User talk:MBisanz/Why

From time to time certain issues (pro-pedophilia userboxes, pro-pedophilia articles, and pro-pro-pedophilia userspage elements) have drawn significant condemnation from the Community and resulted in deletion. Frequently the questions of "why can't it remain if presented neutrally" or "its their userspace, let them do what they want" are asked. The purpose of this essay is to commentate on the reasons in this editors opinion, why such a position is and should be maintained.

1. Wikipedia is one of the top 10 accessed websites in the world. It has a public reputation that is already questioned due to its non-traditional method of user-editing and factual reliability. It is used everyday by tens of thousands of children as a source for assignments and even has several administrators who are under the age of consent. Additionally, it is organized as a U.S. foundation, subject to U.S. laws.

2. In many if not most circles, the issue of pedophilia is crystal clear: It is an abomination against God and man. It is regularly stated that even in prison, child-molesters are mal-treated by other prisoners due to the nature of their crime. This is because abuse of a child in a sexual manner is seen as both scaring an innocent being and because it represents supreme depravity on the part of the molester.

3. On the other ultra-fringe side of the argument, pro-pedophilia advocates emphasize consensual relations, relations occurring near the age of majority, and various theories of the benefits of sexual relations for the child. NAMBLA is one such organization that promotes these sorts of views.

4. Aristotle in his study of virtue ethics hypothesized that everything exists on a mean and that to deviate from that mean; to go to an extreme of instance; would result in vice. Pro-pedophilia advocates therefore create a continuum in which molestation is placed at one extreme to be viewed as a vice and certain types of sexual activity with children are placed at the mean to be viewed as permissible. However, this is an example of a false premise. Namely that the continuum must span all views from anathema to permissible. I would submit a continuum that places molestation at an extreme that it should be viewed as a death by torture worthy vice with the mean being merely an imprisonable activity, and the alternate extreme being that it is permissible. In this instance, the permissibility of adult-child sex would fall into Wikipedia's fringe theories definition and be dealt with as such.

5. As mentioned above, everyday thousands of children use Wikipedia. It can be analogized to a public park or even better, a public library. How many parents would permit their children to visit a library if it was known that individuals who supported adult-child sexual activity or desired to engage in it, frequented the library. When a user places a pro-pedophilia userbox or statement on their userpage, they are basically declaring the same thing. From a library's point of view, it would be enormously liable to permit individuals who publically declared themselves to support the idea that some adult-child sexual relations are permissible to use the library. While this may be considered discriminatory against the pro-pedophilia crowd, even those who have never abused an individual, the simple fact is that this is an issue that has already reached a consensus in society: Sexual relations between an adult and a minor are wrong. The response usually is that such boxes should be permitted to identify supporters and warn children away from their userpages. However, Wikipedia does have means of off-Wiki communication (emailuser) and not all user-talk pages are vigorously watched. All it would take is some child to email a user with such a box on their user page and some Chris Hanson-like situation to result, and Wikipedia would become publically known as a place pedophiles hang out to pick up children. This, and the likely lawsuit against the foundation for knowingly permitting such a user, would probably kill the Project.

6. Even discounting Aristotle's virtue ethics, there is still a valid argument against the inclusion of pro-pedophilia in Wikipedia. Namely that its is a public commons of sort. While things such as pages on things such Holocaust-denial or sections discussing the benefits of pseudo-science may be discussed, no one seriously believes that Brownshirts will march down Broadway in New York City beating individuals wearing black clothing. On the other hand, every parent fears that their children may run into a molester and be harmed. It is an immediate and proximate fear. Therefore, Wikipedia removes even sourced material in order to preserve the encyclopedia as a commons that is welcoming to the 99%+ of individuals, including the millions of children who may access it, at the expense tiny percentage who may believe such material warrants inclusion in a complete encyclopedia.