|
Help
This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.
Everyking: pedophiles can be productive editors, WP's morality distortion field |
|
|
gomi |
|
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: QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 6:04pm) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies
everyking |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 26th February 2010, 4:30am) 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 |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 242
Joined:
Member No.: 15,925
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 25th February 2010, 11:02pm) 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 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Fri 26th February 2010, 7:56am) QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 25th February 2010, 11:02pm) 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)
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 26th February 2010, 1:27am) 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) It's probably more like hiring summer-camp counselors without doing any background checks. Though to be honest, there really isn't a proper real-world analogy for it... the internet often leads people to make poor analogies simply because there aren't any good ones that fit. In any event, what's important is that people who feel psychologically compelled to pursue activities that aren't tolerated by society (i.e., not just pedophilia) have a tendency to put enormous amounts of mental energy towards doing it in such a way as to minimize risk to themselves, and achieve their objective(s) as efficiently and quietly as possible (though "quietly" assumes the activity doesn't necessarily involve attention-getting in some way). Law enforcement types have learned not to underestimate them, but Wikipedians, maybe not so much. One other thing that I hesitate to point out, and which rarely gets mentioned (because it's so disturbing to parents), is that pedophiles in particular have a specific advantage over other sociopaths - namely, the fact that some children actually want to have sex with adults and not tell anybody about it. That's probably the main reason why you should ban them rather than "monitor" them - if they're allowed to continue "as long as they behave themselves," they'll find ways to advertise their interests, and in many cases the victims will come to them. Beyond that though, sure - pedophiles can fix typos and format reference citations and revert vandalism with the best of them, and even be very polite and "civil" about it. But if you think someone with real sociopathic/pervert tendencies is going to limit himself to that just because you ask him politely, or because you've threatened to "block" him if he doesn't, I'm afraid you're wrong. He'll probably find a way around almost anything you throw at him, because (no offense) he's just as smart as you - but unlike you, he's spent a whole lot of time figuring out how to do it, and it may be practically all he thinks about.
|
|
|
|
everyking |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 26th February 2010, 10:25pm) QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 26th February 2010, 1:27am) 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) It's probably more like hiring summer-camp counselors without doing any background checks. Though to be honest, there really isn't a proper real-world analogy for it... the internet often leads people to make poor analogies simply because there aren't any good ones that fit. In any event, what's important is that people who feel psychologically compelled to pursue activities that aren't tolerated by society (i.e., not just pedophilia) have a tendency to put enormous amounts of mental energy towards doing it in such a way as to minimize risk to themselves, and achieve their objective(s) as efficiently and quietly as possible (though "quietly" assumes the activity doesn't necessarily involve attention-getting in some way). Law enforcement types have learned not to underestimate them, but Wikipedians, maybe not so much. One other thing that I hesitate to point out, and which rarely gets mentioned (because it's so disturbing to parents), is that pedophiles in particular have a specific advantage over other sociopaths - namely, the fact that some children actually want to have sex with adults and not tell anybody about it. That's probably the main reason why you should ban them rather than "monitor" them - if they're allowed to continue "as long as they behave themselves," they'll find ways to advertise their interests, and in many cases the victims will come to them. Beyond that though, sure - pedophiles can fix typos and format reference citations and revert vandalism with the best of them, and even be very polite and "civil" about it. But if you think someone with real sociopathic/pervert tendencies is going to limit himself to that just because you ask him politely, or because you've threatened to "block" him if he doesn't, I'm afraid you're wrong. He'll probably find a way around almost anything you throw at him, because (no offense) he's just as smart as you - but unlike you, he's spent a whole lot of time figuring out how to do it, and it may be practically all he thinks about. Well, maybe you're right. However, my philosophy more closely mirrors how people deal with pedophiles in real life, and I suspect (although, as I already noted, I don't know) it's the de facto standard operating procedure on the internet as well (hopefully with the obvious exception of kid-oriented sites, which I'd imagine are much more vigilant). I suppose a lot of what we're seeing in this thread is a reflection of the idea that Wikipedia is some kind of playground, and naturally if that's how you see it then you'd want the approach to be more vigilant, reflecting what other kid-oriented sites do. It's not how I see Wikipedia--I see it as an essentially adult enterprise where children are allowed to participate, like many social networking sites. From my perspective, it seems doubtful that pedophiles would come to Wikipedia to groom children--perhaps they'd try to skew the pedophilia articles, but it seems like an odd target otherwise. Haven't there been any cases where the ArbCom has dealt with something like this? If not, well, that suggests it isn't a realistic problem, I think. If so, then it would be very informative to hear what kind of approach has been taken.
