Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 10 months ago, 5 minutes later[^][v]#1,355,772
@OP
Hey, there's a convicted rapist in the Oval Office at the moment, so why not? BTW: he can also commit murder with complete impunity if he so chooses.
Anonymous B replied with this 10 months ago, 9 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,355,776
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
It's a play on the fact that Wikipedia is "The encyclopedia that anybody can edit" - unless you happen to express a personal opinion. Basically, from Wikipedia's ass-backwards perspective, polemic discourse is the worst crime imaginable, far worse than rape, murder or genocide.
Anonymous B replied with this 10 months ago, 17 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,355,955
@1,355,779 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC) @previous (boof)
Actually, there are plenty of personal opinions included in wikipedian articles; they're cited from sources as diverse as peer reviewed studies and the tabloid press.
Anonymous B double-posted this 10 months ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,356,048
@1,355,996 (boof)
OK, so the editor cherry-picks his/her sources and uses them as a proxy to voice their unverified BS. Why not just drop the pretense? Rape and murder is far worse than expressing an opinion.
> So the editor cherry-picks his/her sources and uses them as a proxy to voice their unverified BS
If they have sources, it's the exact opposite of unverified. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. If you have sources contradicting the article, you can use them and edit the article.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 10 months ago, 20 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,356,092
@1,356,055 (G)
the more subtle(but just as damaging as its faggot bias) problem with wikipedia is that its sources for their more political pages are generally shit, which brings into question their other sources. see that XKCD comic that created the word citogenesis https://xkcd.com/978/
Anonymous B replied with this 10 months ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,356,199
@1,356,055 (G)
Yeah, but why should convicted rapists and murderers be allowed to edit Wikipedia while posting a personal opinion is a ban-worthy offense? How is polemic discourse worse than rape or murder?
Anonymous B replied with this 10 months ago, 6 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#1,356,495
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I assume that the word "wikiskill" refers to a person's ability to use the editing tools. Having an opinion would not have any effect on their use of the tools or their knowledge of markup codes.
Np, your wikiskill is your skill at editing Wikipedia - not only knowing how to use the tools but also knowing what and what not to write, and publishing quality Wikipedia-worthy contributions.
Anonymous B double-posted this 10 months ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#1,356,528
@1,356,498 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Actually, the OP was talking about rapists and murderers being allowed to edit Wikipedia.
Kook, I don't believe that a rapist has anything worthwhile to say, other than making a full confession to the police. I may be wrong, but I'd rather not have them around, either online or in the "real" world.
Anonymous B replied with this 10 months ago, 21 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,356,709
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Because serial rapist-murderers are both despicable and dangerous. In my *personal opinion,* they should not have access to Wikipedia's resources due to the Foundation's child protection policies, if nothing else.
Anonymous B replied with this 10 months ago, 6 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,356,716
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Nothing, but as a general rule, I'd rather not have rapists, murderers, sex-traffickers etc interacting with children on any level.
Anonymous B replied with this 10 months ago, 29 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,356,728
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I don't think it's a good idea to allow convicted felons to communicate with minors on any social media platform or cooperative editing project. With that in mind, I believe that the WMF should enforce its Zero Tolerance policy against child exploitation by banning rapists, murderers, child abusers, sex traffickers, war criminals and so forth without exception.
Anonymous B replied with this 10 months ago, 14 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,356,742
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I don't know, Kook. I have no statistics at hand. The issue is that they have no specific prohibitions against convicted or admitted felons editing the site.