Mailing List Archive

Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
In the wake of this RfB on the English
Wikipedia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Nihonjoe_4>we
really need some clarification from the foundation on this issue.
It's
my personal view that in general these kinds of situations fall pretty
clearly under the Non discrimination policy of the
Foundation<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Non_discrimination_policy>as
it is written now. Because that policy or its interpretation isn't
something subject to community consensus I feel we need to resolve this
issue before soliciting community input on the wider matter.

Best,
---
Jake Wartenberg
jake@jakewartenberg.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
Jake,

It is not an accepted practice to ban users from editing Wikipedia unless
they are actively disrupting, endangering, or otherwise harming the
project. Such bannings usually require either broad community consensus,
an action from the Arbitration Committee, or an action from Jimbo Wales.
In addition, "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against
current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color,
gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation,
or any other legally protected characteristics.

Pedophile activism actively disrupts the project; is the subject of an
action by the Arbitration Committee; and is not a legally protected
characteristic.

I am not happy with Nihonjoe_4's RfB as I not sure he was given a chance
to arrive at a considered resolution regarding this matter, but I
certainly don't like his unbriefed arguments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite/archive22#Tyciol

Fred


> In the wake of this RfB on the English
> Wikipedia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Nihonjoe_4>we
> really need some clarification from the foundation on this issue.
> It's
> my personal view that in general these kinds of situations fall pretty
> clearly under the Non discrimination policy of the
> Foundation<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Non_discrimination_policy>as
> it is written now. Because that policy or its interpretation isn't
> something subject to community consensus I feel we need to resolve this
> issue before soliciting community input on the wider matter.
>
> Best,
> ---
> Jake Wartenberg
> jake@jakewartenberg.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
Actually, I think the better argument is that pedophilia activism on
Wikipedia harms the project.

Fred

> Jake,
>
> It is not an accepted practice to ban users from editing Wikipedia unless
> they are actively disrupting, endangering, or otherwise harming the
> project. Such bannings usually require either broad community consensus,
> an action from the Arbitration Committee, or an action from Jimbo Wales.
> In addition, "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against
> current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color,
> gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation,
> or any other legally protected characteristics.
>
> Pedophile activism actively disrupts the project; is the subject of an
> action by the Arbitration Committee; and is not a legally protected
> characteristic.
>
> I am not happy with Nihonjoe_4's RfB as I not sure he was given a chance
> to arrive at a considered resolution regarding this matter, but I
> certainly don't like his unbriefed arguments:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite/archive22#Tyciol
>
> Fred
>
>
>> In the wake of this RfB on the English
>> Wikipedia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Nihonjoe_4>we
>> really need some clarification from the foundation on this issue.
>> It's
>> my personal view that in general these kinds of situations fall pretty
>> clearly under the Non discrimination policy of the
>> Foundation<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Non_discrimination_policy>as
>> it is written now. Because that policy or its interpretation isn't
>> something subject to community consensus I feel we need to resolve this
>> issue before soliciting community input on the wider matter.
>>
>> Best,
>> ---
>> Jake Wartenberg
>> jake@jakewartenberg.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
I am not talking about "pedophilia activism", but instances where the
individual in question is not disruptively editing.


---
Jake Wartenberg


On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud@fairpoint.net> wrote:

