Actually moral absolutes do have a role. But sending you straight to hell is not a good option. Next time, if the only notable thing about a person is that they are pitiful, consider whether that is notable enough to balance the damage it does to Wikipedia to include it.
Fred
On Feb 24, 2006, at 5:59 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
I don't think moral absolutes have any place in this argument. Perhaps thoughtlessly, I rewrote the Brian Peppers article in December, because I thought a subject that had been debunked by Snopes probably merited one. I think I probably made a bad decision then, and certainly have no problem with the idea that we should all have a good, long hard think about articles that may seriously affect the privacy of people mentioned in them.
Wikipedia is big and popular, and a Wikipedia article on an individual may seriously affect his life. In my opinion (and I recognise that there are other ways of looking at it) taking a risk like that would have to be justifiable, and I don't think that the article that I wrote was justifiable in that context. Although I wrote about the meme and the debunking of the belief that the photograph was faked, it was foreseeable that others would choose to expand the article to describe the man in ways that could be damaging. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l