Talk:Wikipedia
You might want to add a bit about "Child protection policy" being simply a euphemism for anything pro-minor attraction. --Etenne (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Child protection policy
I wonder why there isn't a rule banning users with other diagnoses, such as antisocial personality disorder, from editing Wikipedia? Psychopaths could pose at least as much of a threat to other users as pedophiles, I would think. And the editing of the site by known psychopaths could be harmful to the site's reputation. I was reading Hare, Robert D. Psychopathy as a Risk Factor for Violence. Psychiatric quarterly. (1999) , 70 (3), p. 181 - 197:
| “ | Several studies have determined the prevalence of psychopathy among various types of sex offenders (e.g., Brown & Forth, 1997; Miller, Geddings, Levenston, & Patrick, 1994; Quinsey, Rice, & Harris, 1995). In general, the prevalence of psychopathy, as measured by the PCL-R, is much lower in child molesters (around 10-15%) than in rapists or "mixed" offenders (around 40-50%). The offenses of psychopathic sex offenders are likely to be more violent or sadistic than are those of other sex offenders (Barbaree, Seto, Serin, Amos, & Preston, 1994; Brown & Forth, 1997; Gretton et al., 1999b; Miller et al., 1994). | ” |
Perhaps the reason why "child molestors" tend not to be psychopaths is that a lot of victimless behavior is considered child molestation. At any rate, what about the adults on Wikipedia; aren't they theoretically at risk of rape from self-identified psychopathic fellow Wikipedians? For instance, shouldn't User:Someone that loves cats be ArbCom-banned immediately because of their self-identifying as a psychopath? Lysander (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