> Actually, I think the better argument is that pedophilia activism on
> Wikipedia harms the project.
>
> Fred
>
> > Jake,
> >
> > It is not an accepted practice to ban users from editing Wikipedia unless
> > they are actively disrupting, endangering, or otherwise harming the
> > project. Such bannings usually require either broad community consensus,
> > an action from the Arbitration Committee, or an action from Jimbo Wales.
> > In addition, "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against
> > current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color,
> > gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation,
> > or any other legally protected characteristics.
> >
> > Pedophile activism actively disrupts the project; is the subject of an
> > action by the Arbitration Committee; and is not a legally protected
> > characteristic.
> >
> > I am not happy with Nihonjoe_4's RfB as I not sure he was given a chance
> > to arrive at a considered resolution regarding this matter, but I
> > certainly don't like his unbriefed arguments:
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite/archive22#Tyciol
> >
> > Fred
> >
> >
> >> In the wake of this RfB on the English
> >> Wikipedia<
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Nihonjoe_4
> >we
> >> really need some clarification from the foundation on this issue.
> >> It's
> >> my personal view that in general these kinds of situations fall pretty
> >> clearly under the Non discrimination policy of the
> >> Foundation<
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Non_discrimination_policy>as
> >> it is written now. Because that policy or its interpretation isn't
> >> something subject to community consensus I feel we need to resolve this
> >> issue before soliciting community input on the wider matter.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> ---
> >> Jake Wartenberg
> >> jake@jakewartenberg.com
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Jake Wartenberg
<jake@jakewartenberg.com> wrote:
> I am not talking about "pedophilia activism", but instances where the
> individual in question is not disruptively editing.

There are a wide variety of reasons to permanently block people who
were elsewhere identified (more commonly, self-identified) as
pedophiles but edit here apparently harmlessly, including bringing the
project into disrepute (Jimbo's wording, I think), the latent threat
to underage editors, that they'd have to be watched continuously to
make sure they did not start advocating or preying on underage users.

The Foundation and en.wp community policies are generally to be
excessively tolerant of personal opinion and political and religious
beliefs, etc. We do not want to let one countries' social mores,
political restrictions, civil rights restrictions limit who can
participate and how.

However, there's no country in the world where pedophilia is legal.
It's poorly enforced in some, but there are laws against it even
there.

What it comes down to - the very presence of an editor who is known to
be a pedophile or pedophilia advocate is disruptive to the community,
and quite possibly damaging to it, inherently to them being who they
are and them being open about it.


--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Jake Wartenberg <jake@jakewartenberg.com>wrote:

> It's
> my personal view that in general these kinds of situations fall pretty
> clearly under the Non discrimination policy of the
> Foundation<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Non_discrimination_policy
> >as
> it is written now.
>
>
I don't think the non discrimination policy should be construed to apply to
the communities: the policy says that it applies to the Wikimedia Foundation
and makes no mention of the projects or volunteers. Note also that it is
listed under "Board and staff" on the navigation template (the policies that
apply to the projects are listed above).

In any event, paraphilias are not legally protected characteristics.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:37 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Jake Wartenberg
> <jake@jakewartenberg.com> wrote:
> > I am not talking about "pedophilia activism", but instances where the
> > individual in question is not disruptively editing.
>
> There are a wide variety of reasons to permanently block people who
> were elsewhere identified (more commonly, self-identified) as
> pedophiles but edit here apparently harmlessly, including bringing the
> project into disrepute (Jimbo's wording, I think), the latent threat
> to underage editors, that they'd have to be watched continuously to
> make sure they did not start advocating or preying on underage users.
>
That sounds reasonable to me; but it should be made clear. We can't have a
foundation policy that appears to contradict this, and if this is the
standard we are going to follow it should be written down.


>
> The Foundation and en.wp community policies are generally to be
> excessively tolerant of personal opinion and political and religious
> beliefs, etc. We do not want to let one countries' social mores,
> political restrictions, civil rights restrictions limit who can
> participate and how.
>
> However, there's no country in the world where pedophilia is legal.
> It's poorly enforced in some, but there are laws against it even
> there.
>
There is a difference between having a disorder and acting on it. The
former is of course legal.


