On 4/21/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
I consider our current attitude to the biographies of living persons to be positively immoral. We know people are being adversely affected, libeled and harassed. We know people are having to check their articles daily because of the danger of malicious attacks. And yet we hide behind the belief that we are legally untouchable and we refuse to take any real steps to reduce the harm, on the basis that 'it isn't how we do things', it might upset our users, or it might inadvertently take out a precious article on a webcomic as collateral. Well, the collateral to real people, in the real world, is now unacceptable.
We greedily insist on retaining as many articles as we can when we evidently cannot properly monitor them. That is immoral. We should not be hosting articles on people that we cannot reasonably service.
In other words we should find some way to monitor those articles properly. It doesn't happen now, but that doesn't we can't do it. We've set up more complex systems. If articles aren't being monitored now, deleting a bunch isn't going improve the situation, it wouldn't actually make people monitor articles.
Mgm