jahiegel wrote:
I cannot abide the suggestion that the community
writ
large truly believe, legal/publicity concerns aside, that we ever ought to
concern ourselves with the external consequences of our editing.
You are in the extreme minority on this issue. Most of us do care
passionately about the ethics of what we are doing, and how it affects
people. Indeed, for most of us, it is part of the very fabric of the
reasons we participate. We are human beings, trying to do something
good, not automatons puking out soulless "content".
Your position seems to grudgingly admit that we ought not to libel
people, since it might cost the project money or put it at risk. Most
of us take a different view: we ought not to libel people because we are
good, we are ethical, we are trying to produce something important in
the world that matters to the world, and we want to do it the right way.
You're preaching to the enlightened! Those of us who believe in this
probably all did so before we ever heard of Wikipedia, and mostly gained
it through life experience. Reading Aristotle's ethics would not change
this, just as reading Aristotle would by itself not produce an ethical
person.
Regret it as I may, I have to admit that the vast majority of society
have a great deal of difficulty coping without rules. When you want to
build on ethics it can be painful watching those who can't get it, and
tempting to take over and give them the rules they want. But doing that
comes with a price. The same contrast exists between a person with a
fifth grade education that builds a successful business empire and an
MBA that can't seem to rise above middle management.
An ethical person not only avoids putting others at risk, but he accepts
the personal risk of his own actions. He knows enough to take the risk
of breaking rules for a good cause.
Ec