Erik Moeller wrote:
On 7/16/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Why is this not a good thing? Our articles are NPOV and verifiable, and easily corrected should errors in them be found. What would be a better site to have as the #1 hit?
That's a good point. Given that we don't, currently, provide any information on Brian Peppers, I'm glad, for the sake of human dignity, that Snopes does
Indeed, this is a very powerful moral argument on which I'd particularly like to hear Jimmy's thoughts: Isn't a neutral summary better than the rubbish of fark.com and so forth? At least in cases where the damage is already done? (If anything, we've pushed the meme further by arguing endlessly about it.)
Yes!
I think taking into account human dignity as one factor among many in our editorial judgments can go either way depending on the specific case. In the case of Brian Peppers, there is certainly a good argument to be made that having a thoughtful, NPOV article about him, including as much verifiable information as possible, can be a healthy antidote to the juvenile mocking we have seen in this meme.
In other cases, I think that human dignity points us in the other direction. The fellow in the Seigenthaler incident does not deserve to have a standalone article about him with this one tiny fact of what is likely an otherwise exemplary life turned into the #1 google hit for the rest of all time. (I think the current solution is fine, by the way: the article about him is redirected into the Seigenthaler incident article, therefore reporting the context.)
--Jimbo