On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I am Person A, so I will attempt to clarify what I was saying. Basically, there is a difference between "This is what we should do" and "This is how we should do it". We have policies on what kind of content is acceptable (WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc.) and then we have a separate policy on how we deal with content that doesn't (and can't) meet those criteria (WP:DELETE, probably - my knowledge of shortcuts is failing me!). "We should not do harm" is a matter of content and that should be kept separate to matters of procedure.
No, a dislike of causing harm should be an element of basic human decency. It's not up for policy to decide.
Ultimately the outcomes, both short and long-term, must be considered anytime procedure is applied. A long time fundamental tenant of Wikipedia is that you don't apply a procedure when you know it's the wrong thing to do.
[snip]
We've always felt that neutrality takes precedence over not doing harm. We've recently changed that for marginally notable living people, but not for fully notable ones.
There is a pretty straightforward argument why neutrality and harm avoidance are not necessarily in conflict:
When a noteworthy person does some horrific thing and later Wikipedia goes on to produce a fair and accurate account of the event placed in appropriate context and given appropriate weight, then any resulting harm was the subject's doing, not Wikipedias. Certantly all participants in a modern society are aware of journalism. They can except reasonable editorial standards from people that right about them, but not a shield against factual information and even criticism over their acts, .. as has been affirmed many times by the courts of any country which has any semblance of free speech.
Though in this case it is irrelvent if you accept this argument or not, since what you were arguing against was not the total avoidance of harm but rather and attempt to minimize it.
[snip]
We try to minimise harm (that's an unwritten rule based on common human decency), but not at the expense of neutrality.
Amusingly, an attempt to minimize harm is *precisely* what you were arguing against, ... You now claim to be attacking another position "We mustn't harm people", but thats a straw man. Your opposition was taking the positions that "we can't needlessly harm people" (we must) "reduce the amount that we unnecessarily harm people" and said so explicitly.
Can you explain to me why you were arguing against minimizing harm?