During discussion of the deletion review for [[Darvon cocktail]] today on WT:DRV, it was mentioned that En-WP has an article called [[Suicide methods]]. After reading this article in detail, I have spent the morning contemplating whether I consider it acceptable that Wikipedia is disseminating this article on the Internet. I have concluded that I do not. In many respects, this article could be used as a how-to guide by someone contemplating suicide and/or could lead such a person to infer that suicide is a reasonable response to whatever may be bothering him or her. While some other portions of the article may be relatively common knowledge or background information, I do not see how the article could be maintained in an acceptable state without permanently protecting it.
I was astonished to read that this article has been put up for AfD three times and has been closed as keep, once speedily, on each occasion, sometimes with indignation at the prospect of its deletion. I do, however, believe that our sensitivity to our obligations as one of the ten leading websites in the world has increased in recent months.
I consider myself a rather conventional and non-rouge type of editor and administrator but it is requiring a supreme effort of willpower not to perform an immediate IAR speedy deletion of this article on the ground that it represents an imminent threat to human life and safety whose existence tends to place the project in disrepute. I have no desire to create drama, but I am gravely troubled and would welcome comments from other Wikipedians.
Newyorkbrad
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) schreef:
En-WP has an article called [[Suicide methods]]. [...] I do not see how the article could be maintained in an acceptable state without permanently protecting it.
[...]
it is requiring a supreme effort of willpower not to perform an immediate IAR speedy deletion of this article on the ground that it represents an imminent threat to human life and safety whose existence tends to place the project in disrepute.
If you feel the article is unmaintainable without protecting it, why do you propose to *delete* it? A more logical (and acceptable) choice would be to protect it.
Eugene
On 4/16/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) schreef:
En-WP has an article called [[Suicide methods]]. [...] I do not see how the article could be maintained in an acceptable state without permanently protecting it.
[...]
it is requiring a supreme effort of willpower not to perform an immediate IAR speedy deletion of this article on the ground
that
it represents an imminent threat to human life and safety whose existence tends to place the project in disrepute.
If you feel the article is unmaintainable without protecting it, why do you propose to *delete* it? A more logical (and acceptable) choice would be to protect it.
Eugene
I was about to say the same thing. If you believe it can work in a protected status, we should try that before going through another AFD or rouge deletion.
Mgm
On 4/16/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
If you feel the article is unmaintainable without protecting it, why do you propose to *delete* it? A more logical (and acceptable) choice would be to protect it.
I think he is referring to the fact that WP shouldn't advice people on suicide, not that it is a target for vandals.
I think that if we would only go by the editorial principle this article should stay (should we also remove the section in [[Nitroglycerin]] where it states how it is manufactured?), but I think as a human being that it is unacceptable for this article to exist. This is EXACTLY why IAR is there. If you do decide to delete it, I will sign your response in the (inevitable) RFC that follows.
--Oskar
On 4/16/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/16/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
If you feel the article is unmaintainable without protecting it, why do you propose to *delete* it? A more logical (and acceptable) choice would be to protect it.
I think he is referring to the fact that WP shouldn't advice people on suicide, not that it is a target for vandals.
Sure, but we have an article on lockpicking, don't we? Our role is to supply information, not wrap the world up in cotton wool.
If someone wants to kill themselves, they can always step in front of a bus or jump off the Sears Tower, That doesn't require an internet search or a handbook. Giving people information about how to do it in a clean, safe and cheap way might be construed as a public service.
-- Peter in Chicago
on 4/17/07 6:17 AM, Skyring at skyring@gmail.com wrote:
If someone wants to kill themselves, they can always step in front of a bus or jump off the Sears Tower, That doesn't require an internet search or a handbook. Giving people information about how to do it in a clean, safe and cheap way might be construed as a public service.
Do you really know what you are saying here?
Marc Riddell
On 4/17/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/17/07 6:17 AM, Skyring at skyring@gmail.com wrote:
If someone wants to kill themselves, they can always step in front of a
bus
or jump off the Sears Tower, That doesn't require an internet search or
a
handbook. Giving people information about how to do it in a clean, safe
and
cheap way might be construed as a public service.
Do you really know what you are saying here?
Yup. Talk to a few train drivers sometime. They'd prefer that suicidees find another method apart from the obvious.
--Pete in Chicago
On 4/17/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/17/07 6:17 AM, Skyring at skyring@gmail.com wrote:
If someone wants to kill themselves, they can always step in front of a bus or jump off the Sears Tower, That doesn't require an internet search or a handbook. Giving people information about how to do it in a clean, safe and cheap way might be construed as a public service.
Do you really know what you are saying here?
Marc Riddell
I agree with Skyring here. If you're going to kill yourself, well, this won't be the deciding factor. However, we probably should link to [[Suicide prevention]] from it. ~~~~
On 4/17/07, gjzilla@gmail.com gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Skyring here. If you're going to kill yourself, well, this won't be the deciding factor. However, we probably should link to [[Suicide prevention]] from it. ~~~~
Looks like we do already. Anyway, the article is up for deletion.
~~~~
On 4/17/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
If someone wants to kill themselves, they can always step in front of a bus or jump off the Sears Tower, That doesn't require an internet search or a handbook. Giving people information about how to do it in a clean, safe and cheap way might be construed as a public service.
While we're at it maybe an article on [[assassination methods]]. How to avoid unnecessary casualties, etc.
Anthony
On 4/17/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/17/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
If someone wants to kill themselves, they can always step in front of a bus or jump off the Sears Tower, That doesn't require an internet search or a handbook. Giving people information about how to do it in a clean, safe and cheap way might be construed as a public service.
While we're at it maybe an article on [[assassination methods]]. How to avoid unnecessary casualties, etc.
Anthony
That's a [[straw man]].
On 4/17/07, gjzilla@gmail.com gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/17/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/17/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
If someone wants to kill themselves, they can always step in front of a bus or jump off the Sears Tower, That doesn't require an internet search or a handbook. Giving people information about how to do it in a clean, safe and cheap way might be construed as a public service.
While we're at it maybe an article on [[assassination methods]]. How to avoid unnecessary casualties, etc.
Anthony
That's a [[straw man]].
No, it's a natural conclusion to the line of reasoning you are presenting. If not, then what distinguishes an article on assassination methods with one on suicide methods? Couldn't you construe teaching people how to assassinate political figures in a clean, safe, and cheap way as a public service? I'm not talking about assassinating good people, I'm more thinking of bad people - Sadam Hussein types, y'know?
Anthony
On 4/17/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
No, it's a natural conclusion to the line of reasoning you are presenting. If not, then what distinguishes an article on assassination methods with one on suicide methods?
We don't yet have enough material for a seperate article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination#Techniques
On 4/17/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
If someone wants to kill themselves, they can always step in front of a bus or jump off the Sears Tower, That doesn't require an internet search or a handbook. Giving people information about how to do it in a clean, safe and cheap way might be construed as a public service.
If you came into a room and found that a person had slashed their wrists, and were still alive, what would you do?
Marc
On 4/17/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 4/17/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
If someone wants to kill themselves, they can always step in front of a bus or jump off the Sears Tower, That doesn't require an internet search or a handbook. Giving people information about how to do it in a clean, safe and cheap way might be construed as a public service.
If you came into a room and found that a person had slashed their wrists, and were still alive, what would you do?
Marc
Relevance, sir?
