1: "pedophiles are being blocked even if they are not advocating, if I remember correctly" 2: "they are blocked because their behaviour on the site is agains our principles"
Either they are advocating, or they are not. Either they are inappropriately trying to contact minors, or they are not. Either they are editing articles with a pedophile POV, or they are not. In any case, nobody seems to have the wit and depth of understanding to make the distinction, and it seems Wikimedia would rather not take the risk, arguably for fear of lurid and uninformed media "exposure". As a result, some perfectly innocent editors at whom that label has been thrown, with little or no cogent evidence, have been banned without any recourse whatsoever. What pedophiles may imagine isn't acceptable to most people, but unless they follow up their desires on Wikimedia projects, there should be no reason for the Foundation or its various projects to take any action whatsoever. I'm quite sure that we have editors with criminal convictions, maybe even for homicide, and almost certainly some who have served terms of imprisonment, yet we don't seem to impose any sanctions apart from this one issue. And whereas criminals, by definition, have commited offences, it isn't also the case that pedophiles have also committed offences. In short, the current position (whatever it is) is a pusillanimous stance to maintain and not one that should be acceptable in any environment claiming to be a defender of knowledge, free or otherwise, and consistently adopting multiple policies that together predicate an intellectual purity. Some clarity would be welcome here. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" <cimonav...@gmail.com> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Andre Engels <andreeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > <cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Am I being dense, or are you being silly? Blocking advocacy from a site >> with >> a NPOV policy is a bajillion miles from being censorship. > > It may be a bajillion miles, I still think it's closer to it than > giving the possibility to people to decide what they themselves see or > not see is. Apart from that, pedophiles are being blocked even if > they are not advocating, if I remember correctly. > In the absolute, to follow teh rather perverse logci, No. Pedophiles are not blocked for their views, they are blocked because their behaviour on the site is agains our principles, very much like why we block people who by their actions want to censor wikipedia. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] _______________________________________________ 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