On 8/18/06, jahiegel jahiegel@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@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Defamation policy
On 8/18/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@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@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l