(sorry for duplicate, Anthony)
On 14/07/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
It is, of
course, possible to be guilty of one thing and not guilty of
another. I know a chap who was convicted for a particularly farcical
robbery attempt; he's guilty, no doubt, and it wasn't a victimless
crime. But if I wandered around this evening and kicked him in the
face, he'd be pretty justified in considering himself an innocent
victim of my mindless assault.
I don't see how Peppers being convicted of something means we should
help people kick *him* in the face because they feel like it.
I'm not advocating that we kick Peppers in the face, I'm advocating
that we provide information about him in Wikipedia.
...why? Wikipedia is not a registry of sex offenders. We're an
*encyclopedia*. Being convicted of a crime was not, last I checked,
even remotely near any sensible threshold for inclusion...
Yes, we have "more of a right" to provide information about him than
about some other people... but that doesn't mean we need to, or that
anyone would be well-served by us doing so.
The simplest answer to why is that there are a lot of people who want
to know about him. Also, there is a lot of misinformation going
around.
Frankly, I thought the answer to "why" was obvious, which is why my
message above focussed on why I think it's OK.
Anthony