On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:41:03 -0500, you wrote:
I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's
unilateral deletion of the encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his
locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five days*.
The debate over Brian Peppers is complex and involves deep feelings.
On the one hand we have people who see him as a victim of crass
exploitation, a disabled sufferer of a congenital deformity who has
become an object of derision; on the other we have people who believe
that the fact of his widespread exploitation being verifiable means we
must cover the subject. That group in turn divides between those who
want to ensure that the coverage makes plain that he is a victim, and
those who resent the implication that they have been (possibly
unwillingly) implicit in exploiting someone, so excise verifiable
facts like his being resident in a nursing home.
What is the overarching principle here? "Do no harm".
Which does more harm, having and fighting over an article which has
been accused by some in good faith of actively contributing to the
mimetic process, or stepping back and having nothing to do with it?
My bias is obvious from my statements above, of course.