Marc Riddell wrote:
From a human point of view, which is my point of view, this response is chilling.
Doesn't seem that way to me. Geni is taking a relativist position, basically saying (if I interpret him correctly) that if we pick one of the many different ethical systems out there and make it an official policy we're going to bias Wikipedia and add lots of considerations that aren't directly related to our goal. For example, "do no harm" could require us to take out or modify articles about homeopathy, or marijuana, or maybe even certain political or religious ideologies - and "harm" is subjective so different editors would want to take these things in different ways. It's a huge and unnecessary kettle of fish to open.
This seems like an application of NPOV taken to a meta level. What's chilling about it?