Mark Gallagher wrote:
I'm a bit concerned that sometimes Wikipedians have
a habit of writing
articles or including information, not because it's the right thing to
do, but just basically as a way of saying "you can't tell US what to do,
mate" whenever the subject of an article complains. In our rush to send
a big "FUCK YOU" to any censors, real or imagined, we can ignore what's
editorially or morally appropriate. As the man who has to deal with the
angry 'phone calls and possible press issues afterwards, it's quite
clear why Jimbo might object to that sort of thing.
That may be why some people support it, but I think it's ascribing too
much bad faith to accuse most of us of supporting publishing information
simply as a way of saying "fuck you".
I, personally, believe correct, verifiable information on a subject
someone might be looking for is nearly always a net positive, and that
withholding such information is almost always a net negative.
Publicly-available information is a cat that can't be put back into a
bag, and refusing to provide it in a neutral, verifiable manner does
nothing but: 1) increase the prominence of misinformation from
alternative sources; and 2) increase inequality in access to information.
Many people object to many things Wikipedia publishes, and make
arguments for why we should make a special rule against publishing a
specific type of information. Among other cases are:
* Information some organizations consider non-public, such as Mormon
temple rites, Freemason ceremonies, and so on.
* Leaked information alleged to be damaging to the national security of
one or another country (e.g. details on how military training in
specific countries operates).
* Photographs deemed by some cultures to be highly offensive (e.g.
[[en:clitoris]] or the Jyllands-Posten Muhammed cartoons).
In each of those cases, the eventual decision has been to continue
publishing the information, which I think is the correct decision. I
don't see how we can reasonably begin to limit what we publish for moral
reasons, especially since Wikipedians come from all over the world, with
vast differences in their moral views. I also don't think it would be
ethical to do so, anyway.
-Mark
P.S. -- Lest the above get misconstrued into an overly radical
inclusionist viewpoint, I should point out that I do support a weak
notability criterion. If someone is so non-famous that the only people
who might seek information on them are actually connected with the
person somehow (friends, family, employers, potential employers, friends
of friends, and so on), then an encyclopedia is not the proper place for
information on them. That covers many of the speedy-delete cases
(garage bands, high-school students, and so on).