you are? Seriously.

This is a ludicrous rebuttal. Letting them edit Wikipedia articles is comparable to giving them jobs caring for children? Comparable to letting them take children out for ice cream? Sign up for the high school debate team--seriously. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[NotARepublican55]

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.

1. It's more like letting a convicted pedophile get a job as a kids' day care provider.

2. How do you think people would react if a pedophile who's wandering around town walked up to a family and said "Hi I'm a pedophile, but I'm really a nice guy and I don't actually molest kids, I just like to hang out with them. So do you mind if I take your kid to go get some ice cream. Pretty please?"

3. Even if hypothetically, Wikipedia didn't have to worry about self-professed pedophiles using Wikipedia to stalk minors, what do you think the PR response would be if Wikipedia started openly allowing admitted pedophiles to edit, and worse yet, become admins?

4. Phail, phail, and mo' phail.

5. Do you mind telling us how old you are? Seriously.

This is a ludicrous rebuttal. Letting them edit Wikipedia articles is comparable to giving them jobs caring for children? Comparable to letting them take children out for ice cream?

Yes it is, seeing as Wikipedia allows minors such as yourself to edit. How do you know a pedophile isn't mass-emailing underage users right now pretending to be a legitimate editor so he can gain their trust?

Sign up for the high school debate team--seriously. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

You first.

[Malleus]

Yes it is, seeing as Wikipedia allows minors such as yourself to edit. How do you know a pedophile isn't mass-emailing underage users right now pretending to be a legitimate editor so he can gain their trust?

Why do you use the word "he"? There's a very recent case here in the UK of a married woman convicted of having sex with a 12-year-old boy, Don't you think that emails sent out from wikipedia are monitored, just as they are from this forum? How would you "pretend to be a legitimate editor" if you weren't actually a "legitimate editor", whatever you think "legitimate" means?

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[NotARepublican55]

Don't you think that emails sent out from wikipedia are monitored, just as they are from this forum? How would you "pretend to be a legitimate editor" if you weren't actually a "legitimate editor", whatever you think "legitimate" means?

Hypothetical scenario:

A pedophile is checking out an underage editor's profile and notices that he's a fan of World of Warcraft. He starts chatting with the kid while pretending that he's a kid his age who's also a big World of Warcraft fan and invites the kid to play with him online... take it from there.