On 4/17/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
If someone wants to kill themselves, they can always step in front of a bus or jump off the Sears Tower, That doesn't require an internet search or a handbook. Giving people information about how to do it in a clean, safe and cheap way might be construed as a public service.
On 4/17/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
If you came into a room and found that a person had slashed their wrists, and were still alive, what would you do?
Marc
on 4/17/07 9:09 AM, gjzilla@gmail.com at gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
Relevance, sir?
The reason I am pursuing this is my belief that a person's attitudes about suicide are a factor in determining the value and ultimate fate of the Suicide Methods article itself.
Marc
On 4/17/07, gjzilla@gmail.com gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/17/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 4/17/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
If someone wants to kill themselves, they can always step in front of
a bus
or jump off the Sears Tower, That doesn't require an internet search
or a
handbook. Giving people information about how to do it in a clean,
safe and
cheap way might be construed as a public service.
If you came into a room and found that a person had slashed their
wrists,
and were still alive, what would you do?
Marc
Relevance, sir?
Exactly. I don't mind discussion on what makes a good article, or even if we should have one at all on a specific subject, but the above comment is unnecessary. My attitudes towards suicide, or the Holocaust or many other controversial subjects, are irrelevant.
--Peter in Chicago
On 4/17/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
If someone wants to kill themselves, they can always step in front of
a bus
or jump off the Sears Tower, That doesn't require an internet search
or a
handbook. Giving people information about how to do it in a clean,
safe and
cheap way might be construed as a public service.
My attitudes towards suicide, or the Holocaust or many other controversial subjects, are irrelevant.
Are you really wanting to say that the above statement does not represent an attitude?
Marc
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
I consider myself a rather conventional and non-rouge type of editor and administrator but it is requiring a supreme effort of willpower not to perform an immediate IAR speedy deletion of this article on the ground that it represents an imminent threat to human life and safety whose existence tends to place the project in disrepute. I have no desire to create drama, but I am gravely troubled and would welcome comments from other Wikipedians.
I hate to be a broken record, but not censored is not censored. It's not u pto us to make a distinction on what may end up being "dangerous."
I mean, are you going to go after [[Self-immolation]]? [[Erotic aspyxiation]]? Where do we draw the line?
-Jeff
On 4/16/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
I consider myself a rather conventional and non-rouge type of editor and administrator but it is requiring a supreme effort of willpower not to perform an immediate IAR speedy deletion of this article on the ground that it represents an imminent threat to human life and safety whose existence tends to place the project in disrepute. I have no desire to create drama, but I am gravely troubled and would welcome comments from other Wikipedians.
I hate to be a broken record, but not censored is not censored. It's not u pto us to make a distinction on what may end up being "dangerous."
I mean, are you going to go after [[Self-immolation]]? [[Erotic aspyxiation]]? Where do we draw the line?
-Jeff
And if we're going to delete an article on the grounds it may be dangerous, we might as well delete the article on suicide itself too. We also have an article on various crimes. That doesn't mean we support someone trying it out.
Mgm
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
I consider myself a rather conventional and non-rouge type of editor and administrator but it is requiring a supreme effort of willpower not to perform an immediate IAR speedy deletion of this article on the ground that it represents an imminent threat to human life and safety whose existence tends to place the project in disrepute. I have no desire to create drama, but I am gravely troubled and would welcome comments from other Wikipedians.
I hate to be a broken record, but not censored is not censored. It's not u pto us to make a distinction on what may end up being "dangerous."
I mean, are you going to go after [[Self-immolation]]? [[Erotic aspyxiation]]? Where do we draw the line?
Draw the line where good judgement dictates that it should be drawn. Don't defend a policy on the basis that there exists no better policy that a robot could understand -- we are not robots. Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech, the lack of censorship does not mean we should publish everything that can possibly be published. We need to select our material based on more nuanced criteria.
-- Tim Starling
Tim Starling wrote:
Draw the line where good judgement dictates that it should be drawn.
We're not in the market of making "good" or "bad" judgement - we're in the market of building a comprehensive encyclopedia.
Don't defend a policy on the basis that there exists no better policy that a robot could understand -- we are not robots.
Although we'd probably benefit from it in a lot of cases.
Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech, the lack of censorship does not mean we should publish everything that can possibly be published. We need to select our material based on more nuanced criteria.
I can't buy into that, I'm sorry. If "nuanced criteria" means "removing information that may cause harm to someone," forget it. We have enough subjectivity already.
-Jeff
On Apr 16, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Jeff Raymond wrote:
We're not in the market of making "good" or "bad" judgement - we're in the market of building a comprehensive encyclopedia.
I just read the article. Removing all unsourced material, and how- to's (as per [[WP:NOT]], can leave the article informative without being a user manual for suicide.
-- Jossi
On 4/16/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
On Apr 16, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Jeff Raymond wrote:
We're not in the market of making "good" or "bad" judgement - we're in the market of building a comprehensive encyclopedia.
I just read the article. Removing all unsourced material, and how- to's (as per [[WP:NOT]], can leave the article informative without being a user manual for suicide.
-- Jossi
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Most people say "I believe in Wikipedia principles", in particular "I believe wikipedia is not censored", the true test happens when you finally ran across an article that makes YOU uncomfortable. ~~~~
On 4/16/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
On Apr 16, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Jeff Raymond wrote:
We're not in the market of making "good" or "bad" judgement - we're in the market of building a comprehensive encyclopedia.
I just read the article. Removing all unsourced material, and how- to's (as per [[WP:NOT]], can leave the article informative without being a user manual for suicide.
I agree with Jossi - the article isn't really a how-to guide at the moment (eg "if you're planning on hanging yourself, make sure you measure the floor to ceiling height and choose a room that's taller than you and the rope").
Possibly suicidal people who read this may be slightly encouraged but this is unavoidable; the subject is encyclopaedic on a medical and sociological basis. Also, reading the biographies of people in [[Category:Suicides]] and subcategories may encourage people, but it would be unacceptable to go removing sourced information merely because of a speculated effect on the reader. That might be the thin end of the wedge.
The suicidal have plenty of websites to go to which *do* provide a how-to guide - disturbingly many, in fact. It's unlikely they will come to Wikipedia.
On Apr 16, 2007, at 11:48 AM, Sam Blacketer wrote:
I agree with Jossi - the article isn't really a how-to guide at the moment (eg "if you're planning on hanging yourself, make sure you measure the floor to ceiling height and choose a room that's taller than you and the rope").
Some sentences are close to being a how to, and in any case most of these are not sourced. On that basis alone, the article can be cleaned up without too much of a fuss.
-- Jossi
On 4/16/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
On Apr 16, 2007, at 11:48 AM, Sam Blacketer wrote:
I agree with Jossi - the article isn't really a how-to guide at the moment (eg "if you're planning on hanging yourself, make sure you measure the floor to ceiling height and choose a room that's taller than you and the rope").
Some sentences are close to being a how to, and in any case most of these are not sourced. On that basis alone, the article can be cleaned up without too much of a fuss.
Perhaps, but what is an article on [[suicide method]], in its essence? It's a dictionary definition, a list, and a bunch of descriptions of individual methods which really belong on their own pages. Granted, an article on [[suicide method]] might be able to summarize the most common or noteworthy methods, but shouldn't the article on [[suicide]] do that?
The strawman examples of potentially irresponsible articles seem much more fitting in an encyclopedia. They actually describe something, rather than presenting a list of other things. Remove the descriptions of the individual methods (which are already there in their own articles), and you have a one line dictionary definition.