>
> What it comes down to - the very presence of an editor who is known to
> be a pedophile or pedophilia advocate is disruptive to the community,
> and quite possibly damaging to it, inherently to them being who they
> are and them being open about it.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert@gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
This would be a great thing for the foundation to clarify. We should
probably go by the text and not by how the policy is linked to on a
template. It states *"This policy may **not be circumvented, eroded, or
ignored on local Wikimedia projects."*

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Benjamin Lees <emufarmers@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I don't think the non discrimination policy should be construed to apply to
> the communities: the policy says that it applies to the Wikimedia
> Foundation
> and makes no mention of the projects or volunteers. Note also that it is
> listed under "Board and staff" on the navigation template (the policies
> that
> apply to the projects are listed above).
>
> In any event, paraphilias are not legally protected characteristics.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:37 PM, George Herbert
<george.herbert@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Jake Wartenberg
> <jake@jakewartenberg.com> wrote:
>> I am not talking about "pedophilia activism", but instances where the
>> individual in question is not disruptively editing.
>
> There are a wide variety of reasons to permanently block people who
> were elsewhere identified (more commonly, self-identified) as
> pedophiles but edit here apparently harmlessly, including bringing the
> project into disrepute (Jimbo's wording, I think), the latent threat
> to underage editors, that they'd have to be watched continuously to
> make sure they did not start advocating or preying on underage users.
>
> The Foundation and en.wp community policies are generally to be
> excessively tolerant of personal opinion and political and religious
> beliefs, etc.  We do not want to let one countries' social mores,
> political restrictions, civil rights restrictions limit who can
> participate and how.
>
> However, there's no country in the world where pedophilia is legal.
> It's poorly enforced in some, but there are laws against it even
> there.
>
> What it comes down to - the very presence of an editor who is known to
> be a pedophile or pedophilia advocate is disruptive to the community,
> and quite possibly damaging to it, inherently to them being who they
> are and them being open about it.

I strongly disagree. We should not judge people by what their opinions
are, however apalling we may find them, but by whether or not they are
capable and willing to edit in an NPOV manner despite their ideas and
opinions. If that brings the project in disrepute, then so be it.
Neutrality to me is important enough an aspect of Wikipedia that I am
willing to take the risk of some disrepute for it.

As for your other arguments: We should be watching _everyone_ to make
sure they don't start advocating or preying on underage users, not
just self-identified pedophile activists. In fact, I think that
pedophile advocacy is a kind of advocacy we actually have to watch
over _less_ than other kinds of advocacy. The farther away a position
is from the mainstream, the more readily advocacy for that advocacy
will be recognized even if one is not looking for it. And few opinions
are as far from the mainstream as pedophile advocacy is.

--
André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
So you are taking a stance based on one particular class of criminal behavior? Following your reasoning, we should be blocking all self professed hackers/crackers too. They might do something illegal for jollies to disrupt the community, so lets block em!




________________________________
From: George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sat, November 28, 2009 1:37:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Jake Wartenberg
<jake@jakewartenberg.com> wrote:
> I am not talking about "pedophilia activism", but instances where the
> individual in question is not disruptively editing.

There are a wide variety of reasons to permanently block people who
were elsewhere identified (more commonly, self-identified) as
pedophiles but edit here apparently harmlessly, including bringing the
project into disrepute (Jimbo's wording, I think), the latent threat
to underage editors, that they'd have to be watched continuously to
make sure they did not start advocating or preying on underage users.

The Foundation and en.wp community policies are generally to be
excessively tolerant of personal opinion and political and religious
beliefs, etc. We do not want to let one countries' social mores,
political restrictions, civil rights restrictions limit who can
participate and how.

However, there's no country in the world where pedophilia is legal.
It's poorly enforced in some, but there are laws against it even
there.

What it comes down to - the very presence of an editor who is known to
be a pedophile or pedophilia advocate is disruptive to the community,
and quite possibly damaging to it, inherently to them being who they
are and them being open about it.


--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
I am going by the text. The Credit Card Usage Policy and the Pluralism,
Internationalism, and Diversity Policy also carry that boilerplate, but they
very clearly do not apply to the projects. Indeed, the Code of Conduct
Policy specifically states that it not a policy for community members.

Still, I agree with you that an official statement would be welcome.

