331
edits
WikiIndex talk:Prohibited content: Difference between revisions
→Controversial sites: Leucosticte's trap.
Leucosticte (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
(→Controversial sites: Leucosticte's trap.) |
||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
:::As far as Abd is concern, Nathan, I find him to be eminently more sensible and reasonable and more willing to comply with requests for courtesy and procedure, and while you may find these stumbling blocks, I do not. As for being on his side, I'll confess I'm more partial to granting his views consideration because he isn't as belligerent about them, but no, every word he types does not have my total blessing. As for views on prohibited content, my chief concerns are Wikiindex's reputation and legal liability, and while one could argue sites like [[Wikisource]] and [[Wikilivres]] have potentially illegal content depending on your country, they admit as much and urge the users exercise due legal caution, which is why I'd have no trouble with them being given pages or discussed. Sites that discuss the normalization of child porn and pedophilia are fine in a neutral context, but they tilt heavily in the interest of illegal acts when they start arguing for it, and since I don't believe it is ethically or legally sensible to provide links to sites that argue for the incitement of criminal acts minus any caveats about exercising legal restraint, and having seen BoyWiki and Newgon Wiki, they are only concerned with help pedophiles hide themselves from the law, which is why I would oppose them without question. Doxxing sites like [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] are legally gray, but from what I've seen, their policy is only to allow publicly available content, and while they do provide links to private dox, they make it clear it's entirely at your own risk and to my knowledge delete it and revisions with it from pages, as well as having a zero tolerance for child porn and bestiality, which is why I would argue a site like that still deserves a page. [[User:Arcane|Arcane]] ([[User talk:Arcane|talk]]) 16:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | :::As far as Abd is concern, Nathan, I find him to be eminently more sensible and reasonable and more willing to comply with requests for courtesy and procedure, and while you may find these stumbling blocks, I do not. As for being on his side, I'll confess I'm more partial to granting his views consideration because he isn't as belligerent about them, but no, every word he types does not have my total blessing. As for views on prohibited content, my chief concerns are Wikiindex's reputation and legal liability, and while one could argue sites like [[Wikisource]] and [[Wikilivres]] have potentially illegal content depending on your country, they admit as much and urge the users exercise due legal caution, which is why I'd have no trouble with them being given pages or discussed. Sites that discuss the normalization of child porn and pedophilia are fine in a neutral context, but they tilt heavily in the interest of illegal acts when they start arguing for it, and since I don't believe it is ethically or legally sensible to provide links to sites that argue for the incitement of criminal acts minus any caveats about exercising legal restraint, and having seen BoyWiki and Newgon Wiki, they are only concerned with help pedophiles hide themselves from the law, which is why I would oppose them without question. Doxxing sites like [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] are legally gray, but from what I've seen, their policy is only to allow publicly available content, and while they do provide links to private dox, they make it clear it's entirely at your own risk and to my knowledge delete it and revisions with it from pages, as well as having a zero tolerance for child porn and bestiality, which is why I would argue a site like that still deserves a page. [[User:Arcane|Arcane]] ([[User talk:Arcane|talk]]) 16:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
::::I don't think that BoyWiki and Newgon Wiki "are only concerned with help pedophiles hide themselves from the law". Newgon Wiki has one page devoted to computer security tips. The other pages are about research, debate, outreach, etc. BoyWiki is largely about boylover culture and history. Also, I think you're missing the distinction between {{w|advocacy and incitement}}. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 17:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | ::::I don't think that BoyWiki and Newgon Wiki "are only concerned with help pedophiles hide themselves from the law". Newgon Wiki has one page devoted to computer security tips. The other pages are about research, debate, outreach, etc. BoyWiki is largely about boylover culture and history. Also, I think you're missing the distinction between {{w|advocacy and incitement}}. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 17:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
:::::This is how Leucosticte operates. He's technically correct. He sets up situations where a normal person will state something that is not factual, based on easy and very ready impressions. Leucosticte has never, for example, hosted child porn, but he created a page on [[Nathania]] that was obviously designed to appear as such, to people who do not know the legal definition of "child porn." Then, when people react, as is totally predictable, he has plenty of reason to believe that he is right and almost everyone else is wrong. | |||
::::::I am not going to discuss [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] here, beyond saying that routine content on ED is far more offensive than anything I saw reviewing [[BoyWiki]] yesterday. My position is that ED is a wiki and should be listed, with warnings. | |||
::::::However, if you just look and react to what you think "boylover" would mean, I can easily see why you would think BoyWiki was highly offensive. This much is clear. "Boylover" is ''not'' a term for sexual preference. On the other hand, some with a pedophilic male sexual preference might call themselves "boylovers." Many "boylovers," apparently, to the contrary, condemn unlawful behavior, including sexual contact with children. Some may not. Leucosticte has shown no sign of being either kind of "boylover," his agenda is always disruption and debate, especially where he thinks standard thinking is wrong. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 20:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||