[WikiEN-l] pedophilia pages

Fri Jul 23 13:16:45 UTC 2004

I am not close to this debate; I've only followed the discussion on
the mailing list.  So I don't want anyone to take what I'm saying here
to be a decree or anything like that.

But I very much agree with the responsible and balanced tone put
forward here by Dr. Langdon:

alteripse at verizon.net wrote:
> I am supporting someone's excellent idea that we maintain a single
>article on this topic. Within that article we can provide the detached
>observation that "some groups advocate recognizing different forms of
>pedophilic behavior, or argue that some forms do warrant the social
>opprobrium... etc etc" so that the fringe point of view is represented
>within an article that clearly presents the overwhelming consensus of
>western society. Allow no other detached articles where uncriticized
>"milder" or "harmless" forms can be advocated. Think of it as a social
>smallpox containment unit.

I don't know if "single article" is the right solution, but there is
no question that the way he advocates presenting the topic is very
good NPOV writing.  The reader deserves to be informed that "some
groups advocate..." because that's solid encyclopedic information.
But the structure of articles must not give rise to a perception that
we condone pedophilia.

An additional subtle point that could be misconstrued is that we also
must not _condemn_ pedophilia.  We are an encyclopedia, not a body of
polemics.  We report, the reader decides.  We can (and must) report on
the consensus of medical scientists, etc.  I trust that we can do this
in a way that allows the reader to draw the right conclusion
effortlessly.

--Jimbo