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Jake Wartenberg <jake@jakewartenberg.com>wrote:

> This would be a great thing for the foundation to clarify. We should
> probably go by the text and not by how the policy is linked to on a
> template. It states *"This policy may **not be circumvented, eroded, or
> ignored on local Wikimedia projects."*
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Benjamin Lees <emufarmers@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't think the non discrimination policy should be construed to apply
> to
> > the communities: the policy says that it applies to the Wikimedia
> > Foundation
> > and makes no mention of the projects or volunteers. Note also that it is
> > listed under "Board and staff" on the navigation template (the policies
> > that
> > apply to the projects are listed above).
> >
> > In any event, paraphilias are not legally protected characteristics.
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
> If [it] brings the project in disrepute, then so be it.

> André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com

It is our responsibility to avoid harm to the project.

Fred





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
It's important to keep in mind what the enforceability (or lack thereof) of
whatever determination we make will be. That is, pedophiles will always be
able to edit unless we radically change the nature of the project. All we
can do is prevent them from using their real identities or declaring their
orientation (for lack of a better word).


---
Jake Wartenberg


On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud@fairpoint.net> wrote:

> > If [it] brings the project in disrepute, then so be it.
>
> > André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
>
> It is our responsibility to avoid harm to the project.
>
> Fred
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Jake Wartenberg
<jake@jakewartenberg.com> wrote:

> That is, pedophiles will always be
> able to edit unless we radically change the nature of the project.

What?

Radically change Wikipedia because of paedophiles?

Change it how?

When someone's about to make an edit we have a pop-up that says "Are
you a paedophile: YES/NO" and they can click through?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
I wasn't saying we should.

---
Jake Wartenberg



On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Bod Notbod <bodnotbod@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Jake Wartenberg
> <jake@jakewartenberg.com> wrote:
>
> > That is, pedophiles will always be
> > able to edit unless we radically change the nature of the project.
>
> What?
>
> Radically change Wikipedia because of paedophiles?
>
> Change it how?
>
> When someone's about to make an edit we have a pop-up that says "Are
> you a paedophile: YES/NO" and they can click through?
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
Andre Engels wrote:

> > If [allowing self-identified pedophiles to edit] brings the project in
> > disrepute, then so be it.

Fred Bauder replied:

> It is our responsibility to avoid harm to the project.

By that logic, we ought to disallow public editing altogether. After
all, wikis (and Wikipedia in particular) are widely criticised because
the ability of "anyone" to edit sometimes leads to inaccuracies and
other undesirable content.

But of course, we mustn't do that (despite the fact that it would
rectify a flaw that leads to disrepute), because it would
fundamentally alter the wikis' nature in an unacceptable manner.

This is the risk that we run when we begin banning editors because we
dislike beliefs and behaviors unrelated to their participation in the
wikis. We might avoid some negative attention that would accompany
their involvement, but what sort of project are we left with?
Certainly not the sort that I signed up for (and not one that will
engender positive publicity as the open community that it's purported
to be).

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:57 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair@gmail.com> wrote:

> but what sort of project are we left with?

Let's just have Paedo-Wiki and be done with it.

We have wikis for over 200 languages. It would be wrong not to allow
paedos to express themselves.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
Bod Notbod wrote:

> Let's just have Paedo-Wiki and be done with it.
>
> We have wikis for over 200 languages. It would be wrong not to allow
> paedos to express themselves.

I recognize your sarcasm, but not your point.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:06 AM, David Levy <lifeisunfair@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Let's just have Paedo-Wiki and be done with it.
>>
>> We have wikis for over 200 languages. It would be wrong not to allow
>> paedos to express themselves.
>
> I recognize your sarcasm, but not your point.

Well, I guess I just don't know where this conversation is going.

A paedophile might know a lot about the Spanish Civil War and could
usefully add stuff.

A murderer might know a lot about Pokemon.

A rapist might know a lot about physics.

