On 3/31/07, doc
<doc.wikipedia(a)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(a)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.
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)