On 8/20/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
jahiegel wrote:
I cannot abide the suggestion that the community writ large truly believe, legal/publicity concerns aside, that we ever ought to concern ourselves with the external consequences of our editing.
You are in the extreme minority on this issue. Most of us do care passionately about the ethics of what we are doing, and how it affects people. Indeed, for most of us, it is part of the very fabric of the reasons we participate. We are human beings, trying to do something good, not automatons puking out soulless "content".
Your position seems to grudgingly admit that we ought not to libel people, since it might cost the project money or put it at risk. Most of us take a different view: we ought not to libel people because we are good, we are ethical, we are trying to produce something important in the world that matters to the world, and we want to do it the right way.
You're preaching to the enlightened! Those of us who believe in this probably all did so before we ever heard of Wikipedia, and mostly gained it through life experience. Reading Aristotle's ethics would not change this, just as reading Aristotle would by itself not produce an ethical person.
Regret it as I may, I have to admit that the vast majority of society have a great deal of difficulty coping without rules. When you want to build on ethics it can be painful watching those who can't get it, and tempting to take over and give them the rules they want. But doing that comes with a price. The same contrast exists between a person with a fifth grade education that builds a successful business empire and an MBA that can't seem to rise above middle management.
An ethical person not only avoids putting others at risk, but he accepts the personal risk of his own actions. He knows enough to take the risk of breaking rules for a good cause.
Ec
See also the [[Milgram experiment]]. It certainly seems to be the case that a large portion of society has difficulty making ethical decisions when rules are lacking. More specifically, perhaps, when rules are taken away.
As an obligatory on-topic remark, I agree 100% with what Jimbo has just said. Libel laws or none, Wikipedia shouldn't be spreading unsubstantiated rumors. Fortunately US libel laws don't seem to preclude any speech that we should be making in the first place. Unfortunately, my understanding is that some foreign laws may, specifically when quoting another party's defamatory statement (with citation and attribution).
Anthony