On 7/15/07, Anirudh <anirudhsbh(a)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.
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.
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
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
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]]
That is not a word normally used to describe Wikiprojects.