On 31/12/2008, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2008/12/31 Ian Woollard <ian.wooll...@gmail.com>: >> That is A definition of right and wrong, you're saying that the >> wikipedia is more important than individuals. You're valuing the >> wikipedia more than them. That's your right. But it's also his right >> to value individuals above the wikipedia. > > False dichotomy.
No, no. It's not a dichotomy at all, there's a continuum between how much people value rules/ordered societies and how much they're prepared to trample over a few rights or people's lives and how much it's essential not to trample on anyone. It's not about good or bad, it's just how different people look at things; it's about values. There's no provable right or wrong on this. > BLP only works insofar as it doesn't contradict NPOV. > > What part of valuing individuals do you consider requires violating NPOV? Well, off hand (and not necessarily a perfect example) the Star Wars kid's name. It may well be considered that not having his name in the article violates NPOV. I'm not saying that I think that or that I don't, but *purely* for the sake of argument let's say that it is obviously a violation not to have it and let's say in our hypothetical world that absolutely all sources have it. Then one point of view would then be that his name should be in the article, unless BLP then gets in the way, in which case you can reasonably argue that NPOV was violated because you value the impact it could have on the kid and that is more important to *them*. On the other hand some people will argue that NPOV should triumph, because all sources have it, and so it's NPOV to have it and the rule is intended to improve and give an orderly and well written wikipedia and so in the long run improve countless people's lives; perhaps even save their lives, and this is more important to *them* than the (possibly minor) inconvenience to the Star Wars kid of NPOV forcing something into the article. That's the general idea anyway-this guy probably puts it better than me (it seems to be about the same idea, although he explains it in political terms): http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html > - d. -- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
