[WikiEN-l] BLPs: Wikipedia entry nearly scuppers rugby player's career

[Delirium]

Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2008/10/2 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad at gmail.com>:
>> There is, or certainly should be, at a minimum, a policy and spirit of "do
>> no UNNECESSARY or UNJUSTIFIED harm."  And I believe that in fact, there is.
>> Of course, it's the question of what is unnecessary or unjustified that
>> raises the most serious ethical quandaries.
> 
> "Do no harm for the sake of doing harm" covers it, I suppose.
> 
> But then, that falls under the all-time number-one guideline in this
> field: "don't be a dick"...

It also might as well not be a rule at all, though, because none of the 
contentious cases of potentially harmful information on living people 
were added *solely* to harm the person. The problem is when information 
is potentially harmful, but also potentially useful, especially when 
people disagree on the degree to which it's either of those.

The most frequent disagreement seems to be tied in with our long-running 
notability wars, but with the added BLP / potential harm edge. 
Especially with things to do with popular culture, people simply 
disagree on to what extent pop-culture phenomena are notable. I happen 
to take a pretty inclusive view -- several of my academic colleagues 
study popular culture full-time, including things like internet fads -- 
but obviously many others don't.

-Mark