[WikiEN-l] Human dignity (warning: verbosity follows...)

[Fred Bauder]

On Jul 14, 2006, at 9:10 PM, Joseph Hiegel wrote:

> I agree with Bryan, but I am happy that Jimbo has made explicit an  
> issue with which we've frequently dealt tangentially (see, e.g., in  
> the [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] and [[WP:NOT EVIL]] discussions).   
> Plainly, to my mind, human dignity is an altogether unencyclopedic  
> concern, and, pace Jimbo, I think that, inasmuch as we ought to  
> edit with complete disinterest vis-à-vis the external consequences  
> of our editing, we ought never to comport our encyclopedic work  
> with, as journalists, a [[Journalistic ethics#Harm limitation  
> principle|harm limitation principle]].
>
>   There are, I think, two issues here: (a) whether the community  
> believe there to be anything morally wrong with our creating and  
> maintaining articles apropos of living persons where the notability  
> of those persons is avolitional and where those persons are  
> demonstrably harmed by our having such articles (even where they've  
> not complained to us about that harm) and (b) whether, assuming  
> arguendo that the community does thence appreciate a moral wrong,  
> otherwise encyclopedic concerns militate sufficiently in favor of  
> inclusion that, notwithstanding a moral wrong, we ought to have  
> such articles.
>
>   Even as I recognize that some editors would find there to be  
> something untoward or immoral in our having an article, for  
> example, about [[Brian Peppers]], I think it is far from clear that  
> the majority of frequent contributors think there to be something  
> immoral with our writing articles that certainly harm their  
> subjects where their subjects are arguably non-notable and in any  
> event avolitionally public; I certainly can't comprehend why anyone  
> would think such writing to be immoral, but that's likely because I  
> am an amoral objectivist.
>
>   Were there to be a consensus for the idea that we ought to act to  
> limit harm in view of the nebulous "human dignity", I'd suspect  
> that there'd nevertheless be no abiding consensus toward the  
> proposition that the "human dignity" argument ought always to be  
> dispositive; there are, after all, other encyclopedic concerns to  
> which "human dignity" ought not to be superior.
>
>   As [[WP:POLICY]] makes well clear, the nature of the wiki is such  
> that nothing is immutable; were most frequent contributors, for  
> example, to determine that we should no longer require [[WP:V| 
> verifiability]], it's likely that Wikipedia would (d)evolve in a  
> fashion consistent with community consensus (surely Jimbo would  
> consider whether to jump in at this point, but I think even he  
> would concede that his capabilities to act unilaterally contrary to  
> an evident consensus are somewhat limited and that, in any case,  
> the community would look with strong disfavor on such unilateral  
> action), and so, encyclopedic concerns aside, the community might  
> decide to confer guideline status on the ol' "human dignity" bit.   
> I seriously doubt that the community would so act, though, and I  
> certainly don't think that a discussion on the mailing list ought  
> to be understood as involving the whole of the community.
>
>   There seems to be, relative to [[WP:OFFICE]] and [[WP:BLP]], an  
> acquiescence to the idea that there are circumstances under which,  
> even where legal and [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]], and [[WP:NPOV]] issues do  
> not entail, we ought to act to avoid offending subjects, which  
> accession I find wholly ridiculous.  If such accession commands the  
> support of the community, though, it should be codified, but only  
> after a Wiki-wide discussion.
>
>   Cordially,
>
>
>   Joe Hiegel
>   [[User:Jahiegel]]
>

Our freedom from litigation is partially due to being responsive to  
people who are hurt or offended by articles about them. Seems like a  
sound policy compared to the likely consequences of an amoral policy.

Fred



>
>   ournalistic_ethics#Harm_limitation_principle
>
> Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>   Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>> I would vote "delete, nn - human dignity". A full explanation  
>> would be:
>> For goodness sake, leave the poor woman alone.
>>
>
> I would support deleting an article about the incident you describe
> purely on the basis that it falls below even my rather inclusive
> "notability" standards, rendering your question moot.
>
> Assuming for purposes of argument that there was reason that this
> incident _was_ notable, however, I wouldn't accept an argument for
> deletion solely on the basis of "human dignity." Our other policies  
> and
> guidelines will ensure that the article ultimately only contains
> information that is commonly available anyway. Removing her article  
> from
> Wikipedia would do nothing to help "leave her alone" and it would harm
> Wikipedia's coverage of a notable event, so IMO it'd be a solid net
> negative.
>
> I don't even see what's so undignified about this particular incident
> that anyone would argue it on that basis in the first place. Everyone
> does boneheaded things from time to time.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>