I don't think moral absolutes have any place in this argument.
Perhaps thoughtlessly, I rewrote the Brian Peppers article in
December, because I thought a subject that had been debunked by Snopes
probably merited one. I think I probably made a bad decision then,
and certainly have no problem with the idea that we should all have a
good, long hard think about articles that may seriously affect the
privacy of people mentioned in them.
Wikipedia is big and popular, and a Wikipedia article on an individual
may seriously affect his life. In my opinion (and I recognise that
there are other ways of looking at it) taking a risk like that would
have to be justifiable, and I don't think that the article that I
wrote was justifiable in that context. Although I wrote about the
meme and the debunking of the belief that the photograph was faked, it
was foreseeable that others would choose to expand the article to
describe the man in ways that could be damaging.