It's not like we're going to know the personality involved, so surely
we just have to accept that editors come in all shapes and sizes and
let them get on with it.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
Bod Notbod wrote:

> Well, I guess I just don't know where this conversation is going.
>
> A paedophile might know a lot about the Spanish Civil War and could
> usefully add stuff.
>
> A murderer might know a lot about Pokemon.
>
> A rapist might know a lot about physics.
>
> It's not like we're going to know the personality involved, so surely
> we just have to accept that editors come in all shapes and sizes and
> let them get on with it.

I agree. When users edit the wikis to reflect
pro-pedophilia/pro-murder/pro-rape/pro-anything (or anti-anything)
agendas, that's when it's appropriate to act (regardless of whether
they've provided advance indication that such an issue might arise).

There's a world of difference between the block rationale "you edited
badly" and the block rationale "you didn't edit badly, but you're a
bad person." We stand to draw more negative attention to ourselves by
deeming certain people "bad" than by allowing said users to edit under
the same rules as everyone else.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 3:57 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is the risk that we run when we begin banning editors because we
> dislike beliefs and behaviors unrelated to their participation in the
> wikis.  We might avoid some negative attention that would accompany
> their involvement, but what sort of project are we left with?
> Certainly not the sort that I signed up for (and not one that will
> engender positive publicity as the open community that it's purported
> to be).

We have one single class of editors who, as a class, for
non-wiki-behavioral reasons, we ban. This class' participation is
problematic both for our other users safety and for Wikipedia's
reputation and integrity of content.

There is no slippery slope. Nobody has seriously proposed expanding
the list in any way. Nobody is in favor of banning Communists,
Republicans, Gays, or Moslems. There is no question that other groups
do not pose a risk, as a group, to our other users' safety or our
reputation or integrity of content.

Pedophiles have a near unity risk of reoffending. Even the ones who
say they have never abused anyone and never intend to, according to
surveys and psychologists, essentially always do.

There is a reason they are, after conviction (in the US) not allowed
anywhere near children in organized settings.

Wikipedia is a large organized setting, with children present as
editors. We owe them a duty to not let known pedophiles near them.
We can't guarantee that unknown ones aren't out there - but if we do
become aware, we must act.

We also, to continue to be taken seriously by society at large, not
allow ourselves to be a venue for their participation. Being known as
pedophile-friendly leads to societal and press condemnation and
governmental action, all of which would wreck the project.

I understand that some do not agree. But the reasons for this policy
are well founded.


--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:25 AM, David Levy <lifeisunfair@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree.  When users edit the wikis to reflect
> pro-pedophilia/pro-murder/pro-rape/pro-anything (or anti-anything)
> agendas, that's when it's appropriate to act (regardless of whether
> they've provided advance indication that such an issue might arise).

I agree.

Ages ago I saw someone editing that believed in child abuse. Their
argument was that there was a historical basis for it, going back to
the Greeks or somesuch.

There wasn't much I could do about it because we're all essentially
just people on the internet, and he wasn't actually saying he had
committed a sex-crime that one could report.

I think this issue is something we don't have to worry about too much.
People like that will be few and far between; if people start
agitating for criminal beliefs I think the community can handle it.
They'll be rightly despised in our community as much as they are in
real life.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
George William Herbert wrote:

> We have one single class of editors who, as a class, for
> non-wiki-behavioral reasons, we ban.  This class' participation is
> problematic both for our other users safety and for Wikipedia's
> reputation and integrity of content.

Integrity of content? Please elaborate.

> There is no slippery slope.

I haven't argued otherwise.

> Pedophiles have a near unity risk of reoffending.  Even the ones who
> say they have never abused anyone and never intend to, according to
> surveys and psychologists, essentially always do.

And banning self-identified pedophiles increases our users'
safety...how? Is it remotely realistic to assume that most pedophiles
will publicly identify themselves as such (and never seek to register
another account)? Of course not, and we're only encouraging them to
keep quiet (thereby increasing the likelihood that any improper
actions will go undetected).

