On 3/31/07, Marc Riddell
<michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
On 3/31/07, doc
<doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I humbly suggest that the code "do no harm" is older and more virtuous
> than any statue book.
on 3/30/07 8:57 PM, geni at geniice(a)gmail.com wrote:
However it conflicts with things like NPOV and "wikipedia is an
encyclopedia".
"Do no harm" is not a "point of view" - it is a standard of behavior,
and
must prevail. And, if Wikipedia's identity as an encyclopedia does not
include "do no harm", it needs to rethink that identity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide as it stands harms
turkey. If we were to change it to reduce this harm we could
potentially harm the Armenians as well as producing an article that
would be against the law in France.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology)
Harms Scientology but not publishing it could harm people if
Scientology were ever to reactivate that policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Browne
Harms the subject of the article. But if we change it so it did not
the article would be in error
And, thereforeS?
Do no harm is not useful as an ethical foundation for wikipedia.
Did you not have your own? And if you did, what
was it? And, if not, why
not?
I'm not going to explain my entire system of ethics here. It isn't
really relevant in any case.