Anthony
On 4/17/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Jossi Fresco schreef:
I have suggested a merge and RD into [[Suicide]].
[[Suicide]] is 40 kB; we usually suggest splitting pages of that size into subpages. I don't think merging a 14 kB article into the page is a good idea.
Eugene
Yes, this merge proposal seems like a kneejerk reaction along the lines of "We don't want it, but we don't want to look like we're censoring it either".
I think the best idea would be to cut the unencyclopedic and unsourced material. I'm q
On 4/17/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/17/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Jossi Fresco schreef:
I have suggested a merge and RD into [[Suicide]].
[[Suicide]] is 40 kB; we usually suggest splitting pages of that size into subpages. I don't think merging a 14 kB article into the page is a good idea.
Eugene
Yes, this merge proposal seems like a kneejerk reaction along the lines of "We don't want it, but we don't want to look like we're censoring it either".
I think the best idea would be to cut the unencyclopedic and unsourced material. I'm q
Sorry, using a keyboard I'm not familiar with. I meant to say, I'm quite confident we can write an encyclopedic article about suicide methods, e.g. notable uses of this or that method, common methods, studies on which methods are most common, etc.
Provided we write in an encyclopedic manner, I don't see the problem.
Johnleemk
I've culled some more junk from this...rather pathetic excuse of an article. Seriously, if I'd written this I'd be so depressed I'd probably be wanting to avail myself of some of the methods described. I removed all the external links, linking to useless how-to guides really is irresponsible, cut some unsourced, removed contentious/unreferenced assertions, Chinese Wikipedia not a reliable source, slashed that, too.
Long live the operatic deletionist cabal!
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your mobile. http://www.msn.txt4content.com/
On 17/04/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, using a keyboard I'm not familiar with. I meant to say, I'm quite confident we can write an encyclopedic article about suicide methods, e.g. notable uses of this or that method, common methods, studies on which methods are most common, etc.
Provided we write in an encyclopedic manner, I don't see the problem.
Useful litmus test for an encyclopedic article on this sort of thing: do we have prevalence statistics and discussion of them?
On 4/17/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/17/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Jossi Fresco schreef:
I have suggested a merge and RD into [[Suicide]].
[[Suicide]] is 40 kB; we usually suggest splitting pages of that size into subpages. I don't think merging a 14 kB article into the page is a good idea.
Eugene
Yes, this merge proposal seems like a kneejerk reaction along the lines of "We don't want it, but we don't want to look like we're censoring it either".
Well, it isn't. It's an attempt to structure an encyclopedia like an encyclopedia. Look at any encyclopedia, any one. I guarantee you they won't have an article entitled "suicide methods". For one thing, it's plural, and encyclopedia article titles are generally singular. But then what about "suicide method"? I guarantee you that isn't an article either. Is this because they are censoring information about suicide? No - most of the time they will have an article on "suicide". Is it because they are US-centric? No - look at any encyclopedia, not just American ones.
[[Suicide method(s)]] is not a good encyclopedia article title. That has nothing to do with censorship.
I think the best idea would be to cut the unencyclopedic and unsourced material. I'm q
I think that's a good start. Then I'd suggest breaking out the descriptions of individual methods onto their own page. Then I'd like to see what's left. I certainly don't like the title, no matter what it is that's left, though.
Anthony
I just read the article. Removing all unsourced material, and how- to's (as per [[WP:NOT]], can leave the article informative without being a user manual for suicide.
Good response. Fixing is always better than deleting, where possible. A how-to guide to suicide is not appropriate. An encyclopedic article on suicide methods is. The article should includes statistics about what methods are most used, etc. It should not contain detailed instructions.
On 4/16/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
I consider myself a rather conventional and non-rouge type of editor and administrator but it is requiring a supreme effort of willpower not to perform an immediate IAR speedy deletion of this article on the ground that it represents an imminent threat to human life and safety whose existence tends to place the project in disrepute. I have no desire to create drama, but I am gravely troubled and would welcome comments from other Wikipedians.
I hate to be a broken record, but not censored is not censored. It's not u pto us to make a distinction on what may end up being "dangerous."
I mean, are you going to go after [[Self-immolation]]? [[Erotic aspyxiation]]? Where do we draw the line?
Draw the line where good judgement dictates that it should be drawn. Don't defend a policy on the basis that there exists no better policy that a robot could understand -- we are not robots. Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech, the lack of censorship does not mean we should publish everything that can possibly be published. We need to select our material based on more nuanced criteria.
I agree. Wikipedia is not a free-speech zone. It's a project to create an encyclopedia, one that needs a sense of responsibility commensurate with its popularity.
Sarah
On 4/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/16/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
I consider myself a rather conventional and non-rouge type of editor and administrator but it is requiring a supreme effort of willpower not to perform an immediate IAR speedy deletion of this article on the ground that it represents an imminent threat to human life and safety whose existence tends to place the project in disrepute. I have no desire to create drama, but I am gravely troubled and would welcome comments from other Wikipedians.
I hate to be a broken record, but not censored is not censored. It's not u pto us to make a distinction on what may end up being "dangerous."
I mean, are you going to go after [[Self-immolation]]? [[Erotic aspyxiation]]? Where do we draw the line?
Draw the line where good judgement dictates that it should be drawn. Don't defend a policy on the basis that there exists no better policy that a robot could understand -- we are not robots. Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech, the lack of censorship does not mean we should publish everything that can possibly be published. We need to select our material based on more nuanced criteria.
I agree. Wikipedia is not a free-speech zone. It's a project to create an encyclopedia, one that needs a sense of responsibility commensurate with its popularity.
Sarah
Do you want to be "responsible" or write an informative encyclopedia?
Keep in mind, if you choose the first option, what will we exclude, exactly? [[Suicide-by-cop]]? [[69 (sex position)]], because someone might read it and want to do it, and then get an STD and die? Or perhaps [[atheism]], because some think that if you don't believe, you will go to [[hell]]? (That's surely worse than suicide.)
What I'm saying is, people can get this info from other places online (i.e. alt.suicide.holiday). Maybe, if we write a fair, non-glorifying article on suicide methods, then we might save someone's life. Maybe *that* is more "responsible" than simply driving a kid to those other places.
Just a thought.
~~~~
On 4/16/07, gjzilla@gmail.com gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
Do you want to be "responsible" or write an informative encyclopedia?
I don't know about anyone else, but I want both.
Keep in mind, if you choose the first option, what will we exclude, exactly? [[Suicide-by-cop]]? [[69 (sex position)]], because someone might read it and want to do it, and then get an STD and die? Or perhaps [[atheism]], because some think that if you don't believe, you will go to [[hell]]? (That's surely worse than suicide.)
None of those sound like a "how to" to me. [[Suicide by cop]] seems the most borderline of the bunch, but if it sticks to describing the method in fiction and in history then I don't think it's irresponsible.
[[Suicide methods]], now at least renamed to [[suicide method]], is quite different. I do think an encyclopedic treatment of the topic could be made, covering methods of suicide in history and in fiction, but if it were done I think it'd fit better under the title [[suicide]].
What I'm saying is, people can get this info from other places online (i.e. alt.suicide.holiday). Maybe, if we write a fair, non-glorifying article on suicide methods, then we might save someone's life. Maybe *that* is more "responsible" than simply driving a kid to those other places.
