On 7/12/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/5/07, Anirudh <anirudhsbh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Wikipedia IS the world's largest website;
Myspace would probably beg to differ.
Erm, alrighty, but you get the point, don't you?
it IS the world's largest
compendium of knowledge,
Ah no various astronomy databases are larger.
the biggest encyclopedia. Do we have
Certainly. They are clearly laid out under various laws.
Laws, schmlaws, I am referring to ethics.
What about ethics?
I hear you can buy all kinds of stuff on ebay.
Your point being...?
We are ACTIVELY affecting the
lives of various individuals worldwide,
Yes? Strangely it is always an intern acting without orders who then
makes the snips (well with one exception).
and one aspect of those
impacts could be easily negative, if we tolerate negative but
well-sourced information that clearly says -- "THIS GUY DONE FOUL"
What is the ethical issue?
As I have already stated, his life is getting affected by the negative
publicity. The article does nothing but make a mockery of that individual.
We are an encyclopedia and not a web-based newspaper which publishes each
and every thing that happens on the planet. I am not against inclusionism,
but some articles are better left outside, and for good reasons.
Ryan Jordon is probably going to have a lot of
applying for employment and placements. Who are
we to exacerbate the
situation for an individual who is clearly not notable and affluent
enough to get over the after-effects of the controversy?
Who are we to make the judgement that employers should be denied
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.
Why should we
constantly harp about upholding notability
guidelines when it does
more harm than good to borderline notable subjects?
Because Wicca is not the official religion of wikipedia.
harp about upholding notability guidelines would appear to be a strawman.
No, it's about the systematic biases that plague Wiccapedia.
Our job as the largest encyclopedia in the world is to
be the total
sum of human knowledge but with certain
responsibilities to the
society and its members. If getting featured in various publications
and dailies of repute does make a person notable enough to get them an
encyclopedic entry, then we should get rid of this systematic bias.
Being worked on. Digging through microfilms is a slow process mind.
An alternative solution which might appease both the
sides would be to
remove the name "Ryan Jordon" from the
Enough valid stuff has already been removed from the article.
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: