My Assistant
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() ![]() |
| Backslashforwardslash |
Sun 25th October 2009, 9:43pm
Post
#61
|
|
New Member ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 22 Joined: Wed 16th Sep 2009, 3:28pm Member No.: 13,838 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
I appreciate your efforts but I'm sure you can see that this is something that needs to be addressed at the policy level (Board of Director, MWF, not user generated "policy.") I know, but considering they have had eight years to generate such a policy, I'm not holding my breath. Would be good if that in the user space there were some meta warnings or whatever they're called strongly discouraging users from revealing their personal information, particularly if they are minors. It wouldn't solve the problem. Most of the pages are faux-mainspace pages; wannabe actors and musicians and athletes writing their own article. The warning would just be ignored. No need to blame the parents. Wikipedia holds itself out as appropriate for children, including Durova's outreach to school teachers and Wales' involvement n One Laptop Per Child. I don't think Wikipedia is solely to blame here. The privacy of children on the internet is a worldwide concern, and no matter how many protections and clauses in the TOAs you put, their will be kids giving their a/s/l. Take MySpace or Facebook as an example; two websites with a lot on the line, yet they can't stop kids from adding profiles they don't know. While kids are getting more 'street-wise' in terms of those things, it's the kids that aren't familiar with the internet that will be in danger. Wikipedia's blame lies in the fact that nothing has substantially changed since 2001. This post has been edited by Backslashforwardslash: Sun 25th October 2009, 9:46pm |
| Eva Destruction |
Sun 25th October 2009, 9:53pm
Post
#62
|
|
Fat Cat ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,735 Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 7:22pm Member No.: 3,301 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
No need to blame the parents. Wikipedia holds itself out as appropriate for children, including Durova's outreach to school teachers and Wales' involvement n One Laptop Per Child. WMF is the culpable actor who declines to take responsible actions relating to the non-obvious but real and substantial child protective concerns created by thier project. Yes quite I get very angry when Wikipedians blame the parents. We monitor and police all the web traffic at home, but Wikipedia holds itself out as appropriate for children, as you say. Serious question to both of you; assuming Wikipedia's not going to vanish suddenly tomorrow, what would you do to resolve this? The anonymity of the internet means it's very hard to verify anyone's details; the WR mods, for example, have no way of knowing if any of the people viewing the current "naked woman on a horse" thread here are underage. Credit card verification systems are possible, but there are multiple issues (would you trust the WMF with your details; people would object to paying for something that was previously free; it would discourage casual visitors from fixing errors). Even sites with heavy moderation can't watch everything when there are millions of pages to watch - anyone based in the UK can't have missed the exposure of a particularly unpleasant pedophile ring on Facebook last week - and this despite Facebook having far stricter moderation than Wikipedia. |
| GlassBeadGame |
Sun 25th October 2009, 10:10pm
Post
#63
|
|
Dharma Bum ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 7,919 Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West. Member No.: 981 |
No need to blame the parents. Wikipedia holds itself out as appropriate for children, including Durova's outreach to school teachers and Wales' involvement n One Laptop Per Child. WMF is the culpable actor who declines to take responsible actions relating to the non-obvious but real and substantial child protective concerns created by thier project. Yes quite I get very angry when Wikipedians blame the parents. We monitor and police all the web traffic at home, but Wikipedia holds itself out as appropriate for children, as you say. Serious question to both of you; assuming Wikipedia's not going to vanish suddenly tomorrow, what would you do to resolve this? The anonymity of the internet means it's very hard to verify anyone's details; the WR mods, for example, have no way of knowing if any of the people viewing the current "naked woman on a horse" thread here are underage. Credit card verification systems are possible, but there are multiple issues (would you trust the WMF with your details; people would object to paying for something that was previously free; it would discourage casual visitors from fixing errors). Even sites with heavy moderation can't watch everything when there are millions of pages to watch - anyone based in the UK can't have missed the exposure of a particularly unpleasant pedophile ring on Facebook last week - and this despite Facebook having far stricter moderation than Wikipedia. I given this some thought and I think these measures would be a good start:
|
| Krimpet |
Sun 25th October 2009, 10:26pm
Post
#64
|
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 402 Joined: Mon 16th Jul 2007, 3:44am From: Rochester, NY Member No.: 1,975 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
