The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> 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.

5 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Everyking: pedophiles can be productive editors, WP's morality distortion field
One
post Fri 26th February 2010, 4:33am
Post #41


Postmaster General
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined: Tue 25th Dec 2007, 10:49am
Member No.: 4,284

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(gomi @ Thu 25th February 2010, 11:52pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 24th February 2010, 8:37pm) *
CHL will go back to being clueless ...
If CHL was ever "away" from being clueless, "going back" will be a short trip.

Yeah, I think I would remember something like that. Eric appears to be misinformed.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
everyking
post Fri 26th February 2010, 5:02am
Post #42


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 7:24am
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. 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NotARepublican55
post Fri 26th February 2010, 6:56am
Post #43


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon 14th Dec 2009, 2:25am
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: Fri 26th February 2010, 6:59am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
everyking
post Fri 26th February 2010, 7:27am
Post #44


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 7:24am
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. rolleyes.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Killiondude
post Fri 26th February 2010, 8:47am
Post #45


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue 15th Sep 2009, 12:59am
Member No.: 13,788

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 24th February 2010, 4:26am) *

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...ActionShot2.jpg

huh, how do you control image size, praytell?

If you were genuinely asking, take a look here. Adjust the 500px in the URL as necessary.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming. biggrin.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Fri 26th February 2010, 8:47am
Post #46


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 25th February 2010, 1:59pm) *
QUOTE(Hipocrite @ Thu 25th February 2010, 9:30pm) *
How about if I ask you, using my actual WP account? Do I not count because you know my account, or do I not count because I've actually asked a lot of people what their conditions are?
Ah yes, I remember you, Admiral Ackbar. Here's what you said when you opposed my RfA: "Made non-binding pledge to do/not do something. Pledges during RFA are made ad captandum vulgus, and evidence a lack of reliability."


Mock him if you wish. He's probably got a job waiting for him in Mississippi. tongue.gif

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Fri 26th February 2010, 8:48am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
taiwopanfob
post Fri 26th February 2010, 1:07pm
Post #47


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri 26th May 2006, 12:21pm
Member No.: 214



QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 26th February 2010, 5:02am) *
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.


Man, will you ever make any sense at all? Ever?

Pedophiles are deeply aware of their station as one of the few -- the chosen! -- True Scumbags of Society. It's an interesting question where society as whole would rank them. Above or below a tax collector? A politician?

So it is to be expected that as soon as you identify someone as a pedophile, you have, from their perspective, banned them. The gigs up! They will seek a new account.

So you might as well ban them, and ban them as quickly you identify them.

QUOTE
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.


Except ... it appears that with relatively little effort an entire cadre of these people have been reliably identified.

Regardless, however, of how easy or hard the job is, dirty or clean, it is a job that must be done. If you allow someone to walk around a crowded room with a hunting knife in their hands -- on the theory it is better to "monitor them" than just arrest the idiot, and remove him from polite society -- you are empowering the guy with your lazy-ass negligence.

And that's what this all boils down to, isn't it, Everyking?

You are a lazy fuck.

You can't do the job of a real editor, so you "convert" your demonstrable inability a virtue, and even insult those who can do the job, and aren't afraid of doing it. "Vile deletionists", you call them.

Now it is clear you can't even do the job of sweeping out the trash. But hey, let's not be negative there ... let's convert your inherently irresponsible position into one of pure Good via the time-honored tactic of FUD production.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A Horse With No Name
post Fri 26th February 2010, 2:16pm
Post #48


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined: Mon 26th Jan 2009, 1:54pm
Member No.: 9,985



QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 26th February 2010, 12:02am) *

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 26th February 2010, 4:30am) *

Wikipedia society is counter evolutionary.


Whereas Wikipedia Review is merely counter-revolutionary. 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: Fri 26th February 2010, 2:17pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CharlotteWebb
post Fri 26th February 2010, 2:31pm
Post #49


Postmaster General
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined: Mon 18th Jun 2007, 2:09am
Member No.: 1,727

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 26th February 2010, 2:16pm) *

Most people on Wikipedia see themselves like this, not realizing that they are actually more like this.

Well, the resemblance is uncanny.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Fri 26th February 2010, 3:37pm
Post #50


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



Ashley Simpson doesn't love pedophile enablers.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Fri 26th February 2010, 8:55pm
Post #51


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Fri 26th February 2010, 6:31am) *
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 26th February 2010, 2:16pm) *
Most people on Wikipedia see themselves like this, not realizing that they are actually more like this.
Well, the resemblance is uncanny.

And right now, Everyking looks a bit like this. hrmph.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Fri 26th February 2010, 9:25pm
Post #52


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
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. 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eva Destruction
post Fri 26th February 2010, 9:38pm
Post #53


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 7:22pm
Member No.: 3,301

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 26th February 2010, 9:25pm) *

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.

For a case in point, look at the hassle both WP and WR (and assorted other projects) have in fending off Poetsocks. It's not that he's some kind of Lex Luthor type; it's that he spends all his time thinking of ways to game the system, and those who have to stop him have real lives and can't devote all their time to it.

(To pre-empt the inevitable anguished emails; no, I'm not saying you're a pedophile, I'm saying that you and they share a monomaniacal obsession with gaming Wikipedia for reasons no sane person would understand.)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Fri 26th February 2010, 10:06pm
Post #54


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



QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 26th February 2010, 9:25pm) *

In any event, what's important is that people who feel psychologically compelled to pursue activities that aren't tolerated by society


Wikipedia

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Fri 26th February 2010, 10:06pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zoloft
post Fri 26th February 2010, 10:11pm
Post #55


May we all find solace in our dreams.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined: Fri 15th Jan 2010, 11:08pm
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Fri 26th February 2010, 10:06pm) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 26th February 2010, 9:25pm) *

In any event, what's important is that people who feel psychologically compelled to pursue activities that aren't tolerated by society


Wikipedia

A compulsion you seem to share. hmmm.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NotARepublican55
post Fri 26th February 2010, 11:26pm
Post #56


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon 14th Dec 2009, 2:25am
Member No.: 15,925



QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 26th February 2010, 1:27am) *

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?

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?

QUOTE

Sign up for the high school debate team--seriously. rolleyes.gif

You first.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Malleus
post Sat 27th February 2010, 12:32am
Post #57


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined: Mon 27th Oct 2008, 3:48pm
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Fri 26th February 2010, 11:26pm) *

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: Sat 27th February 2010, 12:35am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NotARepublican55
post Sat 27th February 2010, 12:55am
Post #58


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon 14th Dec 2009, 2:25am
Member No.: 15,925




QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 26th February 2010, 6:32pm) *

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
everyking
post Sat 27th February 2010, 1:23am
Post #59


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 7:24am
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. 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A Horse With No Name
post Sat 27th February 2010, 1:39am
Post #60


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined: Mon 26th Jan 2009, 1:54pm
Member No.: 9,985



QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Fri 26th February 2010, 9:31am) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 26th February 2010, 2:16pm) *

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. wub.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th 10 14, 12:38pm