[WikiEN-l] Getting hammered in a tv interview is not fun

[Oldak Quill]

On 31/03/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> on 3/31/07 10:43 AM, Ken Arromdee at arromdee at rahul.net wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 31 Mar 2007, Marc Riddell wrote:
> >> This is in response to several recent posts. For the record, the concept of
> >> "do no harm" I was presenting to in WP was related to what information we,
> >> as editors, choose to include in biographies of persons. My point was that
> >> to consciously include gratuitous, tabloid-like junk in a biographical
> >> article is unnecessarily harmful to the person.
> >
> > "Do no harm" and "do no unnecessary harm" are *vastly* different.
> >
> Harm - in any form - no matter how it is phrased - should be unacceptable.

But as several other people have posted, NPOV content *can* do harm
and, for the sake of NPOV, this is acceptable.

How do you even define "harm"? Physical damage? Mental upset? I'm sure
most of us consider it somewhere close to the latter. If a religious
person reads a few of our articles on God and religion and is thrown
into existential crisis (hoping too much?), is this mental upset
"harm"?

-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)