On 7/5/07, Anirudh <anirudhsbh(a)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
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
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
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.