This is a very valid point in terms of another way of approaching the issue.
(In evaluating the speech for completeness, do bear in mind that I only had a certain amount of time and couldn't make every possible point, but I should have found room for this one.)
Newyorkbrad
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 5:13 AM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Actually a point I felt was missing from NYB's talk, which took "privacy" as general theme, was this: as we know from WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not concerned with "indiscriminate" information. This ought to provide some clear blue water between us and popular journalism, which actually uses "indiscimination" quite often as a technique (e.g. twenty things you didn't know about some reality TV star, or lists of peoplr whose birthday is today). The argument put forth under the "where are they now?" discussion should be considered under this heading, I believe. Someone who won an Olympic medal 30 years ago is now pumping gas? If we exclude that from the athlete's WP article, is it (a) censorship, (b) respect for privacy, or (c) application of WP:NOT under the general heading of including the salient facts on someone, not everything that has ever been printed?
Anyway, while the basic points that "privacy in the old sense of protection from intrusive publication may not exist in the Internet age" and "attack pages with high search engine prominence do work" may be valid, I had this comment to make about the concluding section of the talk, namely that we have our mission and it is not identical to tabloid journalism.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l