On 7/12/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@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.
*cough*
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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l