Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 1,013:
::::What those two views are both talking about is the "need" to remove ''widely known, well sourced'' information from Wikipedia because they don't want to "make people sad". If they are relevant to PC, it means that the role of the PC reviewer is not just to revert vandalism, false information, and difficult to track down information, but also any information they don't think sounds very nice. I should further point out that despite this resolute action to expunge Brian Peppers from the [[List of Internet phenomena]], a [http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22brian+peppers%22&btnG=Search search] still turns up entries from more open sources of information, such as snopes.com and Encyclopaedia Dramatica, as the top search hits. Last but not least, I should add that obviously the people of Ohio, as a matter of law, deliberately chose to stigmatize and humiliate Mr. Peppers in the first place. Are you dismissing them as unethical also? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 05:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
* Chzz says above: "''Example 2, how many editors will be so confused by PC that they'll give up editing?''". We could enable PC on a topic-area-by-topic-area basis, perhaps starting with the most contested or troublesome areas. [[User talk:AGK|<
Libel is a problematic issue. All of this thread is amateur legalizing. We are imagining what the potential for libel is in an article and what that potential means for legal liability, two determinations which are better made by actual lawyers. We are also imagining that PC will eliminate the first and have no impact on the second. This second issue is another problem. It is not at all clear that PC will leave unchanged the burden for liability and assuming the "best case" that it does leave those burdens unchanged is dangerous. For the general issue we should be perfectly clear. If legal liability requires a procedure be written a certain way or a process be undertaken a certain way then it is the job of the WMF and their counsel to undertake those changes. Period. No exceptions. It is not our job to stab at the dark and hope we are making broad changes to wikipedia which may or may not improve the foundation's legal liability. If PC are needed to protect the foundation from legal harm then the foundation can step in and mandate the adoption of PC. We cannot have this discussion under the threat of legal action and expect to have a fair hearing of the pros and cons. The ethical issues about BLP (mentioned above) are important but are not inherently linked to the legal issues. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 00:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
| |||