Talk:Moral responsibility/Archive 1

Rewritten
I never even looked at the copyvio content. I wrote the new content that is at the subpage and now in the article. There is no more need for the copyvio notice, or to wait 1 week before replacing it with original writing. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2005-12-12 18:04
 * I understand that you've written new content, but according to the copyvio text, editors aren't supposed to delete a copyvio notice to insert new text. Please make your edits to Moral responsibility/Temp for the time being, and once the copyvio issue is resolved, that text will move to the main article entry. | Klaw ¡digame! 18:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As the subpage is not a copyvio, it has been moved to replace the original copyvio. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2005-12-12 18:10

I have contacted the author of the copyrighted content
I have just sent an e-mail to the author of the copyrighted content requesting permission for us to use it as the basis of the moral responsibility article. I have directed him here to this discussion page in order for him to offer his yay/nay on the matter. I hope that he will respond in the affirmative to my request. Syukton 16:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia can only copy public domain/free content, even if they give us permission. This is due to the mirror sites that copy us. Is it that hard to write in your own words? --  BRIAN  0918 17:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is fair use given the small size of the portion of the original text which was copied, given that wikipedia is run by a non-profit organization, and given that the intent of the usage is not to gain commercial benefit. Additionally, the excerpt of the copyrighted work is not intended to serve as a complete end-all be-all for defining moral responsibility, but as a basis for a more refined article. If it is necessary to release the text into the public domain, only the excerpt of the original document which was used here need be released. Syukton 17:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Brian is entirely wrong. Wikipedia can copy copyrighted content as long as the author releases it under the GFDL. That's the point of the GFDL. --The Cunctator 00:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I was not wrong. The GFDL is a license for free content, like I said. Read the first sentence of GFDL. --  BRIAN  0918 00:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Reference link deleted?
Should the only link under the reference section be deleted? It is listed twice... there, and lower in the external links section. Seems redundant.--12.214.39.203 01:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

biased account of morality
It would be morally responsible to label the topic as 'morale relativity' instead of 'moral responsibility' as what is presented leans more towards that left leaning viewpoint.