No need to blame the parents. Wikipedia holds itself out as appropriate for children, including Durova's outreach to school teachers and Wales' involvement n One Laptop Per Child. WMF is the culpable actor who declines to take responsible actions relating to the non-obvious but real and substantial child protective concerns created by thier project. Libertarian extremism is largely based on self-entitled Wikipedians shifting the burden for the harm or danger they cause through immunity, atomized content, pseudonyms and "free licenses" unto innocent people an enterprises outside the project. Blaming the parents is another example of this. Oh, I'm not trying to absolve Wikipedia of responsibility. I'm only referring to the specific cases mentioned above when children who sign up and start spilling personal information about themselves, uploading photos of themselves, etc. (like Wikipedia were MySpace); what I meant is that parents not supervising their child's Internet usage to stop them from doing this and teaching them the importance of privacy is an additional problem that applies to all interactive websites, not just Wikipedia. Though that's not to say that Wikipedia isn't also responsible for keeping kids safe - thankfully, admins on Wikipedia tend to do a good job of deleting these kids' autobiographies after they're created, though there really should be warnings beforehand on the dangers of posting personal information and contributing to prevent these kids from publishing their info in the first place, not to mention an enforced minimum age limit on contributing. Now, what Kelly said above about the Foundation toning down content and safety warnings because they might "chill participation" is downright frightening, and irresponsible. Wikipedia can't continue to be portrayed by the Foundation and Jimbo, and thought of by the public at large, as a kid-friendly, safe environment, as long as they continue to have a laissez-faire attitude on policing the project. |
| GlassBeadGame |
Sun 25th October 2009, 10:34pm
Post
#65
|
|
Dharma Bum ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 7,919 Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West. Member No.: 981 |
No need to blame the parents. Wikipedia holds itself out as appropriate for children, including Durova's outreach to school teachers and Wales' involvement n One Laptop Per Child. WMF is the culpable actor who declines to take responsible actions relating to the non-obvious but real and substantial child protective concerns created by thier project. Libertarian extremism is largely based on self-entitled Wikipedians shifting the burden for the harm or danger they cause through immunity, atomized content, pseudonyms and "free licenses" unto innocent people an enterprises outside the project. Blaming the parents is another example of this. Oh, I'm not trying to absolve Wikipedia of responsibility. I'm only referring to the specific cases mentioned above when children who sign up and start spilling personal information about themselves, uploading photos of themselves, etc. (like Wikipedia were MySpace); what I meant is that parents not supervising their child's Internet usage to stop them from doing this and teaching them the importance of privacy is an additional problem that applies to all interactive websites, not just Wikipedia. Though that's not to say that Wikipedia isn't also responsible for keeping kids safe - thankfully, admins on Wikipedia tend to do a good job of deleting these kids' autobiographies after they're created, though there really should be warnings beforehand on the dangers of posting personal information and contributing to prevent these kids from publishing their info in the first place, not to mention an enforced minimum age limit on contributing. Now, what Kelly said above about the Foundation toning down content and safety warnings because they might "chill participation" is downright frightening, and irresponsible. Wikipedia can't continue to be portrayed by the Foundation and Jimbo, and thought of by the public at large, as a kid-friendly, safe environment, as long as they continue to have a laissez-faire attitude on policing the project. Parents have no more reason to see these thing as an obvious threat than they could know that Chinese toys had lead paint. It might seem no worse than introducing yourself at a day camp. It is because the threat is non-obvious, and because Wikipedia actively seeks the participation of children that parents can't be expected to accurately assess the threat. This places the burden squarely on Wikipedia. |
| Happy drinker |
Sun 25th October 2009, 10:40pm
Post
#66
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 155 Joined: Fri 16th Oct 2009, 5:47pm Member No.: 14,765 |
