[WikiEN-l] Legal threats

[geni]

On 7/13/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> We don't benefit because he's a very minor figure, arguably not
> someone who should have an article in the first place, and it wasn't a
> good article anyway. So for the sake of upholding some unwritten
> principle of completeness (i.e. for the sake of ideology), we're
> prepared to harm an individual's real life, someone who has done
> nothing to any of us, to ensure that this incident will continue to
> haunt him, whereas he thought he had put it behind him.
>

Technicaly an untrue claim (wikipedians include UK tax payers)

I we are to right about someone it should be as complete as posible.
Lord Levy would not be complete without mentioning in connection to
the "cash for peerages" inquiry by the Metropolitan Police. It would
also be imcomplete if we failed to mention his charity fundraising

> My argument is that it's neither fair nor rational to do that, and we
> ought always to be both fair and rational when dealing with people who
> are, in a very real sense, at Wikipedia's mercy.
>
> Sarah

Fair means we include both the good and the bad. Exclude either and we
are both unfair to the subject and unfair to our readers.

-- 
geni