On Jul 14, 2006, at 9:10 PM, Joseph Hiegel wrote:
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]]
Our freedom from litigation is partially due to being responsive to
people who are hurt or offended by articles about them. Seems like a
sound policy compared to the likely consequences of an amoral policy.
Fred
ournalistic_ethics#Harm_limitation_principle
Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l