That isn't the topic at hand, which is whether I regard that particular image as pornographic. Why would anyone care whether you regard that particular image as pornographic? I've no idea, but I was asked what I thought about that photo. (So, Happy drinker, how do you feel about this image?) The question wasn't whether it should be deleted because someone else thinks it's pornographic. QUOTE No, but there are other reasons to delete the image - mostly that it's offensive to a large number of people. Is there any evidence for that? And is your position that we should delete everything on Commons that is perfectly legal in the US and Britain but offends some people? And does that include the Taleban, the Amish, Ulster loyalists, etc.? QUOTE And there's no reason to keep it. It isn't an image which is offensive to some people and useful, for an educational purpose, to others. I have no idea if it's useful or not. Please prove it isn't useful. QUOTE Who's we? You certainly shouldn't burn other people's books. Nor should I delete photos that belong not to me, but to the community. If the community agrees to their deletion, fine. QUOTE If that's how you feel - if you'd like for this image to be deleted, but just don't think it's worth the fight, fine. But I get the impression that your position is something different from that - that you don't *want* this image to be deleted. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't care one way or the other. If the community agrees to their deletion, fine. But I don't think that photos should be deleted without a good reason, and one person saying he doesn't like it is no good reason unless you agree that every photo that offends some people (even if you have no problem with it) should be deleted. Is that your position? QUOTE By the way, do you agree with Mr Kohs' description of everyone who posts here anonymously? Yo, shithead, rather than distract you from some necessary introspection on your part, I'll answer your questions when you finally get around to answering mine. So Kohs has managed to offend you without offending me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) This post has been edited by Happy drinker: Sun 25th October 2009, 10:44pm |
| Kelly Martin |
Sun 25th October 2009, 11:32pm
Post
#67
|
|
Bring back the guttersnipes! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 3,270 Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am From: EN61bw Member No.: 6,696 |
Now, what Kelly said above about the Foundation toning down content and safety warnings because they might "chill participation" is downright frightening, and irresponsible. Wikipedia can't continue to be portrayed by the Foundation and Jimbo, and thought of by the public at large, as a kid-friendly, safe environment, as long as they continue to have a laissez-faire attitude on policing the project. The Foundation doesn't even want it publicly discussed how participating in Wikipedia might be dangerous. Of course, this is the same Foundation that has been actively suppressing publication of the address of its office. And the same Jimmy Wales who arrange for his home to be held by an opaque trust so that it would be difficult to locate his residence via public land records. So not only does the leadership take a laissez-faire attitude toward safety, it does so very hypocritically as well. I suppose you could charitably believe that they believe that the risks imposed on Special People like Jimmy are not shared by others, even though there is a long history of editors being stalked and harassed by various people (I've received death threats in email, for example). In most cases the serious threats and harassment are based not on behavior on the wiki, but instead by status: gender, race, age, national origin, religion, sexual preference. Not surprising, but the Foundation is completely uninterested in taking any steps to migitgate or manage this risk. |
| taiwopanfob |
Mon 26th October 2009, 12:23am
Post
#68
|
|
Über Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 643 Joined: Fri 26th May 2006, 12:21pm Member No.: 214 |
QUOTE By the way, do you agree with Mr Kohs' description of everyone who posts here anonymously? Yo, shithead, rather than distract you from some necessary introspection on your part, I'll answer your questions when you finally get around to answering mine. So Kohs has managed to offend you without offending me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Yer a fuckin' retard. Once again, if "imposing your views" is a bad thing, then why do you do it at Wikipedia or Commons? Each and every edit is just that. Every addition is an imposition, every spelling fix is an imposition, every deletion an imposition. If you upload the photograph of an eight year old having sex with some fuck who hasn't the mental abilities to attract and hold the attentions of an adult, that is an imposition of a point of view. If I delete it, that too an imposition. As everyone here is telling you, it's all a matter of degree, where one draws the line. People here think editors should exercise judgment and generally think about what they are up to. It's part of the job of being an "editor". You and the rest of the Wikipediots and Wikitards disagree, that editors should essentially exercise no discretion whatsoever. Oh, excuse me, they should "follow policy", "obey the law" and "report violations". |
| taiwopanfob |
Mon 26th October 2009, 12:47am
Post
#69
|
|
Über Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 643 Joined: Fri 26th May 2006, 12:21pm Member No.: 214 |