Be fair and honest.
 * Seconded Domenic Denicola 02:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion?
Note:this vote is not valid, nonetheless there is no justification of deleting it from the page. When the page gets too long, it can be archived, along with preceding comments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - We should leave the article here for no less than a week as a reasoned answer to the Register article. With the revisions I suggested above, I think it's a meritous article, particularly for those who come looking for some understanding about what Wikipedia is and how it works. -- ke4roh 15:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia pages aren't meant to be answers to articles. This page needs to be revised into a quality article about moral responsibility in general, not something specific to wikipedia only. If it's not revised, delete it BillPP 15:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but this should be merged or redirected. Responsibility already exists. Stop letting Joe Fay's Big Bag of Spurious News dictate the direction of this resource. --Markzero 23:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - This Wikipedia page should be refined into a meaningful page about the idea of "Moral Responsibility". The topic itself is an actual philosphical term.  See Moral Responsibility in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  Gonknet 16:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - The entry should be updated and refined so as to comprehensively define the concept of moral responsibility at various points along the moral spectrum (or varying degrees around the moral compass, whichever metaphor suits your fancy). A contrast between legal moral responsibility, religious moral responsibility, golden rule moral responsibility and other types of moral responsibilty, including the differences in various moral responsibilities between cultures and countries. Syukton 16:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no debate here, folks. The entire text of the article was a copyright violation, and that's not subject to a vote. | Klaw ¡digame! 16:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I had made my support to keep the article before the copyright violation had occured. This page is likely to get more visitors than the average Wikipedia page in the short future.  Does the marking of this page as a copyright violation hurt or help the image of Wikipedia as a reputable source of information?  While the tagging of the page promotes the idea that the information is checked by Wikipedia editors, it also promotes the idea that people who use this service are out there to provide misinformation or to cause trouble. I think that this page should be allowed to become meaningful article on the philisophical topic of moral responsibility. -- Gonknet 16:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's credibility can not be a consideration when dealing with copyright violations. We have legal obligations to respect copyrights, even if it makes Wikipedia look bad in the interim. The ideal solution here is for someone with knowledge of this subject to write a paragraph or two to get an article started after the copyvio is resolved. | Klaw ¡digame! 16:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting that the copyright-protected material be placed back here to help Wikipedia's image. The copyright infringement notice on this page states: "Please do not edit this page for the moment." How is someone with a knowledge of the subject to get the article started if they are instructed not to do so? (Noted that you just added: after the copyvio is resolved...) -- Gonknet 16:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, because I was afraid someone would edit over the copyvio notice, and someone did. I have moved the new text to Moral_responsibility/Temp. Anyone can work on it there, and we can move the text over when the copyvio is resolved. | Klaw ¡digame! 17:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Help, definetly. Anybody visiting this page will see that Wiki respects copyrights, is quick at spotting copyvios (vandalism, bias) - and they can go to the Moral_responsibility/Temp and contribute to the article. I'll go ahead and create a stub so anons can edit it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to responsibility. Michael Hardy 19:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand; there is a definite philosophical concept of "moral responsibilty" which has notable and verifiable term. See, for example: Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Responsibility and Control : A Theory of Moral Responsibility —LeFlyman 20:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove any links to anywhere that offer anything but further unbiased clarification of the topic. God help us if every entry included links to each occasion the term was brought up in discussion.  Relation to Wikipedia should be moot.  I can hardly see Encyclopedia Britannica including footnotes regarding Jane and Sue's morning show simply because said morning show discussed a particular entry.  Speaking of discussion, the tab is lit clear as day at the top of this entry.  Those wishing to know about that which is being discussed or that which is currently relevant to this entry simply need view the discussion. --Ayeroxor 03:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Wishy-washy language
I know it's a new article, but it's full of unverifiable, vague phrases like "the term is often used." Is it? Often, rarely, or just in the author's mind? Stuff like that should be sourced. Otherwise, we're left with a compendium of editors' opinions. Just my view as the article stands right now. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I sourced my original content. Since then, it has been flooded with anonymous expansions and other crap, although some of the additions were quite productive. In a couple days, it would probably be go to clean up the article and source it throughout, but for now its rather pointless, unless we revert all non-productive additions.  BRIAN  0918
 * This article may be a good canidate for the "weasel words" tag, then. ;-) --James 03:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

POV

 * Recent examples include accounting scandals, oil spills, defective products, political campaign financing, and other widely-impacting political corruption.

Describing "oil spills and political campaign financing" as things that harm communities is not NPOV. "Illegal political campeign financing" perhaps could be dealt with in an article on "moral responsibility" but political campeign financing in general isn't nessicarily a bad thing. Every politician does it -- it's part of the political process.

Furthermore, whatever evidence one may be able to produce about how oil spills may or may not harm the environment, I find putting that here in this article is paramount to adding the word "abortion" to this sentence - it's just about that POV.

If I'm totally off here in smelling a POV rat, then I just don't understand this laser-sharp focus on white collar crime in this section. Why these types of crimes in particular?

Probably isn't anybody's fault really ... just somebody tried to get an article together real quick to counter that one column ... just somebody try to come up with something to unPOV this please. --Nerd42 02:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I threw the article together to replace the copyvio that was up. The focus on "white collar" crime is because crimes such as illegal campaign finance and accounting scandals impact large groups of people, as it says in the article.. "widely-impacting". &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2005-12-13 02:33

OK adding the word illegal is an improvement, but still: what are oil spills doing in an article on moral responsibility? The two don't seem to go together ... that is unless someone supports an environmental policy regulating oil company practices. That would seem to me to be the only time "moral responsibility" and "oil spills" would be in the same sentence. Thus, POV.

