On 9/24/08, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <
newyorkbrad@...> wrote:
> I think our disagreement may stem in part from an ambiguity about the
> meaning of "derogatory information." If we are interpreting it as meaning
> "blatant lies and malicious gossip," then if course it does not belong
> anywhere on the Internet, period, end of story. But if it means "negative
> information that is true and can be sourced, but it is still questionable
> whether there is value in publicizing it," then the context for doing so may
> become more significant. As many BLP problems deal with the second of these
> categories as the first.
I agree that there is an overwhelming tendency to conflate these
issues, exactly as explained in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts_on_BLPIn any case, when you put anything on the internet, you have to assume
that pretty much everybody will see it, and copy it too, regardless of
the copyright status.
Yes, I will be the first to admit this about the real world, that
anything's kosher as long as you don't get caught, or as long as
nobody cares, or as long as you have a good lawyer. Most people do
base decisions on the probability of negative consequence, and not on
"ethics".
Ethics are about doing what's right regardless of these factors.
I'm not going to tell anybody how to act when they find a lost wallet.
Maybe you return it to the rightful owner, maybe you don't, but you
can't call it "ethics" when the real reason is "everyone in the
building saw you pick it up". Not with a straight face anyway.
—C.W.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