Maybe. But I thought you didn't care about being responsible.
An article on how to commit suicide is, in my opinion, irresponsible, regardless of whether or not there are other such guides already on the Internet. But it also has no place in an encyclopedia.
I'd say redirect to [[suicide]], possibly merging some materials if they can be made to fit.
Anthony
On 4/16/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
An article on how to commit suicide is, in my opinion, irresponsible, regardless of whether or not there are other such guides already on the Internet. But it also has no place in an encyclopedia.
This is a moral judgment. There is an entirely reasonable moral position that suicide is a perfectly valid option for any human being to consider, and that providing information on how to commit suicide safely without crippling yourself or others is better than pretending such information does not exist. In fact, suicide hotlines here in Germany tend to answer these questions just as calmly as they give reasons why one would want to avoid suicide (my mother has done training and supervision of suicide hotline workers, so I know a bit about the topic). A strong bias against suicide as an ultimate rational choice betrays an American cultural bias; Europe has a much more developed philosophical discourse on the morality of suicide. (Many here prefer the word "Freitod", or "free death", to "Selbstmord", i.e. "self-murder".)
We should not be in the business of making such a moral judgment, but we should structure our information. Wikipedia is not a how-to. A purely descriptive, well-referenced listing of methods, their safety implications, and their cultural context would make a fine article. The current article suicide methods is awful, but not awful enough to be deleted. Unreferenced content should be carefully culled. A more detailed description of methods would be reasonable Wikibooks material, together with a discourse of reasons to commit & not to commit suicide. In fact, I would not be surprised if such suicide manuals have already been produced in the context of professional aid work.
On 4/16/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
A purely descriptive, well-referenced listing of methods, their safety implications, and their cultural context would make a fine article.
Well, I disagree, as I have explained previously, that it would be best organized as a single article. But I guess it's not without precedent. After all, there's [[List of sex positions]]. In that vein, can the article at least be called [[List of suicide methods]]? Anything with "List of..." at the beginning of it is pretty much automatically considered outside the actual encyclopedia in my mind.
Can anyone else think of any [[___ methods]] articles? Maybe someone with a copy of the database can do a search? There must be some less controversial ones out there.
Anthony
On 4/16/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/16/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
An article on how to commit suicide is, in my opinion, irresponsible, regardless of whether or not there are other such guides already on the Internet. But it also has no place in an encyclopedia.
This is a moral judgment. There is an entirely reasonable moral position that suicide is a perfectly valid option for any human being to consider, and that providing information on how to commit suicide safely without crippling yourself or others is better than pretending such information does not exist. In fact, suicide hotlines here in Germany tend to answer these questions just as calmly as they give reasons why one would want to avoid suicide (my mother has done training and supervision of suicide hotline workers, so I know a bit about the topic). A strong bias against suicide as an ultimate rational choice betrays an American cultural bias; Europe has a much more developed philosophical discourse on the morality of suicide. (Many here prefer the word "Freitod", or "free death", to "Selbstmord", i.e. "self-murder".)
We should not be in the business of making such a moral judgment, but we should structure our information. Wikipedia is not a how-to. A purely descriptive, well-referenced listing of methods, their safety implications, and their cultural context would make a fine article. The current article suicide methods is awful, but not awful enough to be deleted. Unreferenced content should be carefully culled. A more detailed description of methods would be reasonable Wikibooks material, together with a discourse of reasons to commit & not to commit suicide. In fact, I would not be surprised if such suicide manuals have already been produced in the context of professional aid work. -- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
That's exactly what I've been trying to say. It's all relative. ~~~~
Erik Moeller-4 wrote:
On 4/16/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
An article on how to commit suicide is, in my opinion, irresponsible, regardless of whether or not there are other such guides already on the Internet. But it also has no place in an encyclopedia.
This is a moral judgment. There is an entirely reasonable moral position that suicide is a perfectly valid option for any human being to consider, and that providing information on how to commit suicide safely without crippling yourself or others is better than pretending such information does not exist. In fact, suicide hotlines here in Germany tend to answer these questions just as calmly as they give reasons why one would want to avoid suicide (my mother has done training and supervision of suicide hotline workers, so I know a bit about the topic). A strong bias against suicide as an ultimate rational choice betrays an American cultural bias;
There is a flaw in your moral relativism. Hijacking planes and slamming them into buildings, lynching blacks, screwing pre-pubescent boys, and gassing Jews have all be considered perfectly valid options by certain people in certain cultural contexts. Would we list the methods by which one might do such things in a morally-disinterested manner? Is that what NPOV demands? Is that responsible? Further, if it is wrong to limit information on suicide because wikipedia is culturally amoral, why should your proviso "without crippling yourself or others" stand? It too is a value-judgement? Why not include methods that are designed to cause maximum devastation?
Yes, policy says Wikipedia is 'not censored', but our policies were never intended to be 'suicide pacts' that had to be followed to their logical conclusions no matter how absurd. Policy is no substitute for good judgement. And anyone who thinks we can make decisions in wikipedia without using 'subjectivity' just isn't living in the real world. Or perhaps they want to programme bots to make content decisions....
Having said all of that, I'm not sure this article actually does give me great cause for concern. But we should retain our basic humanity and cultural sensitivity when we make decisions like this.
Doc
On 4/19/07, Doc glasgow doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
There is a flaw in your moral relativism.
I qualified my comment by saying that it is "an entirely reasonable moral position". If you disagree, you should refute that line of reasoning, rather than attacking a straw man of moral relativism and making highly offensive comparisons to terrorism, the holocaust, or child abuse.
On 4/19/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/19/07, Doc glasgow doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
There is a flaw in your moral relativism.
I qualified my comment by saying that it is "an entirely reasonable moral position". If you disagree, you should refute that line of reasoning, rather than attacking a straw man of moral relativism and making highly offensive comparisons to terrorism, the holocaust, or child abuse.
You went on to say that "We should not be in the business of making such a moral judgment". But determining whether or not a moral position is reasonable does involve making a moral judgment.
I don't think it's necessary to make any moral judgments here. There is a consensus, it seems, that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Even you yourself agree that the article as it stands is not a good one. But you think it could be cleaned up. I don't, not without fundamentally changing the article in ways which would no longer warrant the same title.
If someone cares to create a good article for the one in that location, please do so, and let us know that you have. Maybe then my opinion might be changed.
Anthony
On 4/19/07, Doc glasgow doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
There is a flaw in your moral relativism. Hijacking planes and slamming them into buildings, lynching blacks, screwing pre-pubescent boys, and gassing Jews have all be considered perfectly valid options by certain people in certain cultural contexts. Would we list the methods by which one might do such things in a morally-disinterested manner?
Certainly. Of course we would also list the techniques people have found effective in preventing the above from happening
Is that what NPOV demands? Is that responsible?
I think this falls under the security by obscurity debate.
Further, if it is wrong to limit information on suicide because wikipedia is culturally amoral, why should your proviso "without crippling yourself or others" stand? It too is a value-judgement? Why not include methods that are designed to cause maximum devastation?
We do [[kamikaze]].
Yes, policy says Wikipedia is 'not censored', but our policies were never intended to be 'suicide pacts' that had to be followed to their logical conclusions no matter how absurd. Policy is no substitute for good judgement. And anyone who thinks we can make decisions in wikipedia without using 'subjectivity' just isn't living in the real world. Or perhaps they want to programme bots to make content decisions....
