"Oldak Quill" wrote
On 29/03/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 3/28/07 1:03 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm at macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
No. Dead people should be treated with equal respect to living ones.
I agree. And the key word, I believe, that should guide any Article on any person - living or dead - is RESPECT.
Exactly. That's much better than basing a distinction on the simple fact that the dead can't sue.
Ec
Respect is too vague and variable a notion for a multicultural venture like Wikipedia to base policy on.
Certainly. While the dead cannot themselves sue, read [[Julian Bell]] for the high-profile case of [[Hong Ying]]; in which a Chinese court found that the dead could be defamed (by a work of fiction).
We have _never_ allowed general arguments on respectfulness to condition what we will allow in enWP.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 29/03/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Certainly. While the dead cannot themselves sue, read [[Julian Bell]] for the high-profile case of [[Hong Ying]]; in which a Chinese court found that the dead could be defamed (by a work of fiction). We have _never_ allowed general arguments on respectfulness to condition what we will allow in enWP.
I'd say it's relevant - respect for the *reader*.
Is the article good and useful?
Note that WP:BLP works as it is based in being a particularly hard-arsed application of the extant fundamental editorial policies regarding NPOV, NOR and verifiability - or NOR and ATT. That is, we do the decent thing by doing the very best we can on the article itself.
- d.
On 29/03/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/03/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Certainly. While the dead cannot themselves sue, read [[Julian Bell]] for the high-profile case of [[Hong Ying]]; in which a Chinese court found that the dead could be defamed (by a work of fiction). We have _never_ allowed general arguments on respectfulness to condition what we will allow in enWP.
I'd say it's relevant - respect for the *reader*.
Is the article good and useful?
Isn't this too simplistic? Surely, different readers have different needs. To a film buff, the actors career is important; to the celebritist and media scientist, the tabloid stuff is important; to the politicist, their activism is important. I'm not sure any part of an individual's potential biography should be dismissed out of hand, and particularly not with the justification that the reader doesn't need to read this particular piece of information. Nor can we idealise the biography and attempt to determine what the average reader wants or needs.
On 29/03/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/03/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/03/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Certainly. While the dead cannot themselves sue, read [[Julian Bell]] for the high-profile case of [[Hong Ying]]; in which a Chinese court found that the dead could be defamed (by a work of fiction). We have _never_ allowed general arguments on respectfulness to condition what we will allow in enWP.
I'd say it's relevant - respect for the *reader*. Is the article good and useful?
Isn't this too simplistic? Surely, different readers have different needs. To a film buff, the actors career is important; to the celebritist and media scientist, the tabloid stuff is important; to the politicist, their activism is important. I'm not sure any part of an individual's potential biography should be dismissed out of hand, and particularly not with the justification that the reader doesn't need to read this particular piece of information. Nor can we idealise the biography and attempt to determine what the average reader wants or needs.
No, not at all simplistic - I meant what I said :-)
- d.
On 29/03/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/03/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/03/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/03/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Certainly. While the dead cannot themselves sue, read [[Julian Bell]] for the high-profile case of [[Hong Ying]]; in which a Chinese court found that the dead could be defamed (by a work of fiction). We have _never_ allowed general arguments on respectfulness to condition what we will allow in enWP.
I'd say it's relevant - respect for the *reader*. Is the article good and useful?
Isn't this too simplistic? Surely, different readers have different needs. To a film buff, the actors career is important; to the celebritist and media scientist, the tabloid stuff is important; to the politicist, their activism is important. I'm not sure any part of an individual's potential biography should be dismissed out of hand, and particularly not with the justification that the reader doesn't need to read this particular piece of information. Nor can we idealise the biography and attempt to determine what the average reader wants or needs.
No, not at all simplistic - I meant what I said :-)
Hmm? I'm not denying you meant what you said. I was questioning whether one can determine what is good and useful to the reader in any useable way.
Apologies if this came across in any other way.
on 3/29/07 3:23 PM, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com at charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
We have _never_ allowed general arguments on respectfulness to condition what we will allow in enWP.
What on earth is a "general argument on respectfulness"?
Marc Riddell