Anthony wrote: > The subject is "Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy".
Obviously, the discussion's scope has expanded. > I've opted to participate to dispel the notion, suggested by you, that a > perfectly productive editor was blocked simply because the editor > happened to be a pedophile. I never claimed that the editor in question was "perfectly productive" (and I noted that he created numerous inappropriate redirects and disambiguation pages), but it certainly appears that he was blocked for being a pedophile (and not because of any disruptive editing, apart from the belief that editing by a known pedophile is inherently disruptive). > This is a hypothetical which I don't believe will ever arise in reality, What is? > and certainly not often enough that there is a harm in simply blocking > pedophiles on sight. Are you suggesting that we needn't even address a contention of unjust editing bans, provided that the number of affected individuals is low? > Jesse mentioned "the idea that paedophiles are inherently evil and can do > no good". I'm not saying that, but I do find the idea that someone who > openly admits to being a pedophile (*) could also be a good encyclopedia > editor, to be a bit far-fetched. > > (*) Which implies that they don't think there's anything wrong with being > a pedophile. I reject the premise that someone who "openly admits to being a pedophile" inherently "[doesn't] think there's anything wrong with [that]." This accurately describes some, of course, but I don't regard any of this as relevant. We routinely ban editors who habitually cause disruption (irrespective of our prior knowledge of them), and I see no need to formulate blanket assumptions that particular societal classes cannot be productive contributors. > I don't expect to convince anyone of this. In fact, I suspect a number > of Wikipedians on this very mailing list would take the pedophiles side > on the issue of whether or not there's "anything wrong with that". Wow, that's entirely uncalled-for. It's disheartening that you would equate opposition to an outright ban on editing by known pedophiles with approval of pedophilia. > > Yes, and the same applies to murderers, rapists and neo-Nazis in our > > midst. This is not a "slippery slope" argument (a contention that > > we'll be banning those editors next). I'm asking how it would be > > worse for an investigative journalist to discover that a pedophile is > > editing than to discover that a murderer, rapist or neo-Nazi is > > editing. > Of those three, I think neo-Nazi is the most closely analogous, and I > don't see why they should be allowed in Wikipedia either. Then perhaps this is a slippery slope, after all. I'm Jewish, and I would unreservedly oppose any attempt to prohibit neo-Nazis from editing (in accordance with the same rules to which we hold other contributors). > As for "murderer" and "rapist", I'm not quite sure what you're getting > at. Fred referred to the negative publicity that could arise if an investigative journalist were to determine that a pedophile is editing Wikipedia (or another Wikimedia wiki, I presume). Most societies condemn murder and rape with comparable vehemence. > If someone was convicted of murder 20 years ago and they are now out > having served their time, I don't think this sets a precedent that we can > ban them. On the other hand, if someone posts to message boards bragging > about how they like to rape people, but that rape is legal in their > country, I don't see any problem with banning them from Wikipedia. I do. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
