On 3/30/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
From a human point of view, which is my point of view, this response is chilling.
[snip much explanation] This seems like an application of NPOV taken to a meta level. What's chilling about it?
In this one, I agree with Bryan and Geni. Adopting 'do no harm' as a policy higher up than NPOV - which is what in effect several contributors are suggesting, if I read them right - is a fundamental change to Wikipedia's mission and objectives. Adopting it as a guideline at lower level than Wikipedia's core principles is acceptable to me, but I find its adoption at a higher level of policy than that to be troubling. Especially since many things can be considered harmful, including many things many of us might consider important.
Heck, some people (e.g. Brandt) consider Wikipedia unfixably harmful.
-Matt