The Foundation doesn't even want it publicly discussed how participating in Wikipedia might be dangerous. I recall it was none other than Durova -- one who should have known better -- actually asked on-Wiki whether the WMF would help editors being sued and other real-world implications of their volunteer work. Wales must have laughed himself to sleep that day. Of course all the editors are on the hook for their own actions. Even if said actions are in perfect harmony with Wikipolicy. As Dcoetzee found out recently. That these risks are not openly disclosed to editors on-wiki is something I've come to consider a case of fraud. If not fraud -- do I look like a lawyer? -- then it is certainly dishonest to the extreme. It may well be another useful function of WR to highlight the personal risk of participating in the project. Ironically, this would probably improve the situation at Wikipedia. |
| anthony |
Mon 26th October 2009, 1:23am
Post
#70
|
|
Postmaster ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,034 Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am Member No.: 2,132 |
That isn't the topic at hand, which is whether I regard that particular image as pornographic. Why would anyone care whether you regard that particular image as pornographic? I've no idea, but I was asked what I thought about that photo. (So, Happy drinker, how do you feel about this image?) The question wasn't whether it should be deleted because someone else thinks it's pornographic. 1) "How do you feel about image X" does not equal "Is image X pornographic". 2) Well? QUOTE QUOTE No, but there are other reasons to delete the image - mostly that it's offensive to a large number of people. Is there any evidence for that? Yes. QUOTE And is your position that we should delete everything on Commons that is perfectly legal in the US and Britain but offends some people? And does that include the Taleban, the Amish, Ulster loyalists, etc.? No. My position is that we should delete every image on Commons that is offensive to some people and is not useful for educational purposes. QUOTE QUOTE And there's no reason to keep it. It isn't an image which is offensive to some people and useful, for an educational purpose, to others. I have no idea if it's useful or not. Please prove it isn't useful. If you've thought about it and still have no idea if it's useful or not, then it probably isn't useful. QUOTE QUOTE If that's how you feel - if you'd like for this image to be deleted, but just don't think it's worth the fight, fine. But I get the impression that your position is something different from that - that you don't *want* this image to be deleted. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't care one way or the other. Good enough. I got the impression you did care. My bad. This post has been edited by anthony: Mon 26th October 2009, 1:25am |
| taiwopanfob |
Mon 26th October 2009, 1:34am
Post
#71
|
|
Über Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 643 Joined: Fri 26th May 2006, 12:21pm Member No.: 214 |
If you've thought about it and still have no idea if it's useful or not, then it probably isn't useful. It would be interesting to run a 'bot at Commons that looked for content that is not in active use by any other project (there is a "check usage" tag on all content). Maybe at three months, a warning can be sent to some human reviewers. At six months, automatic deletion occurs, with a little note to the uploader to encourage him to re-send it if it was some kind of huge mistake. How much of Commons would disappear? QUOTE Good enough. I got the impression you did care. My bad. "If he cared" would be evidence of the dreaded POV. This post has been edited by taiwopanfob: Mon 26th October 2009, 1:35am |
| Kelly Martin |
Mon 26th October 2009, 1:48am
Post
#72
|
|
Bring back the guttersnipes! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 3,270 Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am From: EN61bw Member No.: 6,696 |
QUOTE Good enough. I got the impression you did care. My bad. "If he cared" would be evidence of the dreaded POV. |
| Grep |
Mon 26th October 2009, 7:14am
Post
#73
|
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 269 Joined: Sat 18th Oct 2008, 4:45pm Member No.: 8,638 |
|
| Peter Damian |
Mon 26th October 2009, 9:12am
Post
#74
|
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 4,400 Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm Member No.: 4,212 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
Serious question to both of you; assuming Wikipedia's not going to vanish suddenly tomorrow, what would you do to resolve this? In addition to the other suggestions, change policy make it much easier to challenge suspected paedophile editors, without being accused of 'harassment' or being 'judgmental' or any other form of turning the moral table. There was a project to do this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PAW but (a) Ryan Postlethwaite was in charge of it, who is a complete idiot and (b) many of the members of the project were themselves paedophiles. Indeed, the editor I mentioned above, the one who confesses an attraction to 8-13 year old girls, is a member. |
| carbuncle |
Mon 26th October 2009, 2:03pm
Post
#75
|
|
Fat Cat ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,601 Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm Member No.: 5,544 |
