On 7/15/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
Couple that with the fact that Wikipedia is regularly a top-ten website on most of the search engines.
In this case we are only 2 places above telegraph.co.uk
Laws, schmlaws, I am referring to ethics.
Which ones?
Humans have come up with everything from super restrictive to "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"
Human conscience, the laws of natural justice.
Natural justice is a legal concept.
We *don't* have names for morals and ethics do we?
We have names for various ethical systems.
So your argument is noteability based?
Are you deliberately going around in circles?
Only in so far as I'm trying to follow you.
They are not being denied information in any manner, but the point of him
having an article featuring himself makes the situation even more
enormous.
If they are not being denied information in any manner then the article will make no difference.
Featuring in an encyclopedia is quite different from getting mentioned on a tabloid. It generally magnifies the predicament of the individual.
Because it makes the information more available. This does not tie into you claim that you do not wish to deny people information.
No, it's about the systematic biases that plague Wiccapedia.
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]]
Yes, bureaucraticfuckism.
That is not a word normally used to describe Wikiprojects.