On 7/14/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/12/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia IS the world's largest website;
Myspace would probably beg to differ.
Erm, alrighty, but you get the point, don't you?
Not really. The amount of content on a site is not that relevant to your argument.
Couple that with the fact that Wikipedia is regularly a top-ten website on most of the search engines.
Laws, schmlaws, I am referring to ethics.
Which ones?
Humans have come up with everything from super restrictive to "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"
Human conscience, the laws of natural justice. We *don't* have names for morals and ethics do we?
As I have already stated, his life is getting affected by the negative
publicity. The article does nothing but make a mockery of that
individual.
We are an encyclopedia and not a web-based newspaper which publishes
each
and every thing that happens on the planet. I am not against
inclusionism,
but some articles are better left outside, and for good reasons.
So your argument is noteability based?
Are you deliberately going around in circles?
They are not being denied information in any manner, but the point of him
having an article featuring himself makes the situation even more
enormous.
If they are not being denied information in any manner then the article will make no difference.
Featuring in an encyclopedia is quite different from getting mentioned on a tabloid. It generally magnifies the predicament of the individual.
No, it's about the systematic biases that plague Wiccapedia.
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]]
Yes, bureaucraticfuckism.
--
geni
--Anirudh