We're really better off if we try not to apply moral judgments to content when we don't have to. This falls under that. Our current system is more than sufficient.

On 6/7/07, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote: My opinion? We don't get a choice. Our sources make moral judgements and work within systems of professional ethics. We have to have our own, or else we're just parroting their priorities. The most accessible, pervasive information sources on the planet have as their priority, for the most part, the maximization of audience share and the selling of half page ads for furniture, underwears and slimming aids. Those that are in competition to sell advertising space feel they have little choice but to serve up something that will push up sales and generate advertising revenue. They have their ethical systems, which enable them to do pretty good work despite the pressure to produce stuff that's, well, less than good. Gossip about pop stars is kept within reasonable bounds, Prurience is limited. But titillation is still a big seller so sensationalism is hard to keep at bay. Political considerations are also a problem. News sources might adopt a detached, unworldly tone on politics, but press office conditions enable those in political power to influence which subjects they discuss--on pain of exclusion from background briefings and other privileged access. Our sources are biased, even though they struggle to avoid this. Those are our sources. As Wikipedians, intending to produce an encyclopedia, we have to choose how we process this news and current affairs source--which is so prevalent as to be like a veritable fire hose compared to other informational sources. We have no choice. We must have an ethical framework within which to handle this information. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l