geni wrote:
On 3/31/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/30/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I don't recall signing up to a system of
ethics when editing wikipedia.
Wow, Geni. :-(
There is no code of ethics mentioned in the registration form.
Which system of ethics would you have me adopt?
Those of the APA:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rorschach1.jpg
those of Islam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
those of Catholicism I don't know if we have any of the works listed
in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum on wikisource but...
I've already delt with the Wicca do no harm approach so what is it to be?
In a situation where a universally agreed system of ethics is likely
to be impossible we must to an extent fall back on other more
pragmatic approaches. The law is one. Preventing inaccuracy is
another.
WTF? That we can't set ethics down in a nice tidy process for you with
no shaggy edges is an excuse to say "well we can just bugger everyone,
unless we might get sued"?
Let's do all we possibly can to ensure that Wikipedia contains as few
articles that are biased, untrue or privacy-violating isn't that
difficult to comprehend no matter your religious affiliation or ethical
code! We are under an ethical obligation to do that - and all process
and policy should be reflecting that. Imaging that, it isn't hard if you
try.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good <s>men</s>
Wikipedians do nothing."