[WikiEN-l] English Wikipedia Policy as sovereign law

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/22/2008 11:32:12 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
saintonge at telus.net writes:

WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
> So we collect together details like  Jimmy dumped his girlfriend over the  
> internet, Jimmy was born  in Alabama and Jimmy ran a porn site and voila 
we've  
> done  additional harm that any individual source did not do.
I'm amused by the  suggestion that stating that someone was born in 
Alabama somehow does  harm.  It's been a long time since 1865. :-)



------------------------------
My point isn't the individual atomic details.  It's the collection of  
details in one article.
Knowing that Jimmy was born in Alabama and that he ran porn site x and now  
is the "at-least-nominal" head of Wikipedia, *could* be used to do further  
research, for example one could find a picture of him in his high school  
yearbook right?  Once you find that detail, can a person then argue against  it's 
inclusion?  It is relevant to a biography to know where someone went  to High 
School or that they were arrested at age 15 for shop-lifting or that  they won 
the blue ribbon for the biggest hog at the County Fair.
 
We create the situation from where you can further that sort of  research.  
That very situation, that we create, and that has not previously  existed, is 
what people are arguing against.
 
That is, to wit, *if* we find details from the newspaper about Jimmy's  early 
life, that we can't include them, simply because they don't exist already  
somewhere ....else.  That position is exactly the argument used on the  article 
about Genie feral child, and so far I am the sole voice of reason *imho*  to 
argue that it's a ridiculous argument.
 
Will Johnson



**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car 
listings at AOL Autos.      
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)