WikiIndex talk:Prohibited content: Difference between revisions

:"Wikiversity is not, as a site, going to 'advocate legalization' of anything, but it may well ''cover'' such." That sounds more like a description of Wikibooks, which comes the closest of any Wikimedia project to having true academic freedom. I wasn't too impressed with the outcome of the discussion at [[wikiversity:Wikiversity talk:Ethics for pages concerning illegal or physically dangerous activities]] or with the sysop actions on that wiki that led to that debate, viz. the deletion of the suicide content. I also wasn't too impressed with Sidelight12's [https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Sidelight12&page=User%3ALeucosticte&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_thanks_log=1 blocks] that occurred in response to debate concerning the child protection policy, and [https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Sidelight12&page=Wikiversity+talk%3AChild+protection+policy&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_thanks_log=1 his revision deletions], the latter of which remain in effect. I think you overestimate how much latitude there is for presenting useful information on all topics.

:::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)