[WikiEN-l] Susan Wiley "Genie the Wild Child"

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 6/10/2008 1:46:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
dgoodmanny at gmail.com writes:

This
is a person who wants, needs, and deserves privacy--all three  to a
degree rarely seen in these discussions. I am no supporter of  the
Wikipedia interpretation of DO NO HARM as a general rule, but it  does
apply in exceptional cases.>>



---------------------------------------------------
"Wants".  No she doesn't want privacy.  No one to my knowledge  has ever 
asked her.
"Needs".  Well no, she doesn't need it either.  There is simply  no public 
way to find her knowing her name.  She has no phone number, no  listed address, 
no entry in any public database.  Never paid taxes, never  bought land, never 
married, never had children.  No way to find her using  public databases.
 
"Deserves".  Odd point.  If the mayor of San Francisco divorces  his wife and 
is written up in the Chronicle doing so, does he "deserve" privacy  ?  If in 
that article it mentions that his mother's name is Gladys, does  Gladys "des
erve" privacy?  We are not the reports of first venue, that's  been done.  We 
are repeating what's already been given out, not creating  it.  If Gladys is 
quoted saying "My son is the most amazing man in the  Universe" and that's 
repeated in 37 newspapers across the country, can we not  quote it even though 
Gladys herself might be a "private person" ?
 
That's the real point.  Twisting rules to address specific cases,  without 
actually changing policy to so address them.  Interesting that  certain people 
in that other thread advocating this, are then complaining about  this as well. 
 If policy is not to be the ultimate decider, and we are  going to 
read-between-the-lines in every special case, why have any policy that  says anything 
whatsoever.



**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for 
fuel-efficient used cars.      (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)