[WikiEN-l] Changing the AfD process (Was: Re: [[Daniel Brandt]] is gone again)

[Todd Allen]

Tony Sidaway wrote:
> On 6/21/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> On 6/21/07, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> I think this is true only if you think that information is neutral,
>>> irrespective of the form of presentation.  Why would I not want to put
>>> my son's excellent academic record, or my beautiful and talented
>>> daughter's photograph, on a notice on every telegraph pole in my
>>> neighborhood?  I've nothing to be ashamed of, I'm a proud father, and
>>> they're both adults, so why don't I just go ahead and do that?
>>>       
>> You would probably run into your local anti-littering laws. There
>> would also be various issues of image rights by WP:V should keep
>> wikipedia covered in that respect.
>>     
>
> Questioning the legality is avoiding the question.  I don't put that
> information on my web page, either, and that's completely legal.
>
> By "WP:V" I assume you mean the verifiability policy.  Well in many
> cases information about relatively private people is quite verifiable,
> because it appears in medical case studies and in newspapers.  A
> person's name is splashed all over the newspapers because he survives
> the Virginia Tech massacre.  Do we put his name into the encyclopedia?
>  I think it's good that we recognise that there is an ethical question
> involved in such an act.  It isn't as neutral an act of cataloguing as
> we sometimes like to pretend.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>   
I'm not sure there's any "ethical issue" there at all. As you stated,
those peoples' names are very well-known already. I would tend to agree
that we shouldn't present a "biography" of such since we can't present a
complete one, but not even mentioning the names? That does indeed serve
an encyclopedic purpose-making things easier, for example, for a future
researcher who might be looking into the massacre, or wishes to follow
up. I would think that would outweigh any "ethical" considerations
of-what? Republishing already published information?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070620/61ab6afa/attachment.pgp