[WikiEN-l] Defamation policy hypothetical

[jahiegel]

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 appended a hypothetical at the end of my post but, realizing that any 
sane individual won't reach the end of my comments, I have moved it here; an 
expanded argument follows...

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]]?  I imagine that there are those who will say "yes", and I suppose I 
can appreciate their justifcations; I rather think, though, that an 
exceedingly large portion of the community would say "no", although I am 
less-than-confident that a meta-discussion that might bear out such view 
might be undertaken.

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.

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 at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Defamation policy


> On 8/18/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve at 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 at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>