[WikiEN-l] Tightening the "do no harm" screws.

[Todd Allen]

Tony Sidaway wrote:
> On 6/7/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> We're really better off if we try not to apply moral judgments to
>> content when we don't have to. This falls under that. Our current
>> system is more than sufficient.
>>     
>
> My opinion?  We don't get a choice.  Our sources make moral judgements
> and work within systems of professional ethics.  We have to have our
> own, or else we're just parroting their priorities.
>
> The most accessible, pervasive information sources on the planet have
> as their priority, for the most part, the maximization of audience
> share and the selling of half page ads for furniture, underwears and
> slimming aids.  Those that are in competition to sell advertising
> space feel they have little choice but to serve up something that will
> push up sales and generate advertising revenue.
>
> They have their ethical systems, which enable them to do pretty good
> work despite the pressure to produce stuff that's, well, less than
> good.  Gossip about pop stars is kept within reasonable bounds,
> Prurience is limited.  But titillation is still a big seller so
> sensationalism is hard to keep at bay.
>
> Political considerations are also a problem. News sources might adopt
> a detached, unworldly tone on politics, but press office conditions
> enable those in political power to  influence which subjects they
> discuss--on pain of exclusion from background briefings and other
> privileged access.  Our sources are biased, even though they struggle
> to avoid this.
>
> Those are our sources.  As Wikipedians, intending to produce an
> encyclopedia, we have to choose how we process this news and current
> affairs source--which is so prevalent as to be like a veritable fire
> hose compared to other informational sources.  We have no choice.  We
> must have an ethical framework within which to handle this
> information.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>   
I think that's a road we'd better walk down carefully, if at all.
Usually, those issues are at least mitigated by the use of multiple
sources, and being very careful to attribute rather than state as fact
if only a single source reports on something. Saying "we know better
then them" sounds to me like inviting original research and novel
interpretation.

Stating that sources may have bias is like stating that the sun may rise
tomorrow. Every human being has some sort of bias (even if that's a bias
toward carefully seeking neutrality at all times, and even then, your
version of "neutral" may not match mine. Look at how many disputes we
have over what actually constitutes a neutral article.) But it's always
been our policy that if a source is generally accepted as reliable, we
don't "correct" it based upon our own interpretations. That's generally
worked pretty well, and I'd be pretty hesitant to change it.

As you stated, the sources that we consider reliable -do- have ethical
frameworks in place. They also have legal teams which will evaluate
whether what they're reporting on is likely to land them in legal
trouble. If a lot of reliable sources have decided "Yes, it is legal and
ethical to report this", we should think very hard before we say
"They're all wrong."

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070608/125d9299/attachment-0001.pgp