QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 17th October 2010, 11:34am)
By the way, Milton - the Church excommunicate on heresy quite easily.
Depends on whom you offend. From my point of view, of course, the entire Catholic church (and more than the Catholic church) is rooted in a peculiar heresy, a "mystery" that inherently departs from the tradition in which it supposedly arose, but .... never mind!
People do get stuck on old mistakes. Fortunately, we are not saved by our theology. Perhaps in spite of it.
FYI, the Inquisition was started to purge monasteries and the clergy of those embracing strange sexual practices.
Is it heresy to lie about history? To repeat unquestioningly, propaganda that is almost a thousand years old?
Quite a few people were those preaching that marriage was evil, that adultery was okay, etc.
Therefore, for their own good, we burn them at the stake, torture them until they confess, etc. Better that they suffer now than in the next life, eh? We were just being kind to them, it's a tough job, but someone has to do it.
Pedophiles would fit into that definition (as with any breaking of the vow of chasity). So, a solution would be to bring back the Inquisition.
From Ottava, I'd expect to see a smiley face if he wasn't serious.... Isn't this what he's been about? Prosecuting sexual heretics?
Anyway, they tried to remove two priests in California for stuff who sued. All sorts of loony things. I think they now have a streamline process for it, but you have to remember that 99% of the incidents happened between 1960 and 1985, so they were still dealing with the Vatican 2 transition. Also, an extremely high rate of the offenders were non US born individuals.
Wow! Toss in some xenophobia for good measure. Obviously, red-blooded Americans wouldn't do this kind of stuff. Just those dissolute foreigners.
I don't mind, at all, people defending the Catholic Church, a beloved institution for many, but I do mind when they become offensive in the process.
There is no "right to edit," but there is a presumed warranty of fairness involved, that's my legal theory. Wikipedia solicits labor, and the quid pro quo is that presumed warranty. It's thin, but it's all we've got.
However, be that as it may, Wikipedia has no obligation at all to ban "pedophiles," "neo-nazis," "crazies," "criminals," "Catholics," "Jews," "Muslims," or "ornithologists."
It does have some responsibility to avoid abuse of the site by anyone, certainly for illegal purpose. Fortunately, that can be based on actual on-site behavior. For Wikipedia to develop an off-wiki investigation process to identify member of any of these reprehensible categories would be ... expensive, time-consuming, and would, if volunteer-based, attract the most deranged of editors, those who take pleasure in accusing others of offenses. Some of these even imagine themselves to be ... "Christians."
And it would expose Wikipedia to real liability in many ways.
Going beyond addressing actual evidence of on-wiki abuse (or off-wiki abuse rooted in on-wiki connections, as an extreme) is a Bad Idea. That someone is, allegedly or actually, a pedophile (which refers to preference, not to action), a homosexual (ditto), or heterosexual (double ditto) is no evidence of any misbehavior or behavioral intent whatsoever. I'm a parent, I'm a male heterosexual, and, hey, what about my daughters? What about all those female editors, some of them underage?
Believe it or not, the police were called to investigate when, in a meeting of a 12-step program, I acknowledged how wonderful it felt when my two adopted daughters, one Chinese, one Ethiopian, fell asleep, one with her head on one shoulder of mine, the other's head on the other shoulder. The police are obligated to investigate, and I thanked the officer. Who could not, of course, tell me who had violated the confidence, but I did know, it was obvious. At the next meeting, I talked about what had happened, and the woman came up to me later -- I had not mentioned her name -- and apologized.
Honi soit qui mal y pense. She was crazy, I understood that.
The difference is that Ottava would never apologize.