Orphanbot has being doing that for ages.
Having said all of that, I'm not sure this article actually does give me great cause for concern. But we should retain our basic humanity and cultural sensitivity when we make decisions like this.
It has been said that information is not intrinsically good or evil but rather the use.
When I started this thread, after my attention was drawn to this article during the "Darvon cocktail" discussion, I was uncomfortable with much of the content of this article but I will admit it was on something of a theoretical basis in terms of raising the issue whether the overly detailed analysis of suicide methods belonged on a top ten website.
However, in the current AfD discussion, which I acknowledge is trending toward "Keep" again, it is represented that at least one suicidal individual has ACTUALLY consulted this article for information on how to kill himself. This multiplies my concern tenfold.
Newyorkbrad
On 4/19/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Doc glasgow doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
There is a flaw in your moral relativism. Hijacking planes and slamming
them
into buildings, lynching blacks, screwing pre-pubescent boys, and gassing Jews have all be considered perfectly valid options by certain people in certain cultural contexts. Would we list the methods by which one might do such things in a morally-disinterested manner?
Certainly. Of course we would also list the techniques people have found effective in preventing the above from happening
Is that what NPOV demands? Is that responsible?
I think this falls under the security by obscurity debate.
Further, if it is wrong to limit information on suicide because wikipedia
is
culturally amoral, why should your proviso "without crippling yourself or others" stand? It too is a value-judgement? Why not include methods that
are
designed to cause maximum devastation?
We do [[kamikaze]].
Yes, policy says Wikipedia is 'not censored', but our policies were never intended to be 'suicide pacts' that had to be followed to their logical conclusions no matter how absurd. Policy is no substitute for good judgement. And anyone who thinks we can make decisions in wikipedia
without
using 'subjectivity' just isn't living in the real world. Or perhaps they want to programme bots to make content decisions....
Orphanbot has being doing that for ages.
Having said all of that, I'm not sure this article actually does give me great cause for concern. But we should retain our basic humanity and cultural sensitivity when we make decisions like this.
It has been said that information is not intrinsically good or evil but rather the use.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/19/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
When I started this thread, after my attention was drawn to this article during the "Darvon cocktail" discussion, I was uncomfortable with much of the content of this article but I will admit it was on something of a theoretical basis in terms of raising the issue whether the overly detailed analysis of suicide methods belonged on a top ten website.
However, in the current AfD discussion, which I acknowledge is trending toward "Keep" again, it is represented that at least one suicidal individual has ACTUALLY consulted this article for information on how to kill himself. This multiplies my concern tenfold.
Did the person who consulted the article end up going through with their intentions ?
-- John
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Marc Riddell wrote:
Did the person who consulted the article end up going through with their intentions ?
What possible difference does it make to whether or not to keep or delete the Article?
It doesn't make a difference if you literally interpret most Wikipedia policies, but IAR has already been brought up and it may make a difference in whether we want to ignore the rules and delete it anyway.
On 19/04/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Marc Riddell wrote:
Did the person who consulted the article end up going through with their intentions ?
What possible difference does it make to whether or not to keep or delete the Article?
It doesn't make a difference if you literally interpret most Wikipedia policies, but IAR has already been brought up and it may make a difference in whether we want to ignore the rules and delete it anyway.
WP:IAR states "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them."; is the encyclopaedia really improved by deleting content such as this?
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
However, in the current AfD discussion, which I acknowledge is trending toward "Keep" again, it is represented that at least one suicidal individual has ACTUALLY consulted this article for information on how to kill himself. This multiplies my concern tenfold.
And, given the stories coming out, it's not outside the realm of possibility that the Virginia Tech gunmna referred to [[Columbine High School massacre]].
Is it chilling to know that people may have consulted it? Absolutely, but that doesn't change our mission here.
-Jeff
on 4/19/07 8:25 AM, Jeff Raymond at jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
And, given the stories coming out, it's not outside the realm of possibility that the Virginia Tech gunmna referred to [[Columbine High School massacre]].
Is it chilling to know that people may have consulted it? Absolutely, but that doesn't change our mission here.
Which in this case is?
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 4/19/07 8:25 AM, Jeff Raymond at jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
And, given the stories coming out, it's not outside the realm of possibility that the Virginia Tech gunmna referred to [[Columbine High School massacre]].
Is it chilling to know that people may have consulted it? Absolutely, but that doesn't change our mission here.
Which in this case is?
That we don't go around wringing our hands over articles like this.
-Jeff
On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 4/19/07 8:25 AM, Jeff Raymond at jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
And, given the stories coming out, it's not outside the realm of possibility that the Virginia Tech gunmna referred to [[Columbine High School massacre]].
Is it chilling to know that people may have consulted it? Absolutely, but that doesn't change our mission here.
Which in this case is?
That we don't go around wringing our hands over articles like this.
Actually, I thought our mission was to write an encyclopaedia. Silly me.
Johnleemk
On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
However, in the current AfD discussion, which I acknowledge is trending toward "Keep" again, it is represented that at least one suicidal individual has ACTUALLY consulted this article for information on how to kill himself. This multiplies my concern tenfold.
And, given the stories coming out, it's not outside the realm of possibility that the Virginia Tech gunmna referred to [[Columbine High School massacre]].
Is it chilling to know that people may have consulted it? Absolutely, but that doesn't change our mission here.
Almost exactly what I was about to say. As long as something is encyclopedic, there is no reason we should not have an article about it. I would find it more disturbing to have a howto article on suicide methods (which is purely unencyclopedic) than to have, as I mentioned earlier, a decent article outlining the prevalence of various suicide methods, famous instances of such methods, etc. Now that is an encyclopedic article.
Johnleemk
on 4/19/07 8:15 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) at newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
When I started this thread, after my attention was drawn to this article during the "Darvon cocktail" discussion, I was uncomfortable with much of the content of this article but I will admit it was on something of a theoretical basis in terms of raising the issue whether the overly detailed analysis of suicide methods belonged on a top ten website.
However, in the current AfD discussion, which I acknowledge is trending toward "Keep" again, it is represented that at least one suicidal individual has ACTUALLY consulted this article for information on how to kill himself. This multiplies my concern tenfold.
Delete the damn thing! I serves no constructive purpose whatsoever!
Marc Riddell
On 4/19/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
However, in the current AfD discussion, which I acknowledge is trending toward "Keep" again, it is represented that at least one suicidal individual has ACTUALLY consulted this article for information on how to kill himself. This multiplies my concern tenfold.
Heaven forbid that people should consult an encyclopaedia for useful information.
-- Peter in Charleston
on 4/21/07 6:38 AM, Skyring at skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
However, in the current AfD discussion, which I acknowledge is trending toward "Keep" again, it is represented that at least one suicidal individual has ACTUALLY consulted this article for information on how to kill himself. This multiplies my concern tenfold.
Heaven forbid that people should consult an encyclopaedia for useful information.
-- Peter in Charleston
Huh!?!
Marc Riddell
On 4/21/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/21/07 6:38 AM, Skyring at skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
However, in the current AfD discussion, which I acknowledge is trending toward "Keep" again, it is represented that at least one suicidal individual has ACTUALLY consulted this article for information on how to kill himself. This multiplies my concern tenfold.
Heaven forbid that people should consult an encyclopaedia for useful information.
-- Peter in Charleston
Huh!?!
