[Foundation-l] Proposal for Wikikids
Jens Ropers
ropers at ropersonline.com
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
More information about the foundation-l
mailing list