[WikiEN-l] Human dignity (warning: verbosity follows...)

[Joseph Hiegel]

I agree with Bryan, but I am happy that Jimbo has made explicit an issue with which we've frequently dealt tangentially (see, e.g., in the [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] and [[WP:NOT EVIL]] discussions).  Plainly, to my mind, human dignity is an altogether unencyclopedic concern, and, pace Jimbo, I think that, inasmuch as we ought to edit with complete disinterest vis-à-vis the external consequences of our editing, we ought never to comport our encyclopedic work with, as journalists, a [[Journalistic ethics#Harm limitation principle|harm limitation principle]].
   
  There are, I think, two issues here: (a) whether the community believe there to be anything morally wrong with our creating and maintaining articles apropos of living persons where the notability of those persons is avolitional and where those persons are demonstrably harmed by our having such articles (even where they've not complained to us about that harm) and (b) whether, assuming arguendo that the community does thence appreciate a moral wrong, otherwise encyclopedic concerns militate sufficiently in favor of inclusion that, notwithstanding a moral wrong, we ought to have such articles.  
   
  Even as I recognize that some editors would find there to be something untoward or immoral in our having an article, for example, about [[Brian Peppers]], I think it is far from clear that the majority of frequent contributors think there to be something immoral with our writing articles that certainly harm their subjects where their subjects are arguably non-notable and in any event avolitionally public; I certainly can't comprehend why anyone would think such writing to be immoral, but that's likely because I am an amoral objectivist.
   
  Were there to be a consensus for the idea that we ought to act to limit harm in view of the nebulous "human dignity", I'd suspect that there'd nevertheless be no abiding consensus toward the proposition that the "human dignity" argument ought always to be dispositive; there are, after all, other encyclopedic concerns to which "human dignity" ought not to be superior.  
   
  As [[WP:POLICY]] makes well clear, the nature of the wiki is such that nothing is immutable; were most frequent contributors, for example, to determine that we should no longer require [[WP:V|verifiability]], it's likely that Wikipedia would (d)evolve in a fashion consistent with community consensus (surely Jimbo would consider whether to jump in at this point, but I think even he would concede that his capabilities to act unilaterally contrary to an evident consensus are somewhat limited and that, in any case, the community would look with strong disfavor on such unilateral action), and so, encyclopedic concerns aside, the community might decide to confer guideline status on the ol' "human dignity" bit.  I seriously doubt that the community would so act, though, and I certainly don't think that a discussion on the mailing list ought to be understood as involving the whole of the community.  
   
  There seems to be, relative to [[WP:OFFICE]] and [[WP:BLP]], an acquiescence to the idea that there are circumstances under which, even where legal and [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]], and [[WP:NPOV]] issues do not entail, we ought to act to avoid offending subjects, which accession I find wholly ridiculous.  If such accession commands the support of the community, though, it should be codified, but only after a Wiki-wide discussion.  
   
  Cordially,
   
   
  Joe Hiegel
  [[User:Jahiegel]]
   
   
  ournalistic_ethics#Harm_limitation_principle

Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
  Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I would vote "delete, nn - human dignity". A full explanation would be:
> For goodness sake, leave the poor woman alone.

I would support deleting an article about the incident you describe
purely on the basis that it falls below even my rather inclusive
"notability" standards, rendering your question moot.

Assuming for purposes of argument that there was reason that this
incident _was_ notable, however, I wouldn't accept an argument for
deletion solely on the basis of "human dignity." Our other policies and
guidelines will ensure that the article ultimately only contains
information that is commonly available anyway. Removing her article from
Wikipedia would do nothing to help "leave her alone" and it would harm
Wikipedia's coverage of a notable event, so IMO it'd be a solid net
negative.

I don't even see what's so undignified about this particular incident
that anyone would argue it on that basis in the first place. Everyone
does boneheaded things from time to time.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l