On 8/18/06, jahiegel <jahiegel(a)sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Sam's comments surely invite the question
around which, relative to BLP, we
often dance: ought ethical or moral impulses ever to affect our editing? ...
Concerns w/r/to prospective legal liability and bad press aside (which
concerns can be, I think, persuasively allayed), a certain "do no harm"
motivation tends to underline BLP. In view of the failure to command a
consensus of either [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] or [[WP:NOT EVIL]], and of the
disfavoring by the community of Jimbo's "human dignity" formulation with
respect to deletion, I cannot abide the suggestion that the community writ
large truly believe, legal/publicity concerns aside, that we ever ought to
concern ourselves with the external consequences of our editing.
Of course
we should "concern ourselves with the ... consequences of
our editing." No responsible publication operates a
"publish-and-be-damned" policy. I agree with Sam that BLP, in effect,
simply emphasizes the need to stick to NPOV, NOR, and V in the case of
living persons, and the reasons for this aren't only legal. They're
also based on issues of morality and fairness, and pride in our own
work. I don't want a mistake on Wikipedia to have a negative impact on
a real person, with or without a legal consequence. Most frequent
contributors believe strongly in the moral basis of this project, so
of course ethical concerns are going to kick in. You make it sound
like a bad thing to care about whether we cause harm, but this would
be a horrible project if we didn't care.
Sarah