Marc Riddell
You heard him. ~~~~
on 4/21/07 6:38 AM, Skyring at skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
However, in the current AfD discussion, which I acknowledge is trending toward "Keep" again, it is represented that at least one suicidal individual has ACTUALLY consulted this article for information on how to kill himself. This multiplies my concern tenfold.
Heaven forbid that people should consult an encyclopaedia for useful information.
-- Peter in Charleston
On 4/21/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Huh!?!
Marc Riddell
on 4/21/07 3:31 PM, gjzilla@gmail.com at gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
You heard him. ~~~~
I heard, but still do not know what he means.
Marc
Marc Riddell schreef:
on 4/21/07 6:38 AM, Skyring at skyring@gmail.com wrote:
Heaven forbid that people should consult an encyclopaedia for useful information.
I heard, but still do not know what he means.
I'm no mindreader, but I read it as surprise that our encyclopedia, which was meant to be a useful resource of information, was used to look up information that someone had a need for.
I think he was a bit sarcastic.
Eugene
On 21/04/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/21/07 6:38 AM, Skyring at skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
However, in the current AfD discussion, which I acknowledge is trending toward "Keep" again, it is represented that at least one suicidal individual has ACTUALLY consulted this article for information on how to kill himself. This multiplies my concern tenfold.
Heaven forbid that people should consult an encyclopaedia for useful information.
Huh!?!
To every reader his book, and to every book its reader.* I believe Peter's point is that if someone is wanting to kill themselves, then information on how people kill themselves is useful to that person.
On 4/22/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/04/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/21/07 6:38 AM, Skyring at skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
However, in the current AfD discussion, which I acknowledge is trending toward "Keep" again, it is represented that at least one suicidal individual has ACTUALLY consulted this article for information on how to kill himself. This multiplies my concern tenfold.
Heaven forbid that people should consult an encyclopaedia for useful information.
Huh!?!
To every reader his book, and to every book its reader.* I believe Peter's point is that if someone is wanting to kill themselves, then information on how people kill themselves is useful to that person.
Well, yeeees. Information on suicide methods is useful to all sorts of people. Novelists, for example. It's like the writers of romance novels being asked if they base the sex scenes on real life experience. Yeah. Just like the writers of murder mysteries do.
Or, for want of a better word. Morbid titillation. I remember once there was a news item about a couple of people found decapitated in a car and the police stated that there were "no suspicious circumstances".
Huhhh?
Eventually they caved in and disclosed the suicide method. Wind your windows down, get a long rope, tie both ends to stout trees (leaving plenty of slack, pass it through the car windows, wind it around your neck(s), stomp on the gas.
I'm sure that not all readers of Wikipedia articles have serious research in mind. Sometimes we provide fascinating information that beckons the reader on.
-- Peter in New York
I must say, I'm not a right to die person, but that is one thing thats always bugged me. If I decided on suicide and failed, well, Id just be even more depressed afterwards. Couldn't even do your intended last act right. Seems ironic.
On 4/21/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
However, in the current AfD discussion, which I acknowledge is trending toward "Keep" again, it is represented that at least one suicidal individual has ACTUALLY consulted this article for information on how to kill himself. This multiplies my concern tenfold.
Heaven forbid that people should consult an encyclopaedia for useful information.
-- Peter in Charleston _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/18/07, Doc glasgow doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Having said all of that, I'm not sure this article actually does give me great cause for concern. But we should retain our basic humanity and cultural sensitivity when we make decisions like this.
Who's basic humanity and cultural sensitivity? For some cultures and people, suicide is acceptable. Do we impose a Christian viewpoint? Jew? Muslim? Buddhist? Atheist? Humanist? American? Japanese? African?
Applying morals like this is dangerous because it opens the door for a "moral majority" to control things, which is inherently and horrically wrong.
on 4/19/07 9:10 AM, Info Control at infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
Who's basic humanity and cultural sensitivity? For some cultures and people, suicide is acceptable. Do we impose a Christian viewpoint? Jew? Muslim? Buddhist? Atheist? Humanist? American? Japanese? African?
Applying morals like this is dangerous because it opens the door for a "moral majority" to control things, which is inherently and horrically wrong.
And there is one common thread which binds all of your religious and ethnic examples: the human being. For this is what we all are before anything else is superimposed over us.
Respecting and preserving that human life is also a common thread which connects us all.
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 4/19/07 9:10 AM, Info Control at infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
Who's basic humanity and cultural sensitivity? For some cultures and people, suicide is acceptable. Do we impose a Christian viewpoint? Jew? Muslim? Buddhist? Atheist? Humanist? American? Japanese? African?
And there is one common thread which binds all of your religious and ethnic examples: the human being. For this is what we all are before anything else is superimposed over us.
Actually, the atheist philosophy doesn't necessarily have anything to say about that one way or another.
Respecting and preserving that human life is also a common thread which connects us all.
For some people "respect for human life" also includes respecting peoples' ability to decide how and when to end their own lives. As Info Control pointed out in some cultures suicide is acceptable; as a concrete example a quick Googling provided me with http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3640438.stm which indicates that 4 in 10 Scots would break the existing law to help loved ones die.
But that's beside the point, really. Even if all of humanity rose up tomorrow as one and announced "suicide is bad!" It would still be perfectly reasonable to have an article that went "Even though all of humanity agrees that suicide is bad,[1] the following is a factual description of the common methods by which people have tried killing themselves." It doesn't have to be advocacy or a how-to guide, we can have a perfectly encyclopedic article on this subject.
On 4/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
And there is one common thread which binds all of your religious and ethnic examples: the human being. For this is what we all are before anything else is superimposed over us.
Respecting and preserving that human life is also a common thread which connects us all.
Absolutely, but my point was that NPOV extends to morality as well, doesn't it? Otherwise, its a huge gaping content loophole on the encyclopedia. Today its an article on suicide methods; tomorrow we're restricting information on guns because of Virginia Tech.
On 4/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/19/07 9:10 AM, Info Control at infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
Who's basic humanity and cultural sensitivity? For some cultures and people, suicide is acceptable. Do we impose a Christian viewpoint? Jew? Muslim? Buddhist? Atheist? Humanist? American? Japanese? African?
Applying morals like this is dangerous because it opens the door for a "moral majority" to control things, which is inherently and horrically wrong.
And there is one common thread which binds all of your religious and ethnic examples: the human being. For this is what we all are before anything else is superimposed over us.
Respecting and preserving that human life is also a common thread which connects us all.
Is it? I'm a firm believer in the right to die, and I know I'm not the only one here.
On 4/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Respecting and preserving that human life is also a common thread which connects us all.
on 4/19/07 3:24 PM, Mark Wagner at carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
Is it? I'm a firm believer in the right to die, and I know I'm not the only one here.
Mark,
The "right to die" is a legal issue; that's not what I'm referring to here.
Marc
Marc Riddell schreef:
On 4/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Respecting and preserving that human life is also a common thread which connects us all.
on 4/19/07 3:24 PM, Mark Wagner at carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
Is it? I'm a firm believer in the right to die, and I know I'm not the only one here.
The "right to die" is a legal issue; that's not what I'm referring to here.
I would say that the "right to die" is also a moral issue: to be able to live and die according to one's own wishes is the most important right that we have. According to me, that is, but I'm not the only one.
And that right can so easily be taken away by people who believe that preserving human life is the greatest good; even worse are those people who do not acknowledge that you can even think otherwise, who say that "preserving human life is a common thread that connects us all".
