Wikipedia talk:No Moral Code

I'd shy away from this one, for the following reasons:

• Gives lots of ammunition to critics, while not changing how Wikipedia operates in any fundamental way.
• Possibily contradictory--some may argue that the desire for truth itself is morally motivated; others are known to assert that relativism itself is a moral position.
• Not really true, anyway--Wikipedia is guided by the collective morality of its body of editors, many of whom who insert content which reflects their own views (even when this done in a way which respects NPOV).

I gather what the author is really trying to say is, "Other than those requirements which are believed to be necessary to build a reliable encyclopedia (NPOV, NOR, WP:V), and those needed to comply with the law; Wikipedia does not subscribe to a particular morality or worldview". That language may be less contentious.

--EngineerScotty 19:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer Scotty's wording, but still find it unnecessary. There's no point in adding rules that aren't out to solve a clear problem. Deco 20:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Just to clarify; my first choice at this point (until convinced otherwise) is to do nothing. --EngineerScotty 20:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat problematic, as Wikipedia does place value on certain attributes (NPOV, VER) and so forth - which is, in a very real sense, a moral code. WilyD 13:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have added in Scotty's wording. I believe that this guideline is necessary to resolve the dispute over whether or not wikipedia should have a code of ethics (see Wikipedia:Wikiethics, WP:NE, WP:EVIL, WP:BG&E and their respective talk pages). I know that it is impossible to completely abandon your personal morality when editing wikipedia, but I feel we should at least encourage editors to leave their personal ideologies outside of wikipedia. Also, the final point of the proposal does address a clear problem, which is one of the main arguments used by proponents of WP:NE, the fact that not policy actually states that wikipedia should not cause undue harm (except for a brief mention in WP:BLP), which leads to legal issues and hurts wikipedias image, which leads to office actions. I am trying to address this issue without imposing a moral ideology onto wikipedia, like NE. --Samael775 19:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Unacceptable

This proposal is completely unacceptable. Wikipedia is produced by a community that must demonstrate its trustworthiness to the world at large. We are bound by the same basic moral sense that the outside world is. --Tony Sidaway 15:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• The outside world does not have a single moral sense, which makes morality biased POV. The final point in the proposal addresses your concern. --Samael775 19:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Policy or Guideline

Would it be more appropriate to propose this as a policy, a guideline, or something like WP:IAR? --Samael775 19:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Certainly not a policy; as there is nothing in there which is really binding, or changes the way Wikipedia works. Even as a guideline, it doesn't say much; it's more a statement of philosophy. --EngineerScotty 19:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Moral code?

Rather than using the words "moral code"; maybe this would be better if stated more specifically:

• Wikipedia doesn't advance or promote any particular ideology, philosophy, worldview, political or economic theory or belief, nationality, culture, religion, or creed.

Of course, many may take issue with that, as there are areas where Wikipedia does tend to take positions (and in many cases, rightly so IMHO):

• Wikipedia is generally intolerant to racism and other forms of incivilty. While we have articles in which racist points of view are presented (alongside opposing views, see race and intelligence for one interesting example), those advocating racist viewpoints generally have larger barriers to climb in order to get their points across.

• Wikipedia generally considers scientific viewpoints to be preferable than theological ones on non-ecclesiastical matters, such as evolution. The creationists get their say, per NPOV; but in the end, most of the coverage on the topic comes down on the side of evolution.

• Wikipedia is, in many ways, opposed to censorship; including publishing material which gets Wikipedia banned in certain countries (such as the People's Republic of China; Wikipedia strongly resists attempts by the outside to exert editorial control over the content here. (Note that I am distinguishing censorship from editorial discretion--Wikipedia frequently exercises the latter, and is often accused of "censorship" by critics for that reason).

So, I'm not sure that this page is even accurate. --EngineerScotty 19:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the words "Moral Code" is entirely misplaced. Scotty's statement Wikipedia doesn't advance or promote any particular ideology, philosophy, worldview, political or economic theory or belief, nationality, culture, religion, or creed. is the most agreeable. There certainly needs to be distinguished between what is Wikipedia-the project and what is Wikipedia-the community. While the NPOV Policy is aimed at not promoting any particular ideology, the community does have a sort of collective morality--like Scotty's reference to the racism example Agne27 05:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That language basically just restates NPOV. This proposal is trying to address the issue of morality specifcally, and whether your morality can be applied to wikipedia without biased POV, which it cannot. Here are my responses to your points:

• Neutrality does not mean treating all POVs equally, minority opinions (such as racism) do not need to be given the same weight as majority opinions. Incivility is generally discouraged as it damages the ability of the community to work together to produce a good encyclopedia.
• Scienctific views are generally assumed to be true on science related articles, because they are the views of the vast majority of scientists. The debates science and religion or superstition are generally placed on the pages about those theories. Arguments need not be restated for every article that concerns the subject. For example, in every article about an animal which mentions its evolution, it would be pointless to say "on the other hand, Creationists believe God created it, and any evidence to suggest that it evolved is merely there to test the faith of believers, while the Theory of Intelligent Design states that the animal did evolve, but that there was some guiding hand behind the process. On the other hand, pastafarians will tell you...", as this is the same for every living creature.
• How does wikipedia "strongly resist censorship"?

--Samael775 23:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Prefer WP:NOT EVIL

As you might imagine, I prefer WP:NOT EVIL.

• I'm not a huge fan of the "Well, The Internet Meme About The Stupid Person Who Got Caught On Video Absolutely Humiliating Herself was a good article, unbiased, referenced, well-written, notable subject. Of course, the subject did kill herself because of the article, but hey, things are tough all over" kind of approach to life, the internet, and everything.
• ...as this could hurt wikipedia's image and cause legal problems. Right, can't have legal problems, there. Can't have those pesky image problems. Damn, if only we could find a way to destroy people and poison society without having those legal and image problems, we'd be sitting pretty.
• Also, "Nothing should be contributed to wikipedia that does not possess encyclopedic value. However, this is rarely an issue, as nothing can be added to wikipedia that is not already public knowledge..." I'm not getting this, are you saying that publicly known = has encyclopedic value? Herostratus 04:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• When has someone killed themself because there is an article about them on wikipedia? When has anyone threatened to? This policy specifically states that it does not override WP:BLP, and states that needless harm should not be allowed. Besides, in order for something to meet wikipedia standards of notability and verifiability, information must already have been published by a reliable source, so it must already be public knowledge.
• I don't want to "destroy people and poison society", and neither does Wikipedia. The goal of Wikipedia is to create a neutral, informative encyclopedia. However, I believe that accepting absolute morality and imposing it on Wikipedia is contrary to those ideals.
• encylopedic value => public knowledge does not mean public knowledge => encyclopedic value.

--Samael775 14:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Prefer to WP:NOT EVIL

Truth must be obtained independant of value, for value is subjective.

'Policies' or essays such as WP:NOT EVIL can only function to allow the exclusion of plain fact for the excuse of 'goodness'. If we have two articles of comparable notability, NO moral code must be involved in the decision to exclude the article. The reader can make what they want to from the pure fact, and practice their own moral life, as they see fit. We are their servants - only bound to tell the truth. However, WP:NOT EVIL has already been used to abuse this basic ethic at least once - to delete an article about a long established and notable pedophile messageboard that is monitored by law enforcement and repeatedly mentioned in online social commentary. For as long as wikimedia has ample space for its articles, such deletions can only be for one reason: bias. --Jim Burton 20:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Good essay, redundant as policy.

That's all I have to say.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)