In addition to the other suggestions, change policy make it much easier to challenge suspected paedophile editors, without being accused of 'harassment' or being 'judgmental' or any other form of turning the moral table. There was a project to do this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PAW but (a) Ryan Postlethwaite was in charge of it, who is a complete idiot and (b) many of the members of the project were themselves paedophiles. Indeed, the editor I mentioned above, the one who confesses an attraction to 8-13 year old girls, is a member. And User:Tony Sandel, who is sadly misunderstood. He says on his user page: QUOTE I have tried over the past couple of years to improve the resources available on Wikipedia both on the positive relations that men can have with boys and also the negative ones - the contentious topics of paedophilia/pedophilia, sexual attraction to children and child sexual abuse as portrayed in literature and in movies. My article on positive friendships between men and boys in literature and film was deleted. My articles on pedophilia and child sexual abuse in books, films, the theatre and songs have been criticised, emasculated, argued over and some deleted. My critics have been mainly editors acting in good faith, but there have been those who are pushing pro-pedophile or anti-pedophile agendas. Unfortunately, few of these editors have contributed anything useful to the articles themselves. Some editors are well read and we have had robust arguments. Others, unfortunately, as can be expected on Wikipedia, are just ignorant on the subject. I recognise that OR is a problem in all the articles and authoritative third party sources are hard to provide for all the works. It would also be very time consuming. It is for this reason that I have stopped editing these articles. I am in no doubt that 95% of the works listed were correctly listed and their inclusion was NPOV. When my book on the subject is eventually published, then perhaps we will have an authoritative third party source… Here's one of the articles he created: [[All American Boy]]. |
| Ryan Postlethwaite |
Mon 26th October 2009, 4:00pm
Post
#76
|
|
New Member ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 48 Joined: Sat 23rd Feb 2008, 12:48am Member No.: 5,023 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
Serious question to both of you; assuming Wikipedia's not going to vanish suddenly tomorrow, what would you do to resolve this? In addition to the other suggestions, change policy make it much easier to challenge suspected paedophile editors, without being accused of 'harassment' or being 'judgmental' or any other form of turning the moral table. There was a project to do this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PAW but (a) Ryan Postlethwaite was in charge of it, who is a complete idiot and (b) many of the members of the project were themselves paedophiles. Indeed, the editor I mentioned above, the one who confesses an attraction to 8-13 year old girls, is a member. That's completely wrong Peter, I never have been in charge of PAW and never will be. What I did do was offer to act as a mentor for editors who frequent pedophilia related articles and since myself and a number of other administrators got involved, things have got considerably better with much less squabbling like there used to be. Before the mentors got involved, we could have pro-pedophile advocates sitting around the project for a considerable amount of time actively editing and pushing their agenda. Now, we normally get notified of them fairly pronto and issue a quick block before they've managed to cause too much disruption. I can't comment on PAW because I've never looked into it too much, but I will say that 'pedophile topic mentorship' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pedophile_topic_mentorship) has been extremely successful. |
| Peter Damian |
Mon 26th October 2009, 5:06pm
Post
#77
|
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 4,400 Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm Member No.: 4,212 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
That's completely wrong Peter, I never have been in charge of PAW and never will be. What I did do was offer to act as a mentor for editors who frequent pedophilia related articles and since myself and a number of other administrators got involved, things have got considerably better with much less squabbling like there used to be. Before the mentors got involved, we could have pro-pedophile advocates sitting around the project for a considerable amount of time actively editing and pushing their agenda. Now, we normally get notified of them fairly pronto and issue a quick block before they've managed to cause too much disruption. I can't comment on PAW because I've never looked into it too much, but I will say that 'pedophile topic mentorship' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pedophile_topic_mentorship) has been extremely successful. My apologies for getting that detail wrong. But it is merely a detail I have a concern that editors who identify as pedophiles are editing articles (such as children's TV, cartoon characters) that young children also read or edit. This is going on unchecked, whilst editors like me who have protested vocally about this have been blocked or banned for 'harassment'. What exactly are you doing about this? Think of my 'Daily Mail' question I raised in another thread. Ryan , if you were being interviewed by the Daily Mail about identifiable pedophiles working in the same space as young children, how would you defend Wikipedia's position on that? This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 26th October 2009, 5:06pm |
| GlassBeadGame |
Mon 26th October 2009, 5:26pm
Post
#78
|
|