It's clear that this is a PR issue, and there is validity to the
assertion that allowing known pedophiles to edit would generate
negative publicity. But would it generate more negative publicity
than the alternative (banning good editors and driving pedophiles
underground)? I'm skeptical. And either way, I believe that such a
practice contradicts the fundamental principles on which our community
is based.

> There is a reason they are, after conviction (in the US) not allowed
> anywhere near children in organized settings.
>
> Wikipedia is a large organized setting, with children present as
> editors.  We owe them a duty to not let known pedophiles near them.
> We can't guarantee that unknown ones aren't out there - but if we do
> become aware, we must act.

You're making the mistake of equating physical space to cyberspace.
In physical space, pedophiles are identifiable and traceable. We're
dealing with an anonymous setting. A known pedophile is less of a
threat than an unknown one, and banning the former only creates
incentive to remain the latter (which is as simple as not saying "I'm
a pedophile."). Our child editors are no safer.

> We also, to continue to be taken seriously by society at large, not
> allow ourselves to be a venue for their participation.  Being known as
> pedophile-friendly leads to societal and press condemnation and
> governmental action, all of which would wreck the project.

I've addressed the PR issue, and I'd be very interested to read about
the "governmental action."

> I understand that some do not agree.  But the reasons for this policy
> are well founded.

I also wish to read the policy. Where is it published?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Bod Notbod <bodnotbod@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:06 AM, David Levy <lifeisunfair@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Let's just have Paedo-Wiki and be done with it.
>>>
>>> We have wikis for over 200 languages. It would be wrong not to allow
>>> paedos to express themselves.
>>
>> I recognize your sarcasm, but not your point.
>
> Well, I guess I just don't know where this conversation is going.
>
> A paedophile might know a lot about the Spanish Civil War and could
> usefully add stuff.
>
> A murderer might know a lot about Pokemon.
>
> A rapist might know a lot about physics.
>
> It's not like we're going to know the personality involved, so surely
> we just have to accept that editors come in all shapes and sizes and
> let them get on with it.

What about a known paedophile who knows a lot about kiddie topics?

Or a known murderer or rapist who edits biographies of potential
targets? i.e. people that live in the same locality.

In many cases, we _do_ know the personality involved.
In this case, the block was endorsed by the English Arbitration
Committee, and the blocked user has the right to appeal to the
Arbitration Committee.

Just this year a pro-zoophilia person appeaed a ban, and the
Arbitration Committee agreed to unban them if they agreed to not edit
zoophilia topics. The person declined.

In regards to paedophiles, there are a lot of occupations that
_require_ people to report suspicious activity to law enforcement. It
is literally not safe for paedophiles to exhibit signs of paedophilia
activism or indulgence.

Wikipedia is a public space.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy [ In reply to ]
Let me make a few basic points here.

1. Obviously, we usually have no way of knowing what an editor's personal
beliefs or even activities are, unless he or she voluntarily discloses them.

2. At least on English Wikipedia, and I assume on other projects where the
issue has come up, there has been a policy (somewhat de facto, but with
high-level support) for several years of blocking self-declared
pedophiles and especially pedophile activists from editing. The
justifications for the policy include those mentioned previously in this
thread. There is also the fact that many users who go out of their way to
describe themselves as pedophiles may or may not actually be such at all,
but are simply trolling for reactions or to create controversy over whether
they should be blocked or not.

3. I have never seen a serious argument made that self-declared pedophiles
are protected by the Foundation's non-discrimination policy, and I certainly
have never seen any suggestion that the Foundation would overrule a block or
ban made by local project administrators on this basis, much less has this
actually happened or is there any likelihood it would ever happen. The
question that opened this thread, about the wording of the policy, is at
best a purely theoretical one.

4. It is entirely 100% predictable from experience (cf the En-Wiki userbox
wheel war case from early 2006) that this thread will quickly degenerate, if
it hasn't already, into extreme rhetoric and name-calling without producing
much, if any, usual output. I suggest in the strongest terms that this not
happen.

Newyorkbrad
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2 3 4  View All