1/ when people should be "protected", is not self-explanatory. Some may feel that people are best protected by knowing the full truth in all cases.
2/ "doing right" is even more ambiguous of a concept than "improving the encyclopedia"; the reason we have actual rules is that people will not always agree about such generalities
Some of us may think "doing right" is publishing everything known to be verified; others, only those that lead to desirable social consequences. What constitute desirable social consequences is also not a uniform concept, or there would be no political differences.
The present government of China would completely agree with these principles for the flow of information, and the leaders there undoubtedly think they apply them in practice. Probably the Taliban would also. So would anyone who thinks that only those doing right ought to be permitted to communicate--this is the basic characteristic of repressive governments. .
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Ken Arromdeearromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Durova wrote:
With respect and appreciation extended toward Apoc2400, it's dubious that
there would be a need for a separate policy to cover this rare situation. At most, a line or two in existing policy would articulate the matter.
How about this as a start:
-- Modify WP:NOTCENSORED to say that Wikipedia is censored in rare cases in order to protect people.
-- Modify WP:IAR to say that rules can be violated if they prevent doing what's right, rather than only if they prevent improving the encyclopedia.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l