On 31/03/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 3/31/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
WTF? That we can't set ethics down in a nice tidy process for you with no shaggy edges is an excuse to say "well we can just bugger everyone, unless we might get sued"?
on 3/30/07 10:14 PM, geni at geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I suggests that ethics are a poor base to build from.
Incredible! :-(
Let's do all we possibly can to ensure that Wikipedia contains as few articles that are biased, untrue or privacy-violating isn't that difficult to comprehend no matter your religious affiliation or ethical code! We are under an ethical obligation to do that - and all process and policy should be reflecting that. Imaging that, it isn't hard if you try.
No. There is no need to introduce ethics into the system thus we should not do so. We have certian shared values yes (first tell no lies) but that does not translate into a system of ethics.
"Tell no lies" (like "do no harm") is a system of ethics.
Not quite. I suppose you could say that science aims to limit harm but harm is acceptable to achieving certain ends (a form of utilitarianism, perhaps). It is acceptable, according to some, to perform pain testing on monkeys to learn about treating chronic pain in humans. This is starting to go off-topic though.