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

[John Lee]

On 4/1/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> John Lee wrote:
> > On 3/31/07, 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.
> >>
> >> Marc
> >
> >
> > If I'm not mistaken, there is a lot of bitterness in the Armenian
> community
> > about the Turkish genocide. Doesn't having an article about the Turkish
> > massacre of the Armenians harm the Turks by supporting the Armenian
> > bitterness against the Turks? Hell, doesn't having any article which
> > objectively states facts that aren't to the liking of somebody harm that
> > entity?
> >
> > I still fail to see why "Do no harm" should be elevated to the status of
> a
> > pillar of WP, or above that. It's a good principle, but if it means
> throwing
> > out NPOV or accuracy, I know what I'd go with.
> >
> > Johnleemk
>
> This is ridiculous. I did not suggest 'do no harm' was to be a pillar of
> wikipedia. I merely
> suggested that when we are considering policies for improving wikipedia,
> that simply
> looking to what might get us sued is insufficient. We should also
> consider organising
> ourselves to minimise the damage we may do to individuals by having POV
> articles, attack pages, or allowing malicious people to post any crap
> about them. Here we have a moral as well as a legal responsibility to
> minimise harm. We are human beings, we don't need
> [[Wikipedia:TheSermonOnTheMount]] to tell us that thinking about others,
> and the impact our project has on them, is a Good Thing.
> Doc


I wasn't responding specifically to you - I was responding to Marc, who
seems to think otherwise.

Johnleemk