Also, please address my point that banning self-identified
pedophiles from editing merely entourages pedophile editors to
*not* identify themselves as such (thereby increasing the
likelihood that problematic activities will be overlooked).
I believe that a natural
consequence of
I've just remembered seeing these 'making of' vids for video tutorials:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/18/wikimedia-to-produce-online-video-tutorials/
The post is a year old. And a comment links to a post in this mailing
list, also nearly a year old:
Hoi,
For your information an article from Wired that I think may be relevant...
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/12/thousands-of-sex-offenders-booted-from-facebook-myspace/?utm_source=feedburner
Thanks,
GerardM
___
foundation-l mailing list
There's a new question of the week at Strategy wiki -
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Question_of_the_week
This week's question is:
The Wall Street Journal published an article last week detailing the
research of Felipe Ortega, indicating that the number of editors has
declined in recent
Anthony wrote:
Then my response is quite simple. Blocking some pedophiles before they can
cause trouble is better than blocking none of them before they can cause
trouble.
And what do you believe is likely to occur when these pedophiles are
blocked before they can cause trouble?
We have no
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 7:38 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Then my response is quite simple. Blocking some pedophiles before they can
cause trouble is better than blocking none of them before they can cause
trouble.
And what do you believe is likely to occur
