George William Herbert wrote: > Wikipedia's strong culture of pseudonymity and anonymity makes protecting > anyone, or detecting anyone, a nearly lost cause if they have any clue > and sense of privacy. Unlike real life, we can't make guarantees with > anything approaching a straight face. > > However - there's a difference between being unable to effectively screen > people by real world standards, and not having a policy of acting when we > do detect something. One is acknowledging cultural and technical > reality - because of who and where we are, we couldn't possibly do better > than random luck at finding these people. The other is disregarding any > responsibility as a site and community to protect our younger members and > our community from harm, if we find out via whatever means. > > Witch hunts looking for people don't seem helpful or productive to me. > But if they out themselves somewhere else and are noticed here, then > we're aware and on notice. The question is, entirely, what do we do > then. > > Do we owe the underaged users a duty to protect them from known threats?
In my view, we're doing nothing of the sort (and constructing a false sense of security by claiming otherwise). I doubt that many pedophiles will seek to recruit victims via our wikis, but if this occurs, these account bans are highly unlikely to counter it to any significant extent. > Do we owe the project as a whole a duty to protect it from disgrace by > association? I see the potential for negative publicity stemming from the perception that we seek to create the illusion of improved safety and integrity. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
