On 9/24/08, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
I think our disagreement may stem in part from an ambiguity about the meaning of "derogatory information." If we are interpreting it as meaning "blatant lies and malicious gossip," then if course it does not belong anywhere on the Internet, period, end of story. But if it means "negative information that is true and can be sourced, but it is still questionable whether there is value in publicizing it," then the context for doing so may become more significant. As many BLP problems deal with the second of these categories as the first.
I agree that there is an overwhelming tendency to conflate these issues, exactly as explained in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts_on_BLP
In any case, when you put anything on the internet, you have to assume that pretty much everybody will see it, and copy it too, regardless of the copyright status.
Yes, I will be the first to admit this about the real world, that anything's kosher as long as you don't get caught, or as long as nobody cares, or as long as you have a good lawyer. Most people do base decisions on the probability of negative consequence, and not on "ethics".
Ethics are about doing what's right regardless of these factors.
I'm not going to tell anybody how to act when they find a lost wallet. Maybe you return it to the rightful owner, maybe you don't, but you can't call it "ethics" when the real reason is "everyone in the building saw you pick it up". Not with a straight face anyway.
—C.W.