[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia as moral tool?

[Fred Bauder]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Delirium [mailto:delirium at hackish.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2007 06:16 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia as moral tool?
>
>Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>>>It is impossible to know which bits of information cause damage it is
>>>impossible to quantify the damage and again impossible to quantify the
>>>good.
>>> 
>>>
>>
>>It's not at all impossible. Detailed information about private people is harmful. Even excessively detailed information about public figures. publishing private phone numbers of celebrities is an obvious pain in the ass. We don't need to know if George Bush has Herpes. People have a right to live without a spotlight turned on them. Likewise detailed information about how to kill people is rather obviously harmful. None of the statements you made are true. Rough approximations may be arrived at with respect to all 3.
>> 
>>
>The rough approximations vary widely according to cultural norms, 
>though, which poses quite a problem for Wikipedia since we're an 
>international enyclopedia, rather than situated in any one culture. We 
>don't need to know if George Bush has Herpes, perhaps; do we need to 
>know that FDR had polio? The consensus for many years was that this was 
>private information that would be inappropriate to publicize against his 
>wishes. However, more recently, it's been mentioned more widely, and we 
>mention it in our own article. There are probably still people who find 
>that distasteful, but what are we supposed to do about that?
>
>I think that we can probably all agree on the extremes (e.g. home phone 
>numbers), but it gets murky quickly past that. For example, some 
>countries prohibit publishing the names of various categories of alleged 
>criminals, or various categories of alleged victims, whereas other 
>countries' press does so routinely; which standard do we follow?
>
>-Mark

We follow a reasonable standard that we arrive at though the same process we arrive at any policy, discussion leading to consensus.

Fred