Marc Riddell wrote:
From a human point of view, which is my point of view,
this response is
chilling.
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 seems like an application of NPOV taken to a meta level. What's
chilling about it?