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

Anirudh anirudhsbh at gmail.com
Sat Jul 14 08:07:59 UTC 2007

On 7/12/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/5/07, Anirudh <anirudhsbh at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Wikipedia IS the world's largest website;
> Myspace would probably beg to differ.

Erm, alrighty, but you get the point, don't you?

> 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.

Laws, schmlaws, I am referring to ethics.

> What about ethics?
> I hear you can buy all kinds of stuff on ebay.

Your point being...?

> 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?

As I have already stated, his life is getting affected by the negative
publicity. The article does nothing but make a mockery of that individual.
We are an encyclopedia and not a web-based newspaper which publishes each
and every thing that happens on the planet. I am not against inclusionism,
but some articles are better left outside, and for good reasons.

> 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?

They are not being denied information in any manner, but the point of him
having an article featuring himself makes the situation even more enormous.

> 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.

No, it's about the systematic biases that plague Wiccapedia.

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list