This thread has been moved from the talk page of the Application Review Process on the Wiki
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ_Talk:Application_Review_Procedure. Specific issues raised by actual cases are documented there, with opinions - but dialog between respondors is moved to Forums. Only reply to the question is appropriate on the wiki talk page.
What is an acceptable level of honesty for an application?
If an applicant states that there are no publications, but investigation shows that there are publications that are not family friendly, or that are vehement to the point that would preclude an accepted application to a professional society, should the applicant be accepted? Rejected? If more information is required, what exactly should be asked for?
If an applicant wants to not mention publications, I don't think it's a problem. If the person's application can stand without the publications as an editor, they should be allowed as an editor. Otherwise, they should be allowed as an author. Unorthodox ideas should not be cause for denying participation. -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 11:22, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
Full disclosure is better. If an applicant is a writer of pedophilia erotica, we probably do not want the person at all. In all cases, if a person's writings depict illegal activity in a way that encourages, advocates for, or portrays positively that activity, they should be excluded, with "illegal" defined by what would be held as such in developed liberal countries (advocating for democracy in China, although illegal there, would be an example not falling under this rule). This is a logical extension of the family friendly policy and only makes sense. Lack of disclosure about published writings of the nature I am speaking of is a form of anonymity and should be rejected as incompatible in principle with CZ's policy of non-anonymity. - Stephen Ewen 15:50, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
Full disclosure is indeed better, but not if it is to be used as a way to censor or deny access like you propose. Laws or "community standards" of liberal countries are not a good way to handle access to knowledge. I should also remind you that no liberal country that I know of has maintained a ban on pedophilia erotica, only pedophilia pornography and the U.S. permits the latter when does not involve real children (though it can be judged as obscene, which I think is a stupid concept). If Family Friendly means "Think of the children" + Political Correctness, then I do not see us building a source of encyclopedic knowledge. I think this attitude stems from the current conservative movement in the United States and in some other places in the West and should certainly not be transferred over to online space. If this kind of subtle censorship is to take place, then you would be better off reading the first encyclopedia written by Diderot and cie in the 1750's. Using our real names should not be a reason to marginalize people: do this and you play exactly as Jimbo Wales predicted you would. Bidouleroux 22:07, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
It has nothing whatsoever to do with political views. In point of fact, texts that describe sexual activities involving children are legally classified as child pornography in Canada and Australia. Stephen Ewen 03:43, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
