on 3/31/07 2:23 AM, Bryan Derksen at bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca wrote:
Doesn't seem that way to me. Geni is taking a
relativist position,
basically saying (if I interpret him correctly) that if we pick one of
the many different ethical systems out there and make it an official
policy we're going to bias Wikipedia and add lots of considerations that
aren't directly related to our goal. For example, "do no harm" could
require us to take out or modify articles about homeopathy, or
marijuana, or maybe even certain political or religious ideologies - and
"harm" is subjective so different editors would want to take these
things in different ways. It's a huge and unnecessary kettle of fish to
open.
This is in response to several recent posts. For the record, the concept of
"do no harm" I was presenting to in WP was related to what information we,
as editors, choose to include in biographies of persons. My point was that
to consciously include gratuitous, tabloid-like junk in a biographical
article is unnecessarily harmful to the person.
And, as far as "choosing a system of ethics" for WP: I don't believe it is
something you shop around for. But, rather, it develops, and is agreed upon,
by the Community of persons in WP itself.
Marc Riddell