On 4/22/07, doc <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Since I think this is a terrible analysis of the issue let me repeat my
response:
We're not talking about Brandt and mildly critical stuff on a
well-written and highly monitored article. We are not talking about
people trying to cover up neutral reports of the truth. That's a
straw-man.
We are talking about downright libels, negative spinning, and outrageous
lies. We are talking about biographies that have pulled together every
detail of a minor small-town scandal, and ignored any positive
information whatsoever. People have a moral right not to be subjected to
that "WarmFuzzyPedia" or not.
We insist on neutrality, verifiability and 'due weight', but we are
hosting thousands of biographies that do not comply with these policies
and we have structures that have manifestly proven inadequate in dealing
with them.
If we host bios - we have a moral duty of care to the subject. We are
clearly in breach of that duty.
Yes, people don't get 'take down rights' in the real media - but real
media is produced by writers with real names and by publishers who take
legal responsibility, not written by ten year olds or clever anonymous
people with a malicious grudge and then published by non-responsible
foundation.
People have a absolute moral right not to have their name googled and
find that the highest ranking site (or perhaps only internet information
on them) has been written by a silly slanderous schoolkid, their
ex-husband's angry girlfriend, or a disgruntled ex-employee or rival out
to trash them. And often these subtle attacks are on the face reading
well-referenced and seemingly factual. Never spotted as simple vandalism.
People have a moral right not have to check their own biography for
hatchet jobs, and if they they do check it, and there is one, they have
an moral right to expect us to have a means of making sure it never
happens again.
If Wikipedia can't reasonable insure that people don't have these moral
rights infringed, then it has no business hosting their low-notability
biographies in the first place.
Comparisons with other internet user-contribution sites, and the claim
that we are better than them, are misleading. They don't claim to be
'encyclopedias' and they don't usually form the number one hit when a
private individual's name gets googled.
If I put a sheet of paper up in the local youth club, and some malicious
person writes the untruth 'John Smith was arrested for child-abuse',
then I can reasonably claim that the responsibility lies solely with the
writer and not with me. But if I put a ten foot billboard above John
Smith's house, with the invitation "come and write the encyclopedic
truth about John', and leave the paint lying about, I need to bear some
responsibility when the anonymous libeler places his giant statement.
This IS our ethical problem, and we need to do more to solve it.
Doc
Calling in more people to actually deal with the problems and develop
technical solutions to keep on top of possibly problematic changes are
things we could do to solve issues.
The thing is, we can't completely get rid of the people who post such
material in the first place without restricting access and that's not going
to happen.
The sort of entries you are describing would be down the drain in my book,
I'm talking about keeping the articles we want to have neutral and accurate.
Mgm