It's too easy to assume that your own values are natural and self-evident that other people can't help but share them; but when you do so, you're almost certainly wrong. Deleting an article because of "assumed common morals" is almost never a good NPOV idea. In my opinion.
Eugene
On 4/19/07, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/19/07 9:10 AM, Info Control at infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
Who's basic humanity and cultural sensitivity? For some cultures and people, suicide is acceptable. Do we impose a Christian viewpoint? Jew? Muslim? Buddhist? Atheist? Humanist? American? Japanese? African?
Applying morals like this is dangerous because it opens the door for a "moral majority" to control things, which is inherently and horrically wrong.
And there is one common thread which binds all of your religious and ethnic examples: the human being. For this is what we all are before anything else is superimposed over us.
Respecting and preserving that human life is also a common thread which connects us all.
Is it? I'm a firm believer in the right to die, and I know I'm not the only one here.
You're not.
~~~~
Info Control wrote:
On 4/18/07, Doc glasgow doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Having said all of that, I'm not sure this article actually does give me great cause for concern. But we should retain our basic humanity and cultural sensitivity when we make decisions like this.
Who's basic humanity and cultural sensitivity? For some cultures and people, suicide is acceptable. Do we impose a Christian viewpoint? Jew? Muslim? Buddhist? Atheist? Humanist? American? Japanese? African?
Applying morals like this is dangerous because it opens the door for a "moral majority" to control things, which is inherently and horrically wrong. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"inherently and horrically wrong." Hm, and who's cultural moral code is that you are imposing? Who says it is wrong?
On 4/17/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/16/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Draw the line where good judgement dictates that it should be drawn. Don't defend a policy on the basis that there exists no better policy that a robot could understand -- we are not robots. Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech, the lack of censorship does not mean we should publish everything that can possibly be published. We need to select our material based on more nuanced criteria.
I agree. Wikipedia is not a free-speech zone. It's a project to create an encyclopedia, one that needs a sense of responsibility commensurate with its popularity.
I agree entirely with this as a statement of principle.
Turning to the case at hand, I think that the article on methods should be merged into the main article on suicide. That way we can continue to present factual content in an informative manner. But we will also be able to present the information in context, in an article which already discusses reasons for suicide, the impact of suicide and a range of views on suicide. This is a responsible way to present this information.
I should say that there is substantial room for improvement in both articles.
On 4/16/2007 1:53 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
During discussion of the deletion review for [[Darvon cocktail]] today on WT:DRV, it was mentioned that En-WP has an article called [[Suicide methods]]. After reading this article in detail, I have spent the morning contemplating whether I consider it acceptable that Wikipedia is disseminating this article on the Internet. I have concluded that I do not. In many respects, this article could be used as a how-to guide by someone contemplating suicide and/or could lead such a person to infer that suicide is a reasonable response to whatever may be bothering him or her. While some other portions of the article may be relatively common knowledge or background information, I do not see how the article could be maintained in an acceptable state without permanently protecting it.
I was astonished to read that this article has been put up for AfD three times and has been closed as keep, once speedily, on each occasion, sometimes with indignation at the prospect of its deletion. I do, however, believe that our sensitivity to our obligations as one of the ten leading websites in the world has increased in recent months.
I consider myself a rather conventional and non-rouge type of editor and administrator but it is requiring a supreme effort of willpower not to perform an immediate IAR speedy deletion of this article on the ground that it represents an imminent threat to human life and safety whose existence tends to place the project in disrepute. I have no desire to create drama, but I am gravely troubled and would welcome comments from other Wikipedians.
Newyorkbrad
I think your concerns are misplaced. The threat to human life and safety posed by this article is effectively zero. Our obligation is to present the facts in an encyclopedic fashion (and this article requires improvement to meet that obligation). Deleting articles because of an illusory sense that they are dangerous doesn't help us follow that obligation and doesn't help anyone who uses the encyclopedia.
--Chris
"Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" newyorkbrad@gmail.com writes:
During discussion of the deletion review for [[Darvon cocktail]]
today on
WT:DRV, it was mentioned that En-WP has an article called
[[Suicide
methods]]. After reading this article in detail, I have spent
the morning
contemplating whether I consider it acceptable that Wikipedia is disseminating this article on the Internet. I have concluded
that I do
not. In many respects, this article could be used as a how-to
guide by
someone contemplating suicide and/or could lead such a person to
infer that
suicide is a reasonable response to whatever may be bothering
him or her.
While some other portions of the article may be relatively
common knowledge
or background information, I do not see how the article could be
maintained
in an acceptable state without permanently protecting it.
I was astonished to read that this article has been put up for
AfD three
times and has been closed as keep, once speedily, on each
occasion,
sometimes with indignation at the prospect of its deletion. I
do, however,
believe that our sensitivity to our obligations as one of the
ten leading
websites in the world has increased in recent months.
I consider myself a rather conventional and non-rouge type of
editor and
administrator but it is requiring a supreme effort of willpower
not to
perform an immediate IAR speedy deletion of this article on the
ground that
it represents an imminent threat to human life and safety whose existence tends to place the project in disrepute. I have no
desire to
create drama, but I am gravely troubled and would welcome
comments from
other Wikipedians.
Newyorkbrad
I do not see how that article is any more dangerous than something like [[thermite]] or any of our better and more detailed articles on fun things like various hazards to life and limb. We have bigger fish to fry (and things like [[TOTSE]] will still be high up in Google hits for these things anyway).
On 4/17/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
I do not see how that article is any more dangerous than something like [[thermite]] or any of our better and more detailed articles on fun things like various hazards to life and limb. We have bigger fish to fry (and things like [[TOTSE]] will still be high up in Google hits for these things anyway).
Sure, we have lots of articles on things that are dangerous. We probably have many articles on various things which mention at some point in the article that the thing can kill you. But this is different; it's a whole article entirely about methods of killing yourself.
See my above post; sure, our goal is to present factual content in an informative manner, but our goal is also to do this in a responsible fashion by providing adequate context where necessary.
on 4/16/07 1:53 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) at newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
I consider myself a rather conventional and non-rouge type of editor and administrator but it is requiring a supreme effort of willpower not to perform an immediate IAR speedy deletion of this article on the ground that it represents an imminent threat to human life and safety whose existence tends to place the project in disrepute. I have no desire to create drama, but I am gravely troubled and would welcome comments from other Wikipedians.
Brad,
I am also troubled by the Suicide Methods Article.
This is my take on the subject:
The fact that you are troubled by its existence speaks of your humanity and compassion. Don¹t touch these. Don¹t discount these. They are a part of what makes you a person I would like to know.
If your fear is that the Article (which is pretty crappy to begin with) would, in any way, influence a person considering suicide - please rest assured it would have very little actual effect on the decision; whether that decision is whether to, or how to. Our media culture is full of such images, and the Wikipedia Article is just one of them.
The very sad fact is, if a person truly believes the unbearable condition of their life will never change, and cannot find a reason to continue to live they will not.
Marc Riddell
On 17/04/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
The very sad fact is, if a person truly believes the unbearable condition of their life will never change, and cannot find a reason to continue to live they will not.
Yeah but we're not helping things by saying things like "Brain or heart damage kills a person most quickly; however, the gun must be powerful enough for that to succeed".
This article is unnecessary and should be merged into [[suicide]] in a much less verbose list.