|
|
|
|
Posts in this topic
gomi Everyking: pedophiles can be productive editors One This has been explained many times, and Everyking ... MZMcBride
This has been explained many times, and Everyking... One
This has been explained many times, and Everykin... Peter Damian
But since Wikipedia is as open as it is, they sho... SB_Johnny
[quote name='One' post='223263' date='Wed 24th Fe... Killiondude
[url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/common... Krimpet
Almost as odd as describing Wikipedia as a ... everyking As a Wikipedia Review celebrity, I am always delig... GlassBeadGame
As a Wikipedia Review celebrity, I am always deli... Eva Destruction
What is Everyking's conditions for recall? S... GlassBeadGame
What is Everyking's conditions for recall? ... everyking
[quote name='Eva Destruction' post='223277' date=... GlassBeadGame
[quote name='Eva Destruction' post='223277' date... CharlotteWebb
Of course I will! Here's the deal, GBG: i... everyking
Of course I will! Here's the deal, GBG: ... Hipocrite
Of course I will! Here's the deal, GBG: ... GlassBeadGame
Of course I will! Here's the deal, GBG:... everyking
How about if I ask you, using my actual WP accoun... GlassBeadGame
How about if I ask you, using my actual WP accou... everyking
Hang on to those bits, Everyking, no matter how m... Jon Awbrey
Hang on to those bits, Everyking, no matter how ... EricBarbour [quote name='Hipocrite' post='223497' date='Thu 25... gomi Hmm. And what is the most straightforward way of ... Cock-up-over-conspiracy
Yes, yes, yes pedo-apologists ... "the Wikip... Jon Awbrey If it were simply a question of a single person wi... everyking
If it were simply a question of a single person w... EricBarbour I say we just ban EK, and save ourselves the waste... NotARepublican55 Seriously, how old is Everyking?
If it were simp... A Horse With No Name
Seriously, how old is Everyking?
He's proba... Zoloft Just a n00b here, but I'd hate to see Everykin... Jon Awbrey
Just a n00b here, but I'd hate to see Everyki... NuclearWarfare
I much prefer four square to jacks, thank you ve... Somey I know he said he'd prefer to have AfD's b... EricBarbour Still, why is [wpuser]Herostratus still an adminis... Somey Judging [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedi... gomi Judging from AN/I, they all think Herostratus was ... One
CHL will go back to being clueless ...If CHL was ... Milton Roe
Still, why is [wpuser]Herostratus still an admini... The Wales Hunter In the wacky world of Wikipedia, suggesting editor... Backslashforwardslash Paedophiles aren't bad editors. In theory they... Zoloft I would not sanction an editor for Everyking's... Eva Destruction
Beyond that though, sure - pedophiles can fix typ... Peter Damian
In any event, what's important is that people... Zoloft
In any event, what's important is that peopl... NotARepublican55
[quote name='NotARepublican55' post='223563' date... Malleus
Yes it is, seeing as Wikipedia allows minors such... NotARepublican55
Don't you think that emails sent out from wik... taiwopanfob My view is that letting pedophiles edit Wikipedia ... A Horse With No Name
[quote name='Cock-up-over-conspira... CharlotteWebb
Most people on Wikipedia see themselves like this... EricBarbour [quote name='A Horse With No Name' post='223583' d... A Horse With No Name
[quote name='A Horse With No Name' post='223583' ... A Horse With No Name
My view may, of course, be poorly informed and po... Cunningly Linguistic
Do other web sites allow them to pass judgment on... GlassBeadGame Ashley Simpson doesn't love pedophile enablers... SDJ In real life, people beat the shit out of pedophil... everyking
In real life, people beat the shit out of pedophi... SDJ
[quote name='SDJ' post='223682' date='Sat 27th Fe... dtobias So, basically, what people here are saying is not ... GlassBeadGame
So, basically, what people here are saying is not... everyking
So, basically, what people here are saying is not... SDJ
So, basically, what people here are saying is no... everyking
Supporting people who are sexually attracted to a... SDJ
[quote name='SDJ' post='223695' date='Sat 27th Fe... Malleus
Supporting people who are sexually attracted to ... SDJ
[quote name='everyking' post='223698' date='Sat 2... Cock-up-over-conspiracy Seems to me that "pedophilia" has just b... Cock-up-over-conspiracy A question, not a statement ... is this another co... Jon Awbrey
Now, tell me what the Wikipedia's position is... dtobias
Now, tell me what the Wikipedia's position is... GlassBeadGame
Now, tell me what the Wikipedia's position i... Jon Awbrey
Now, tell me what the Wikipedia's position i... Somey Certainly, if Wikipedia happens to take a hostile ... Cock-up-over-conspiracy To be honest, I was writing about the contributing... Milton Roe
I'll admit, people like the aforementioned ar... gomi The reality is that my viewpoint is functionally t... everyking
The reality is that my viewpoint is functionally ... Jon Awbrey
Every time I think my opinion of [Everyking] has ... EricBarbour So, basically, what people here are saying is not ... Rhindle It seems that lately that WR has become a lot like...
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |