I submit that this is a terrible standard for WIkipedia to aim for, and the day Wikipedia
starts doing that is the day Wikipedia as we know it has died a horrible death. When the
government of PRC censors content critical of them, they say those content were banned
because they are "not in the public interest".
IMO, none of the two criterias you mention are good criterias for inclusion in
WIkipedia. Wikipedia does not report the Truth™, only the NPOV. As for public interest,
let the public decide what is in their interest, wikipedia is not the appointed moral
guardian of the society (and in case Jimbo received that appointment letter I hope he has
burned it).
Molu
On Wed, 24 May 2006 13:40:28 +1000 Mark Gallagher wrote:
I submit that this is a good standard for Wikipedia to
aim for (even if
we don't need to). If something is not true *and* in the public
interest to know, we should not be saying it about anyone, in particular
living people. That's not a legal decision, it's an editorial (and, if
you like, moral) one. We should be displaying more discretion than
simply "oh, it's true, chuck it in". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate
collection of facts.
--
Mark Gallagher
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
---------------------------------
Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger
with Voice.