~Mark Ryan
On 17/04/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
The very sad fact is, if a person truly believes the unbearable condition of their life will never change, and cannot find a reason to continue to live they will not.
on 4/16/07 9:41 PM, Mark Ryan at ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah but we're not helping things by saying things like "Brain or heart damage kills a person most quickly; however, the gun must be powerful enough for that to succeed".
You're right; this is unnecessary and destructive crap!
This article is unnecessary and should be merged into [[suicide]] in a much less verbose list.
This is the solution I like the best.
Marc
The article definately needs to be improved to be of good quality, but not what I would call a guide to suicide.
Besides, anyone with two neurons in their brain knows 1,000,000 different ways to end ones self. Having this article really isn't letting out any trade secrets.
-Cascadia
"Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote in message news:c52819d30704161053v2b3a9943oa3589b71880670bc@mail.gmail.com...
During discussion of the deletion review for [[Darvon cocktail]] today on WT:DRV, it was mentioned that En-WP has an article called [[Suicide methods]]. After reading this article in detail, I have spent the morning contemplating whether I consider it acceptable that Wikipedia is disseminating this article on the Internet. I have concluded that I do not. In many respects, this article could be used as a how-to guide by someone contemplating suicide and/or could lead such a person to infer that suicide is a reasonable response to whatever may be bothering him or her. While some other portions of the article may be relatively common knowledge or background information, I do not see how the article could be maintained in an acceptable state without permanently protecting it.
I was astonished to read that this article has been put up for AfD three times and has been closed as keep, once speedily, on each occasion, sometimes with indignation at the prospect of its deletion. I do, however, believe that our sensitivity to our obligations as one of the ten leading websites in the world has increased in recent months.
I consider myself a rather conventional and non-rouge type of editor and administrator but it is requiring a supreme effort of willpower not to perform an immediate IAR speedy deletion of this article on the ground that it represents an imminent threat to human life and safety whose existence tends to place the project in disrepute. I have no desire to create drama, but I am gravely troubled and would welcome comments from other Wikipedians.
Newyorkbrad _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/17/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
I consider myself a rather conventional and non-rouge type of editor and administrator but it is requiring a supreme effort of willpower not to perform an immediate IAR speedy deletion of this article on the ground that it represents an imminent threat to human life and safety whose existence tends to place the project in disrepute. I have no desire to
Is there any evidence that attempting to block access to information on suicide actually reduces suicide? Supposedly teenagers that receive more sex education are less sexually active. Maybe by providing this information we actually reduce the occurrence of suicide?
Of course, that may be optimistic. But the kneejerk "omg we're telling people how to kill themselves now they will all do it!" is a bit simplistic.
Steve
On 4/17/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any evidence that attempting to block access to information on suicide actually reduces suicide? Supposedly teenagers that receive more sex education are less sexually active. Maybe by providing this information we actually reduce the occurrence of suicide?
We shouldn't avoid presenting it, just as we shouldn't present it ad hoc. We should present it in a responsible manner with all the necessary context.
Merging the methods article into the main article on suicide is the best course, in my view, since it would go a long way to providing the necessary context.
On 4/17/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Merging the methods article into the main article on suicide is the best course, in my view, since it would go a long way to providing the necessary context.
No it is too big to merge. Please stop trying to enforce your moral standards on other people.
On 4/16/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/17/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Merging the methods article into the main article on suicide is the best course, in my view, since it would go a long way to providing the necessary context.
No it is too big to merge. Please stop trying to enforce your moral standards on other people.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I've got no real problem merging it, or keeping it. I'm not sure it really needs a separate article, but it's an important enough topic we should address it somewhere. If someone is suicidal, -they are going to find a way to do it-. While I fully understand NYBrad's concerns (and to some degree agree with them), I think perhaps we do a greater service by presenting neutral, factual information on sensitive topics rather than censoring them. The current article may not be that-if it's not, stub it! That doesn't take any rouge admin powers at all. But if we're writing a comprehensive work, that's going to include topics that many would consider objectionable, disturbing, and even dangerous. While we should be sensitive to harm in some cases (such as BLP), we must not become -oversensitized- to the point that we don't handle the ugly parts of reality as well as the beautiful ones.
Seraphimblade
On 4/17/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/17/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Merging the methods article into the main article on suicide is the best course, in my view, since it would go a long way to providing the necessary context.
No it is too big to merge. Please stop trying to enforce your moral standards on other people.
I didn't suggest deleting any informative content, as you seem to imply, I merely suggested that having it all dumped into its own article is not making the best place for it.
The recommended sizes for articles should not be governing our decisions about what is the best way to present our content. We wouldn't refrain from including a significant point of view in an article just because the article was too long, to give an extreme example.
I would also appreciate it if you could either address my argument (a merger would allow the information to be fully and completely presented, but with appropriate context) or provide some arguments of your own, without resorting to epithets.
On 17/04/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
The recommended sizes for articles should not be governing our decisions about what is the best way to present our content. We wouldn't refrain from including a significant point of view in an article just because the article was too long, to give an extreme example.
No, but an article over about 30KB is damn hard to read on a screen.
The usual way this is dealt with is to split off subarticles, with a summary para left in the main article.
- d.
On 4/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/04/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
The recommended sizes for articles should not be governing our decisions about what is the best way to present our content. We wouldn't refrain from including a significant point of view in an article just because the article was too long, to give an extreme example.
No, but an article over about 30KB is damn hard to read on a screen.
The usual way this is dealt with is to split off subarticles, with a summary para left in the main article.
I am familiar with the summary style by now :)
However, it's still fundamentally a stylistic issue. It shouldn't be subordinated to content issues. We specifically refrain from using the summary style where doing so would create a POV fork, for example.
I must say I find it unusual that the only argument mustered against merging so far is that it would make the article long.
On 17/04/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
I am familiar with the summary style by now :) However, it's still fundamentally a stylistic issue. It shouldn't be subordinated to content issues. We specifically refrain from using the summary style where doing so would create a POV fork, for example.
That's why the summary is needed in the main article, of course.
I must say I find it unusual that the only argument mustered against merging so far is that it would make the article long.
That's enough of one, surely. What's the purpose of merging a 15KB article into a 40KB article? There isn't one, really.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 17/04/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
I must say I find it unusual that the only argument mustered against merging so far is that it would make the article long.
"It's dangerous" and "we have a moral obligation" aren't really strong arguments in the other direction, though.
-Jeff
On 4/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/04/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
The recommended sizes for articles should not be governing our decisions about what is the best way to present our content. We wouldn't refrain from including a significant point of view in an article just because the article was too long, to give an extreme example.
No, but an article over about 30KB is damn hard to read on a screen.
The usual way this is dealt with is to split off subarticles, with a summary para left in the main article.
Funny, I was just thinking yesterday at how much I hate that style of article.
Anthony
On 4/16/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
During discussion of the deletion review for [[Darvon cocktail]] today on WT:DRV, it was mentioned that En-WP has an article called [[Suicide methods]]. After reading this article in detail, I have spent the morning contemplating whether I consider it acceptable that Wikipedia is disseminating this article on the Internet. I have concluded that I do not. In many respects, this article could be used as a how-to guide by someone contemplating suicide and/or could lead such a person to infer that suicide is a reasonable response to whatever may be bothering him or her.
So? The goal of Wikipedia is to disseminate knowledge, not to psychicly predict the actions of every single person with web access.