It's official: no pedo, At least, Jimbo says so; others debate Options

[papaya]

Depending on whom you believe, WP:PED is either being considered for elevation to policy, or already is.

This post has been edited by papaya: Wed 30th June 2010, 5:44am

[tarantino]

Sue Gardner speaks, and the wikimedia foundation weasels out of articulating any "official policy" to the volunteers regarding the subject of pedophiles participating in their project,

Personally, I believe that zero tolerance for pedophilia and pedophilia advocacy is just common sense, and shouldn't necessarily need to be explicitly articulated in policy in order to be regularly and consistently enforced by admins. It's possible that the board of trustees may in future make a statement offering guidance with regards to the appropriate protection of children --- I don't know. But I do hope that the projects in the normal course of their work would act responsibly, without necessarily needing to have policies or guidance explicitly articulated for them by the board (or any other party). Sue Gardner (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

[GlassBeadGame]

Sue Gardner speaks, and the wikimedia foundation weasels out of articulating any "official policy" to the volunteers regarding the subject of pedophiles participating in their project,

Personally, I believe that zero tolerance for pedophilia and pedophilia advocacy is just common sense, and shouldn't necessarily need to be explicitly articulated in policy in order to be regularly and consistently enforced by admins. It's possible that the board of trustees may in future make a statement offering guidance with regards to the appropriate protection of children --- I don't know. But I do hope that the projects in the normal course of their work would act responsibly, without necessarily needing to have policies or guidance explicitly articulated for them by the board (or any other party). Sue Gardner (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No board policy. Erratic "community" stance. No staff committed to "the priority." No implementation at all. Very odd "zero tolerance." Just "hope" the projects, who have proven unreliable and even sympathetic to pedophiles do the right thing. Ms. Gardner needs to be called to task for the false statement she publicly made concerning zero tolerance.

[carbuncle]

No board policy. Erratic "community" stance. No staff committed to "the priority." No implementation at all. Very odd "zero tolerance." Just "hope" the projects, who have proven unreliable and even sympathetic to pedophiles do the right thing. Ms. Gardner needs to be called to task for the false statement she publicly made concerning zero tolerance.

Looking at the full statement, she says:

The statement people are referring to is one I gave in response to a media article that made allegations about editing behaviour on the English Wikipedia. In it, I said that we have a longstanding zero tolerance stance on pedophilia. In saying that, I was referring to practices and policies put in place on the English Wikipedia several years ago by the Arb Com and Jimmy Wales, which were aimed at appropriately protecting kids while preventing false public allegations of pedophilia. Those policies and practices have only been documented fairly recently, but they've been consistently in place and enforced for years.

Apparently Sue thinks it is Jimbo's problem. Jimbo's recent statement seems a bit at odds with his earlier statements:

This is not a new policy. It has been in operation for several years without difficulty. It was developed through community consensus, implemented through community consensus, and is generally well-understood. I see no reason to engage in excessive a priori definition, since common sense can easily handle problems as they arise.

That seems to be moving it from a policy imposed by Jimbo and Sue to a policy that is based on a fictional consensus. Apparently Jimbo thinks it is ArbCom's problem. I wonder how long before ArbCom passes the ball to "the community" and it gets dismantled?

[Kevin]

No board policy. Erratic "community" stance. No staff committed to "the priority." No implementation at all. Very odd "zero tolerance." Just "hope" the projects, who have proven unreliable and even sympathetic to pedophiles do the right thing. Ms. Gardner needs to be called to task for the false statement she publicly made concerning zero tolerance.

Looking at the full statement, she says:

The statement people are referring to is one I gave in response to a media article that made allegations about editing behaviour on the English Wikipedia. In it, I said that we have a longstanding zero tolerance stance on pedophilia. In saying that, I was referring to practices and policies put in place on the English Wikipedia several years ago by the Arb Com and Jimmy Wales, which were aimed at appropriately protecting kids while preventing false public allegations of pedophilia. Those policies and practices have only been documented fairly recently, but they've been consistently in place and enforced for years.

Apparently Sue thinks it is Jimbo's problem. Jimbo's recent statement seems a bit at odds with his earlier statements:

This is not a new policy. It has been in operation for several years without difficulty. It was developed through community consensus, implemented through community consensus, and is generally well-understood. I see no reason to engage in excessive a priori definition, since common sense can easily handle problems as they arise.

That seems to be moving it from a policy imposed by Jimbo and Sue to a policy that is based on a fictional consensus. Apparently Jimbo thinks it is ArbCom's problem. I wonder how long before ArbCom passes the ball to "the community" and it gets dismantled?

I don't think anyone picked up that in her statement to Fox, she said "Wikipedia has..." rather than referring to the Foundation or the board. So there was weaseling out from the start. As for how long before it is dismantled, I think that is happening right now on Commons.