"beefed up slanderous article"? You're venturing onto very shaky ground right now. You might want to dial back the rhetoric a little.
On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Did you just compare George W. Bush and Essjay? :D
Morality is not a rationale of mine. The point is Essjay is not a notable individual to the point that consensus established that there shouldn't be an article on him.
Also it is a beefed up slanderous article on an individual. Since Essjay isn't a public figure this (the article) borderlines harassment of an individual. I am not exactly certain of the legal ground on this but Floridan law may have issues with this which puts the foundation at a legal risk. This aspect should also be investigated.
- White CatOn 6/27/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 27, 2007, at 11:05 AM, The Mangoe wrote:
If we think that Wikipedia is important, then Essjay's sins are important. Either it will be an important crisis that we got past,
or
it will be the first major outbreak of a problem we never learned to deal with. Either way, people ten years from now who write about Wikipedia are going to mention the incident.
I'm skeptical. Why don't we wait ten years and add the article if you're right?
Seriously. We're the sixth Google hit on Essjay's real name, and the first one related to him. For all his errors, he was a good member of the community. He wrote good articles, and was generally a fair, nice guy. He made a mistake not on Wikipedia but in talking to a reporter. And despite his false credentials, he also didn't fuck those articles up with nonsense.
I'm not OK with us being the first thing on him his future employers see when they Google him. He was a kid when he made his mistakes, and we shouldn't be the ones to tar and feather him for life over them.
I'm uncomfortable about allowing our individual inclinations as editors, even if there is good moral standing for them, to seep into our editing. To me, it is the same as allowing ourselves to explicitly condemn, say, the Holocaust. I won't say I have the answer to this conundrum, but I am not sure if the answer has to involve imposing our own moral views, no
matter
how correct we feel they are, on the encyclopaedia.
The BLP policy is of course grounded, in a sense, in morals, but also in practicality. Information about a living individual's life is far more likely to be in flux; the George W. Bush of 2000 may not be the George
W.
Bush of 2010, and the John Lee of 2007 may not be the John Lee of 2057.
It
makes sense to have a higher sourcing standard for claims about living individuals, and to take a more aggressive approach to handling possible libel (especially considering legal issues). There is no need to involve issues of morality or our own personal subjective judgment in handling biographies of living people, although we undoubtedly subconsciously/consciously have because many of us feel it is "right" to have a strict BLP policy (there is nothing wrong with this provided
there
is also an objective basis for our actions).
I am not sure if the circumstances are quite congruent concerning the Essjay issue. I understand his youthful indiscretion, being a youth myself and having made many youthful mistakes. I certainly would not want this
being
held against him in the future. But at the same time, I can find no
basis
for deciding the article on the [[Essjay controversy]] should be deleted that does not lie in some subjective valuation of morals.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l