Perhaps it would have been better if I'd just re-edited the page myself ... well on the other hand making a big stink about it on the Talk page is more likely to get my input to stick ... --Nerd42 02:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I added the "oil spills" comment because another encyclopedia listed it as an example :) I don't think it's that POV. The article is simply saying that certain groups (environmentalists) hold companies morally responsible for their accidents. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2005-12-13 02:41
 * In that case, if the other encyclopedia had the same format and standards as wikipedia, I'd be saying the same thing to it. I think this is a bad example, and if it's going to be there it ought to have an equal number/amount/length of examples of holding groups morally responsible from both sides of politics.


 * Seems to me the religious right is a flowing fountain of exaples of blaming "moral responsiblity" for things on people --Nerd42 03:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some examples that have impacted many people? &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2005-12-13 03:03

Note that this sentence is based on Internet Encyclopedia of Philisophy reference. Which means that we are now correcting their errors :) That's what I love about Wiki :)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I could come up with some examples I guess, but I really think the entire sentence ought to go, or at least be shortened to "Western societies in particular are noted for attributing moral responsibility." and that be the end of it. I'll have to think about this ... how to balance the examples used if there have to be any ... --Nerd42 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Buddha, Gandhi and Jesus as Experts?
Someone has added sections which refer to Buddha, Gandhi and Jesus as "experts" and sources for the article. Since of those, only Gandhi actually had verifiable writings and can be referenced for accuracy, such religious figures should not be included here. Much of the material smacks of Original Research and needs to be pruned back to the basics. Perhaps a division between religious moral responsibility and philosophical moral responsibility needs to be made (albeit, there is cross-fertilization between the two.) —LeFlyman 17:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that the word "expert" should be replaced by something like "religious figure", as you say, and that it'd be good to separate and mention just religion (without philosophy) in such a paragraph, instead of the mixed way that it was added. But other people could have different opinions, e.g. Jesus is GWB's favorite philosopher... Tcsh 20:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that the claim in this article that Jesus ever espoused the idea that "free will is the subjective experience of an objective, pre-determined world, in which there is no blame to be had since everything has already been thought of by the Creator," has been supported. The author of this statement needs to give supporting references or remove this text. --Markzero 07:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: the block of text I'm questioning appears to have been inserted by Jonny Citizen. --Markzero 07:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks like Leflyman has removed the contentious text. (Thanks!) Leaving my comments in case the text resurfaces. --Markzero 00:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds pretty bad to me too. This whole article probably needs some trimming ... it was just started because somebody wrote a column saying "Wikipedia has no entry for moral responsibility" and in the rush to get an article, we've written a crappy article. --Nerd42 21:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion of Chomsky Wikiquotes

