On 8/18/06, jahiegel <jahiegel(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Sam's comments surely invite the question around
which, relative to BLP, we
often dance: ought ethical or moral impulses ever to affect our editing?
I'd argue that the only reasons I edit Wikipedia are ethical and
moral, so a resounding yes :-)
Consider a situation in which unsourced criticism
appears in a biography.
Assume arguendo that we can be certain that the subject will not essay a
legal claim against the Foundation and that we can be relatively certain
that bad press will not entail (an issue that, for the purposes of this
discussion, we set aside in any case). Should, then, we treat that
unsourced negativity in a fashion different from that in which we'd treat
unsourced comments in, to pick the first three random articles I find,
[[Mancor de la Vall]], [[Sherston Software]], or [[Danzig III: How the Gods
Kill]]?
Ideally, no, we should not. Ideally, we apply WP:V and WP:NPOV
equally to every edit. What's more, we'd ideally apply WP:AGF equally
to every edit. *However*, living people are significantly different
to your example by the very fact that people are more likely to insert
damaging and embarassing "facts" about them than about your examples.
From a purely pragmatic approach, it is not difficult
to see that
articles concerning living individuals are a high target for vandals
and thus need to be scrutinised especially carefully.
Concerns w/r/to prospective legal liability and bad
press aside (which
concerns can be, I think, persuasively allayed), a certain "do no harm"
motivation tends to underline BLP. In view of the failure to command a
consensus of either [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] or [[WP:NOT EVIL]], and of the
disfavoring by the community of Jimbo's "human dignity" formulation with
respect to deletion, I cannot abide the suggestion that the community writ
large truly believe, legal/publicity concerns aside, that we ever ought to
concern ourselves with the external consequences of our editing.
I have outlined my pragmatic reasoning for taking special
considerations above. I also feel there is a very powerful moral
argument.
We don't ask people if they want a Wikipedia biography about them.
They have no say in the matter (ask, for example, Daniel Brandt or
Angela). They get them, like it or not. I believe that, in writing
articles about them, we have a duty to get our facts right. This
applies across the encyclopaedia for the sake of editors, but
especially on articles about living people for the sake of the
subjects themselves.
Such consideration is plainly, IMHO, unencyclopedic; not only ought we to
edit with dispassion (NPOV), but so too ought we to edit with disinterest,
such that we ought not to care whether the Googling of a biographical
subject returns results that contain inaccurate and defamatory material (I,
fof course, cannot comprehend why any individual editor, in view of
other-than-project-related concerns, would ever care).
To say that BLP is necessary because, even as it may infrequently forcelose
an editor's adding encyclopedic information, it prevents the project from
incurring costs related to defending the Foundation against legal action or
helps the project to avoid bad publicity, from which might follow the
departure of editors, the departure of readers, and/or the departure of
donors, is one thing; to say that the moral concerns of editors, legal/bad
publicity concerns notwithstanding, is quite another.
Cordially,
Joe
[[User:Jahiegel]]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Korn" <smoddy(a)gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Defamation policy
On 8/18/06, stevertigo
<vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
In the context of WP:OFFICE, as well as more
recently, Jimbo and others
have
written somethings about "hurt feelings," as if it was a policy (
WP:CODDLE
maybe) which could circumvent even important policy ( WP:NPOV maybe).
Could
you explain this?
No. No no no no no. That is not the aim at all. NPOV can never be
compromised. All that is different between a biography of a living
person and, for example, an article on the geography of southern
Brazil is that it is more likely that the article on the living person
will have potentially defamatory information added. This may or may
not lead to legal action, but it most certainly is likely to lead to
bad press for Wikipedia.
All that is required is a more *rigourous* application of our
verifibility policy for these more sensitive articles. That is not a
bad thing; indeed it is the real essence of NPOV.
We don't live in some cloud-cuckoo land where our mistakes don't have
consequences. They do. The answer is to make sure that our mistakes
are quickly corrected and that the damage does not continue.
I agree with the idea of treating bios with care,
but that does not
necessarily
necessitate the use of an entirely different methodology than any other
wiki
page - including censoring talk pages.
No, an "entirely different methodology" is not needed. All that is
needed is a more rigourous application of our current policies. These
rely upon (yes, rely upon, not just use as a bonus) the use of common
sense. Most unsourced claims do not need to be blitzed into oblivion.
Yet some do, and it is this balance that WP:LIVING must attempt to
measure. It is better to be cautious in this area, because it is
reckless and thoroughly unacceptable to say "Oh, don't blame us that
our encylopaedia accuses you of being a repeat sex offender, it just
happens because of the wiki process. It's your problem you're getting
so upset."
--
Sam
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Sam