This is a very valid point in terms of another way of approaching the issue.
(In evaluating the speech for completeness, do bear in mind that I only had a certain amount of time and couldn't make every possible point, but I should have found room for this one.) Newyorkbrad On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 5:13 AM, Charles Matthews < [email protected]> wrote: > Actually a point I felt was missing from NYB's talk, which took > "privacy" as general theme, was this: as we know from WP:NOT, Wikipedia > is not concerned with "indiscriminate" information. This ought to > provide some clear blue water between us and popular journalism, which > actually uses "indiscimination" quite often as a technique (e.g. twenty > things you didn't know about some reality TV star, or lists of peoplr > whose birthday is today). The argument put forth under the "where are > they now?" discussion should be considered under this heading, I > believe. Someone who won an Olympic medal 30 years ago is now pumping > gas? If we exclude that from the athlete's WP article, is it (a) > censorship, (b) respect for privacy, or (c) application of WP:NOT under > the general heading of including the salient facts on someone, not > everything that has ever been printed? > > Anyway, while the basic points that "privacy in the old sense of > protection from intrusive publication may not exist in the Internet age" > and "attack pages with high search engine prominence do work" may be > valid, I had this comment to make about the concluding section of the > talk, namely that we have our mission and it is not identical to tabloid > journalism. > > Charles > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