 * For reference, the link is: Noam Chomsky

A new user, Tcsh, who has up to now exclusively edited only Noam Chomsky-related articles, has persisted in re-inserting a link to quotes by Chomsky. These quotes— which are listed under a heading of "On moral responsibility"— do not deal with the philosophical precepts of this article, nor even mention the term "moral responsibility" at all. I have pointed out that one can just as easily find quotes by any number of persons on the topic of morality and responsibility-- there are, in fact, almost 500 Wikiquotes with "moral" and over 700 for "responsibility". I have also advised the user that if he wished to include some claim as to Chomsky's view on moral responsibility, to do so within the body of the article. So far, the link has been his only contribution to this article, and I would claim is one that is absolutely unneeded here. While Chomsky may have much to say on many things, I don't believe we need to include his quotes everywhere on everything. Otherwise, why not likewise list everyone who's ever said something about "moral responsibility?" As he has not listened to my reasons for removing his link, I leave it to the other editors here to deal with. —LeFlyman 01:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have listened and responded to all of your reasons on my talk page, but for some reason you're unable to see what I write (most obvious example is that you somehow managed to read "desist in reverting link to Wiki-quote"). The 500 and 700 numbers that you repeat here are meaningless, as there isn't any other Wikiquote article with moral responsibility section or quotes. Datapharmer, which browser are you using? The sublink works fine with everything I've tried. Tcsh 17:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A simple search of Wikiquotes reveals (for example):
 * One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.—Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail.
 * The precept: Judge not, that ye be not judged ... is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself.—Ayn Rand
 * I don't believe in censorship, but I do believe that an artist has to take some moral responsibility for what he or she is putting out there. And I think a lot of these young kids are going to have to learn the hard way before they realize that you can actually do some damage if you're being careless or frivolous in what you're saying.— Tom Petty
 * There is nothing like a naturalistic orientation to dispel all these morbid thoughts of "sin" and "free will" and "moral responsibility."—Raymond Smullyan
 * And these are just some of the ones available in Wikiquotes that specifically mention "moral responsibility"— which as I've repeatedly noted, none of the Chomsky quotes do. There are countless other quotable sources, as anyone worth his/her salt has had something to say on the subject of morality and responsibility. (To wit, Thomas Jefferson.) Again, not all of them are appropriate to link in this article. —LeFlyman 18:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I did the same search, that's why I wrote "quotes" in plural with regard to "any other Wikiquote article". The Chomsky section is obviously about moral responsibility, and is exactly on topic here (your personal opinion notwithstanding, but I don't delete links that you added either). Tcsh 19:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not just his personal opinion. I read the Chomsky quotes, and they don't specifically mention moral responsibility, nor are they even about moral responsibility. And the fact that several other editors have said they don't believe the link belongs should carry some weight. | Klaw ¡digame! 19:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you think that they aren't about moral responsibility, what do you think that they are about? Tcsh 21:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not an editor, but many of those quotes are about moral responsibility in some form or another. Whether or not the link belongs in the article is another question.  But denying it on the grounds that there are many more relevant links that could be included and aren't be isn't wholly accurate as the link is just as relevant as the MLK quote you gave.  Omnifarious 14:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I missed Tcsh's question to me until he pointed it out below. Those Chomsky quotes are not about moral responsibility - they're about his own political views. They're appropriate for an article on Chomsky, but not for this article. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The External links section is not an appropriate place to put the chomsky link. I have no problem with including links to relevant quotes, but the Chomsky quote by itself is not significant enough to include in the external link section. If editors are set on including quotes about moral responibility then I suggest a section on quotes which can contain relevant links including Chomsky, King, etc. Personally I don't see the need for such quotes in this article, but I'm not set against it either. As for the sublink not working before, I am Using firefox 1.5 on Macintosh. The link took my to the page but not the subsection as it should have. Datapharmer 15:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What makes the other external links more significant than this link, in your opinion? Tcsh 16:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The other External links refer to complete writings, entries or articles. As complete works and references I feel they are more pertinent than any single quote out of context. Datapharmer 04:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * None of those quotes is out of context in a deceitful way, and all of them have online sources, in case you seek further context. Anyway, the question isn't just whether you like this link, but why your opinion should override the opinion of someone who thinks differently, and thus you delete the link. This seems rude to me. Tcsh 09:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it would be more appropriate to link to the online sources directly rather than the quotes. That aside, the reason I chose to delete the link was based mostly on the fact it didn't seem to work properly (at least under firefox 1.5 - I could be wrong, but when I clicked on it it didn't go to anything about moral responsibility), and the issues raised by other users about the inclusion of this quote.  I apologize if I came off as rude by removing it, but it seemed that it was included under a great deal of controversy, and at the time the discussion and history of the article led me to conclude it should be deleted.  