On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Ian Woollard <[email protected]> wrote: > On 31/12/2008, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2008/12/31 Ian Woollard <[email protected]>: >>> 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 > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >
Actually, I do see it as a false dichotomy. We're presenting it as "rights" against publication of verifiable, reliable, already-published material. These rights do not exist. I do not have a right to tell you that you may not talk about me or publish information about me, provided what you say is true. People do, to some degree, have a right to privacy, but not nearly as extensive of one as most would believe. We already cover that with NOR, V, and RS-digging through someone's tax records and synthesizing a conclusion is already unacceptable, and if no other reliable source has seen fit to publish what's found in those records, we shouldn't either. However, once something is already -in- public, and reliable sources with ethics departments and legal departments have already published it, it's no longer private information. At that point, there is no BLP issue other than possible neutrality violations. How do we avoid neutrality violations? We follow, rather than second-guess, reliable sources. In every case, every time. That's what NPOV means. Imposing our own viewpoint, including "They SHOULDN'T have published that!", is the very definition of a violation of NPOV. NPOV is still a pillar and the founding cornerstone of our project. BLP is a necessary reaction to a bad incident (Siegenthaler) that was originally well done but now has gotten way out of scope and way out of control. There should be no question about which is primary. The fact that there is any question is unsettling at best. -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
