Corrected posting: Note the "in general" . Our purpose is not the defense of the innocent or the guilty, or the bystander, but the provision of acurate POV information about matters of concern to the public. The provision of this information is of general befit to the entire community. We have a responsibility to our subject, and a equal responsibility to each individual human being.
A reporter, who enters into a relationship of trust with an individual, may-- & in some circumstances must-- feel differently. If he enters into an engagement with an individual to provide information, he must honor the terms. I would say this applies to a reporter for Wikinews conducting an interview. But at WP. we do not enter into these relationships, and we use only public information. That is in fact the point of avoiding COI, to avoid a personal relationship with the subject because such relationships prevent NPOV. This applies of course only to public information--if we accidentally come across private information, we should not publicize it, regardless of its tendency. But that's not specific to BLP--it's simply a case of avoiding OR.
Can someone provide an argument why we owe any special responsibility to our subjects rather than our readers, except that of avoiding wanton damage to private individuals through recklessness or malice? If there is any uncertainty in the balance, there will be more than one reader, so the interests of the readers will always predominate. To say otherwise tis to commit the fallacy of being concerned with named, rather than presently nameless, individuals, merely because we can identify and name them. But in reality, since we have no confidential or personal relationship, they are all equal. To the extend we let the feelings of the subject affect an article, we are engaging in conduct in defiance of NPOV and COI.
If any person can not square his personal conscience with this due to whatever ethical conceptions or misconceptions, he has a remedy: not to work on BLP articles. Just the same as any other COI. A person who writes or discusses on the basis of personal sympathy with a subject should not be working on that article, any more than if he had personal hatred.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:12 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
note the "in general" . Our purpose is not the defense of the innocent or the guilty, but the provision of acurate POV information about matters of concern to the public. The provision of this information is of general befit to tthe en tire community. We have a responsibility to our subject, and a eq
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/04/2008, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
In the long run, we avoid harming people in general by telling the truth.
I don't see how that works. If the truth is negative, telling the truth does harm. The net result to society is positive (we generally consider having a free, neutral encyclopaedia a good thing), but that doesn't mean we haven't harmed the subject.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
Can someone provide an argument why we owe any special responsibility to our subjects rather than our readers, except that of avoiding wanton damage to private individuals through recklessness or malice? If there is any uncertainty in the balance, there will be more than one reader, so the interests of the readers will always predominate.
While I agree with what you're saying, that point is fundamentally flawed. The harm to the subject is often far greater than the gain to an individual reader. There are sufficiently more readers that the net result is still positive, but were there only two readers, that wouldn't be the case.
correction accepted.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Can someone provide an argument why we owe any special responsibility to our subjects rather than our readers, except that of avoiding wanton damage to private individuals through recklessness or malice? If there is any uncertainty in the balance, there will be more than one reader, so the interests of the readers will always predominate.
While I agree with what you're saying, that point is fundamentally flawed. The harm to the subject is often far greater than the gain to an individual reader. There are sufficiently more readers that the net result is still positive, but were there only two readers, that wouldn't be the case.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l