On 7/5/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia IS the world's largest website;
Myspace would probably beg to differ.
it IS the world's largest compendium of knowledge,
Ah no various astronomy databases are larger.
the biggest encyclopedia. Do we have responsibilities?
Certainly. They are clearly laid out under various laws.
What about ethics?
I hear you can buy all kinds of stuff on ebay.
We are ACTIVELY affecting the lives of various individuals worldwide,
Yes? Strangely it is always an intern acting without orders who then makes the snips (well with one exception).
and one aspect of those impacts could be easily negative, if we tolerate negative but well-sourced information that clearly says -- "THIS GUY DONE FOUL"
What is the ethical issue?
Ryan Jordon is probably going to have a lot of hindrances while applying for employment and placements. Who are we to exacerbate the situation for an individual who is clearly not notable and affluent enough to get over the after-effects of the controversy?
Who are we to make the judgement that employers should be denied useful information?
Why should we constantly harp about upholding notability guidelines when it does more harm than good to borderline notable subjects?
Because Wicca is not the official religion of wikipedia.
harp about upholding notability guidelines would appear to be a strawman.
Our job as the largest encyclopedia in the world is to be the total sum of human knowledge but with certain responsibilities to the society and its members. If getting featured in various publications and dailies of repute does make a person notable enough to get them an encyclopedic entry, then we should get rid of this systematic bias.
Being worked on. Digging through microfilms is a slow process mind.
An alternative solution which might appease both the sides would be to remove the name "Ryan Jordon" from the article itself.
Enough valid stuff has already been removed from the article.