[Foundation-l] Proposal for Wikikids

Tue Jan 4 01:38:57 UTC 2005

On 4 Jan 2005, at 01:19, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> We are dealing with two different groups here.  The POV warrior, the 
> troll and the pornographer want their effort to be seen.  For some the 
> thrill is in the fight.  It's quite the opposite for the pedophile.  
> His editing activity will avoid controversy. On matters of interest to 
> children he will want to blend in as a cool member of the community 
> providing just the kind of information that kids want. He wants to 
> build confidence so that the kids will feel at ease to meet him when 
> he's ready.
>
> Ec

True, but there's also those pedophile editors who (probably under a 
different user identity than they would use for grooming) persistently 
seek to insert their a POV into relevant articles. These kind of 
pedophiles seek to promote memes sympathetic to their sexual deviance. 
A pedophile contributor might for example promote views such as: "if a 
minor consents, then no harm is being done" or "children may say 'no' 
but not really mean it" [1]. Their aim is to make their sexual 
aberration socially acceptable. Which means they have an agenda. In 
other words: they are POV warriors. However, a pedophile POV warrior 
may try to take the *sneaky* rather than the head-on dispute approach. 
If I recall correctly, there were precisely such problems (with 
pedophile POV edits) in the past -- in fact, a cursory check reveals 
that [[Childlove movement]] currently has a "disputed neutrality" 
disclaimer on it and a rather long talk page.

----
[1] I made up these quotes though; a real pedophile POV inserter would 
probably never put things that bluntly--far too easily detected.

-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com