On 7/15/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Anthony,
Calling 911 to get a date is boneheaded. Trying to force yourself sexually onto a child is more than just boneheaded.
Writing an article to punish its subject is pretty boneheaded in itself. That the subject is "boneheaded" (or worse) is no reason to write a bad article on someone, even people you think are attempted rapists.
I never suggested that the reason to write an article was to punish its subject. The reason to write an article on [[Brian Peppers]] is that there are an enormous number of people looking for information on him.
And I never suggested writing a bad article on anyone.
We attempt to have neutral, unbiased articles about the utter dregs of humanity, the worst scum the human race has produced. We don't say (sorry) "Mr Hitler was a bad man, so we don't need to follow NPOV" --- we say "Let's write a good article about that Hitler chap, and be watchful, because he was such a bad man that other people will no doubt come along and try to POV-push there." If we can do that for history's greatest criminals, why are we even *thinking* of saying "Mr Peppers is a bad man, so basic human dignity doesn't apply here"?
I don't think this is a matter of basic human dignity. I think it's a matter of personal privacy, which I fully agree with Jimbo is one legitimate factor to consider. But I don't think anyone is suggesting that we don't have any articles on living people, so the question is where do we draw the line.
When is an article about a living person acceptable? I think one situation is where they have convicted of the felony attempted gross sexual imposition. You might disagree with me, but please stop mischaracterising my point of view.
Anthony