[WikiEN-l] Attack Site Wars, Episode VII... The Return of the Essjay

[geni]

On 7/5/07, Anirudh <anirudhsbh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Wikipedia IS the world's largest website;

Myspace would probably beg to differ.

> it IS the world's largest
> compendium of knowledge,

Ah no various astronomy databases are larger.

> the biggest encyclopedia. Do we have
> responsibilities?

Certainly. They are clearly laid out under various laws.

> What about ethics?

I hear you can buy all kinds of stuff on ebay.

> We are ACTIVELY affecting the
> lives of various individuals worldwide,

Yes? Strangely it is always an intern acting without orders who then
makes the snips (well with one exception).

> and one aspect of those
> impacts could be easily negative, if we tolerate negative but
> well-sourced information that clearly says -- "THIS GUY DONE FOUL"

What is the ethical issue?


> Ryan Jordon is probably going to have a lot of hindrances while
> applying for employment and placements. Who are we to exacerbate the
> situation for an individual who is clearly not notable and affluent
> enough to get over the after-effects of the controversy?

Who are we to make the judgement that employers should be denied
useful information?

> Why should we
> constantly harp about upholding notability guidelines when it does
> more harm than good to borderline notable subjects?

Because Wicca is not the official religion of wikipedia.

harp about upholding notability guidelines would appear to be a strawman.

> Our job as the largest encyclopedia in the world is to be the total
> sum of human knowledge but with certain responsibilities to the
> society and its members. If getting featured in various publications
> and dailies of repute does make a person notable enough to get them an
> encyclopedic entry, then we should get rid of this systematic bias.

Being worked on. Digging through microfilms is a slow process mind.

> An alternative solution which might appease both the sides would be to
> remove the name "Ryan Jordon" from the article itself.

Enough valid stuff has already been removed from the article.
-- 
geni