On 7/16/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Anthony,
On 7/15/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Anthony,
Calling 911 to get a date is boneheaded. Trying to force yourself sexually onto a child is more than just boneheaded.
Writing an article to punish its subject is pretty boneheaded in itself. That the subject is "boneheaded" (or worse) is no reason to write a bad article on someone, even people you think are attempted rapists.
I never suggested that the reason to write an article was to punish its subject. The reason to write an article on [[Brian Peppers]] is that there are an enormous number of people looking for information on him.
Okay, I've clearly misunderstood your comments in this thread. Just to make things ultra crystal clear, then: you agree that Mr Peppers' criminal conviction actually has no relevance whatsoever in the argument over whether or not an article about the fellow violates some ideal of human dignity, and therefore should never have been mentioned?
I don't actually understand what the Peppers case has to do with human dignity *at all*. Perhaps this is at least in part because I don't assign a good or bad value to his appearance.
That said, I do think there is a personal privacy consideration. I don't think Wikipedia should have articles about just anyone. In the case of Peppers I think the privacy argument is overcome because he voluntarily committed an act which put himself into the public spotlight.
Could the same be said of 911 woman? I guess. But her crime (for which I don't believe she has yet been convicted) is one which I see as much more minor, and she is a whole lot less popular (especially her name, which I don't even remember). Personally I have no opinion either way as to whether or not to keep an article about 911 woman. If it came out that she personally asked us not to have an article, then I'd support deletion of any such article which popped up, out of respect for her personal privacy. Otherwise, I'd neither support nor oppose deletion, though maybe I'd take a different position 6 months or a year later if the sources and interest either grow or go away.
If you do agree, then I must have completely misread the thrust of your arguments, and I apologise.
My argument, in terms of the Peppers article, is that it is "notable" due to the huge interest in him, and it is justifiable in terms of privacy rights due to his particular conviction. I see these as two separate issues for the most part, because the privacy issue is a hurdle that has to be overcome regardless of how much interest there is in a person.
Jimbo has suggested that the privacy issue is similar to what he's referring to as "human dignity". I don't really see much connection, but I could just be confusing the term.
Anthony