On 31/03/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/31/07 10:43 AM, Ken Arromdee at arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007, Marc Riddell wrote:
This is in response to several recent posts. For the record, the concept of "do no harm" I was presenting to in WP was related to what information we, as editors, choose to include in biographies of persons. My point was that to consciously include gratuitous, tabloid-like junk in a biographical article is unnecessarily harmful to the person.
"Do no harm" and "do no unnecessary harm" are *vastly* different.
Harm - in any form - no matter how it is phrased - should be unacceptable.
But as several other people have posted, NPOV content *can* do harm and, for the sake of NPOV, this is acceptable.
How do you even define "harm"? Physical damage? Mental upset? I'm sure most of us consider it somewhere close to the latter. If a religious person reads a few of our articles on God and religion and is thrown into existential crisis (hoping too much?), is this mental upset "harm"?