> It was an era when it was still an open question whether the Wikipedia should have pro-pedophilia advocacy in their entries. NAMBLA and similar will take eve

> It was an era when it was still an open question whether the Wikipedia should have pro-pedophilia advocacy in their entries. NAMBLA and similar will take every opportunity to push pro-paedophile[1] and pro-abuse positions. Your example just speaks to the nativity of Wikipedia (and a bunch of other US tech companies) around people who commit contact offences against children. But we need to be clear: this was not in anyway a mainstream position. It was a smallish number of child abusers gaming a system. The most recent example isn't just about what he said though. It's about how he said it. And it's this that people find unacceptable. The discussion was about how to manage the potentially serious image problem when a high profile member of the organisation has been accused of sexually assaulting a child. Either he doesn't know that this is the wrong time to say those things, or he does know and doesn't care, but either way it made it harder for other people to do their job - managing the comms of having your organisation financially linked to a high profile sex offender. [1] I guess we need to say that some people with a sexual interest in children will not commit offences against children, and so some pro-paedophile commentary is acceptable.