I'm a firm believer in the principle that ethical decisions where good people disagree belong to the individuals who live with the consequences.
It's sort of an abstract philosophical question, but for what it's worth, it seems to me that the people who have to live with the consequences are probably the very last people who should be making decisions. So, to use a concrete example, if I have an off-wiki dispute with an individual or website-- they are strongly criticized, attacked, or (noncriminally) harassed me in some way-- I'm now probably the last person on the entire project who ought to be making decisions about that individual/website's articles. Nothing to do with my character, my judgment, or my faith-- I just am now personally involved, and should stay away from those articles-- if only to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. ****** That example misapplies the principle. Wikipedia's rules and guidelines exist because the website serves the public. Per WP:NOT, the site's articles are not a soapbox or a venue for airing personal grievances. The only exception I recognize in that realm is WP:BLP: within reason, Wikipedia should accommodate courtesy deletion requests from the subjects of these articles.
That was the principle I used to get rid of Daniel Brandt's biography. Of course, if your argument is persuasive enough, you may change my mind and I could open a discussion to have it unsalted.
****** And actually, this principle extends beyond personal disputes, but to any subject we're "too" passionate about. I know I have, in the back of my own mind, a set of articles I will never ever edit, because I'm just a little too close to them. I don't have an recognizable COI, but I care a little too much, and that work is best left to someone who doesn't care as much as I do. Passion is the enemy of precision. ****** I very much agree with you on there, and exercise a similar restraint myself, but I don't see how you construe it as at odds with this principle.
****** I don't know that you're actually disagreeing with any of that, of course. It's just when you say "Let the person who has to live with the consequences make the tough calls", I say "No! Let absolutely anybody BUT the person who's gonna have to live with the consequences make tough calls-- the calls are tough enough as is, without being blinded by personal interests or emotions". ****** To put this another way I'll offer a concrete example. While my father had a brain tumor I was his primary caregiver and I was quite active in the caregiver community during that time. A young woman joined our mailing list. Her husband was about 30 years old and had just been diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme. Since my father had the same thing I knew the statistics by heart: no cure, no five year survival rate. 50% of patients live 12 months. 10% reach the two year anniversary. 2% last three years. After that they stop keeping statistics. This couple was childless.
Under a normal therapeudic schedule her husband's radiation treatment would start about three weeks after his brain surgery. He was coherent and competent - able to make decisions - and they wanted to discuss the possibility of freezing some of his sperm. The best time to do that would be before radiation. Yet when they raised the topic with his doctor the physician called it unethical and refused to discuss it.
This woman wasn't absolutely certain she wanted to bear her husband's child through artificial insemination, but she wasn't very pleased about the way that doctor handled the issue. She and her husband wanted to make an informed decision. If they decided to go through with the idea, she was the one who would bear the child and raise it.
As for myself, I wouldn't make that choice. Caring for a terminally ill patient is incredibly hard. I'd have serious misgivings about bringing a child into the world that had almost no chance of knowing its own father. I shared that perspective with her.
But ultimately I went on with my life, the doctor went on with his life, and this woman lived with the consequences. The decision belonged to her.
-Durova
On 11/13/07, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
The only exception I recognize in that realm is WP:BLP: within reason, Wikipedia should accommodate courtesy deletion requests from the subjects of these articles.
That's a really interesting point-- one that I'm sure has probably been debated. For my part, I'd argue that the subject of an article is probably one of the least qualified people to properly assess their own notability (or lack thereof). The subject could, in my eyes, legitimately request their notability be reviewed by neutral editors, but I don't really see how their opinion itself could really have much weight.
That was the principle I used to get rid of Daniel Brandt's biography. Of course, if your argument is persuasive enough, you may change my mind and I could open a discussion to have it unsalted.
If somebody's notable, I'd encourage NOT deleting their article, even if they request deletion. If somebody's not notable, I'd encourage deleting their article, even if they request undeletion. I have no idea which category Brandt falls into though.
The other thing I'd say, in the abstract, would be that I'd hope whoever did the deletion of a controversial figure would be someone fairly removed from the situation. With somebody with strongly anti-Wikipedia views, there may not be any editor who's completely unbiased-- but obviously, some editors are less biased than others.
I say that only the abstract though-- I don't know the details of Brandt's biography deletion, and i have no reason to doubt it was handled well.
Alec
On 13/11/2007, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
If somebody's notable, I'd encourage NOT deleting their article, even if they request deletion. If somebody's not notable, I'd encourage deleting their article, even if they request undeletion. I have no idea which category Brandt falls into though.
It's a remarkable headache when deleting the article would solve the PITA the subject is, but they are nevertheless clearly article-worthy. Then it gets worse when they take an interest in their article and upload a bio from their employer's website, photos owned by their employer, etc., and never mind little things like copyright. Then they call me ...
- d.
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:59:31 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's a remarkable headache when deleting the article would solve the PITA the subject is, but they are nevertheless clearly article-worthy. Then it gets worse when they take an interest in their article and upload a bio from their employer's website, photos owned by their employer, etc., and never mind little things like copyright. Then they call me ..
Ha! They call me *at home*! And I wonder how well the firm I left three years ago are handling all the spam and abuse?
Guy (JzG)
On 13/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:59:31 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's a remarkable headache when deleting the article would solve the PITA the subject is, but they are nevertheless clearly article-worthy. Then it gets worse when they take an interest in their article and upload a bio from their employer's website, photos owned by their employer, etc., and never mind little things like copyright. Then they call me ..
Ha! They call me *at home*! And I wonder how well the firm I left three years ago are handling all the spam and abuse?
Hey, the UK Wikimedia-phone is the little black thing in my pocket or on the desk next to me right now ...
It's probably time for you to get a free SIM and call that the Guy-phone :-)
- d.
*snipping Alec's and Durova's exchange*
It does make some sense to care about the opinions of the people who are being harassed. Obviously if one person doesn't care about it we should be less concerned about the situation than if the editor does. However, that doesn't give the harassed editor complete control of the situation nor should it. Ultimately we need to do what's best for the project as a whole. We can tailor that based on individual situations, but we must still look to the project first.
On 13/11/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
It does make some sense to care about the opinions of the people who are being harassed. Obviously if one person doesn't care about it we should be less concerned about the situation than if the editor does. However, that doesn't give the harassed editor complete control of the situation nor should it.
No, and that's very important to remember. Going too far in that direction has led only to trouble.
- d.