Dharma Bum ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 7,919 Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West. Member No.: 981 |
Before the mentors got involved, we could have pro-pedophile advocates sitting around the project for a considerable amount of time actively editing and pushing their agenda. Now, we normally get notified of them fairly pronto and issue a quick block before they've managed to cause too much disruption. I can't comment on PAW because I've never looked into it too much, but I will say that 'pedophile topic mentorship' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pedophile_topic_mentorship) has been extremely successful. This is simply monstrous. Postlethwaite is pleased because now pedophiles are less "disruptive" on Wikipedia. He is content that if they are good little editors that they can play with children on the "encyclopedia" all they like. A "block" is a brief sanction appropriate for edit warring. It is completely insufficient for dealing with pedophiles who are engaged in a project on which adults and children collaborate. This is a child protective issue not a mere content issue. The irresponsibility is shocking. |
| Ryan Postlethwaite |
Mon 26th October 2009, 6:28pm
Post
#79
|
|
New Member ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 48 Joined: Sat 23rd Feb 2008, 12:48am Member No.: 5,023 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
That's completely wrong Peter, I never have been in charge of PAW and never will be. What I did do was offer to act as a mentor for editors who frequent pedophilia related articles and since myself and a number of other administrators got involved, things have got considerably better with much less squabbling like there used to be. Before the mentors got involved, we could have pro-pedophile advocates sitting around the project for a considerable amount of time actively editing and pushing their agenda. Now, we normally get notified of them fairly pronto and issue a quick block before they've managed to cause too much disruption. I can't comment on PAW because I've never looked into it too much, but I will say that 'pedophile topic mentorship' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pedophile_topic_mentorship) has been extremely successful. My apologies for getting that detail wrong. But it is merely a detail I have a concern that editors who identify as pedophiles are editing articles (such as children's TV, cartoon characters) that young children also read or edit. This is going on unchecked, whilst editors like me who have protested vocally about this have been blocked or banned for 'harassment'. What exactly are you doing about this? Think of my 'Daily Mail' question I raised in another thread. Ryan , if you were being interviewed by the Daily Mail about identifiable pedophiles working in the same space as young children, how would you defend Wikipedia's position on that? Forgetting completely GlassBeadGame's ridiculous comment above, Peter raises an interesting question. I should elaborate on my comment above with the fact that if people have brought to my attention a user who has self identified as a pedophile then I will block them as such. If I think they're probably a pedophile, the likelihood is that they've made pro-pedophilia edits so I'll block them as such. In short, if any user who's brought to my attention is a pedophile, or who I strongly suspect is a pedophile, they'll be blocked. It's hard catch them all - I wish we could, but unfortunately that would be extremely difficult. As far as the Daily Mail question is concerned, hopefully I've answered it in the respect of what I do should I find a self identified pedophile or one is brought to my attention. This post has been edited by Ryan Postlethwaite: Mon 26th October 2009, 6:29pm |
| Peter Damian |
Mon 26th October 2009, 6:37pm
Post
#80
|
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 4,400 Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm Member No.: 4,212 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
Forgetting completely GlassBeadGame's ridiculous comment above, Peter raises an interesting question. I should elaborate on my comment above with the fact that if people have brought to my attention a user who has self identified as a pedophile then I will block them as such. If I think they're probably a pedophile, the likelihood is that they've made pro-pedophilia edits so I'll block them as such. In short, if any user who's brought to my attention is a pedophile, or who I strongly suspect is a pedophile, they'll be blocked. It's hard catch them all - I wish we could, but unfortunately that would be extremely difficult. As far as the Daily Mail question is concerned, hopefully I've answered it in the respect of what I do should I find a self identified pedophile or one is brought to my attention. I have mentioned above a currently active Wikipedia who has identified himself as a pedophile - on other websites to be sure, but there is a simple logic that takes us from one to the other. This person has not been blocked. In such cases, why can't you just remove the accounts - make them vanish in some way - with the minimum of fuss and embarassment? Also: do you have a private email address that whistleblowers can use in confidence? I don't see one advertised. |
![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 6th 12 14, 3:28am |