If I was mistaken, I again apologize.  I am not going to pursue it as something that absolutely cannot be in the article; if others think it is appropriate and adds depth to the article that is fine.  As for the quotes being deceitful, I never claimed this.  What I am claiming is that their use of "moral responsibility" is basically out of context.  Yes, it contains those words.  Do I personally think a qupte should be an external link because it has those words in it? no, i do not.  Again, I would find a section dedicated to quotes about moral responsibility much more appropriate, but i am but one small editor of a very large encyclopedia.... other editors may do as they may. Datapharmer 03:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I tried the link in firefox under ubuntu, ie5 under win2000, ie7 beta, and it worked fine for me. If someone else with firefox also fails to get to the section when clicking on the link, let us know here? I disagree with you that it'd be more appropriate to link to the online sources directly rather than the quotes. I went through all the sources, and in some there isn't anything else related at all, like the c-span source, which is 3 hours, and the transcribed quote fully contains the question+answer, and there's nothing else in the entire broadcast. Other quotes also capture the relevant part in a complete way, I think, but if someone wants more context, he can click on the source. That's what I meant with regard to not being out of context in a deceitful way. However, I do agree with you that a section with a collection of quotes from different people can be much better, perhaps in wikiquote itself, and just the template link here. But while there isn't such a section, I think that it's good to have this link in the external links. I'll try to restore it, and see whether Keithlaw or others wish to respond further. Tcsh 08:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You still have no legitimate reason to include a link to Noam Chomsky quotes here, apart from your apparent fandom of his work. It remains inappropriate for you to continue reinserting the link here; no other editor has come out in support of their inclusion. If you find this "rude" then I suspect you'll find much of Wikipedia to be so. Not so long ago, co-founder of Wikipedia Jimbo Wales wrote in the Noam Chomsky article discussion, "I personally regard Chomsky as a kook and a half on toast." Now that might be construed as rude. —LeFlyman 09:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Why is it inappropriate to insert this link? Because Jimbo Wales thinks that Noam Chomsky is insane? Or you mentioned that just to demonstrate that you are not as rude as Jimbo Wales is? And why did you change your mind about leaving it "to the other editors here to deal with", as you said above? Tcsh 09:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please spend some time re-reading the extensive discussions above, rather than repeating the same circular questions ad infinitum. It is inappropriate because you have not provided a single valid reason for the inclusion of a link to Chomsky, other than because you think it belongs here. And it's inappropriate because you're clearly choosing to ignore the statements of other editors who have likewise said the link does not belong here. There is no basis for arbitrarily choosing to point to a certain individual's quotes, other than to push your particular point of view-- which is specifically contrary to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV Policy. If you feel so strongly that inclusion of Noam Chomsky is relevant here, write a clear paragraph or two in the body of the article about Chomsky's views on moral responsibility, but be prepared to have it edited, as well. That's how WP works.—LeFlyman 10:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Why shouldn't the content of the other links be in the body of the article, instead of being pushed in the external links section? Are you objective? And why did you change your mind about leaving it "to the other editors here to deal with", as you said above? Tcsh 11:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC) I should also say that one reason why I re-added the link in the article was to see whether the other editors have more to say about it, because I assumed that your words above ("I leave it to the other editors here to deal with") were meaningful. But within less than 5 minutes after I added it, you returned to your crusade to censor the link, and delete it. Tcsh 13:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you might also put aside a bit more time reviewing Chomsky's texts on linguistics and semantics rather than focusing on his particular political views. To reiterated for the Nth time: the current External Links list sites which specifically address "moral responsibility" as a concept in philosophy and religion. They are extensive reference points from neutral sources such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The list of random quotes by Noam Chomsky— which have been arbitrarily placed under a heading of "On moral responsibility"— are not about "moral responsibility"; they are about Chomsky's beliefs (and one can only assume, yours, too.) The only crusader here is yourself, for inclusion of a non-neutral link . Your continued circuitous repetitions and resistance to the norms of Wikipedia is tantamount to trolling and "abuse of Talk pages". If you have something constructive to add to the article itself, please do. If you still don't believe that trying to sneak in a link to Noam Chomsky is inappropriate, please feel free to ask for another opinion. But do stop the nagging.—LeFlyman 02:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" would be helpful here. Tcsh, your opinion on the Chomsky quotes is duly noted, but I think there's a strong consensus against including them. I ask that you respect that consensus and stop adding the link to the page. | Klaw ¡digame! 02:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Both Keithlaw and Leflyman won't answer specific questions that I asked them. I'll wait and see whether other editors in the future agree with the "strong consensus" of these two. I'll stop 'abusing' (=responding?) the talk page for now, to keep them happy. Tcsh 11:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You asked me one question, which I missed earlier, and have now answered above. And it's not just the two of us - Brian0918 and Datapharmer have both weighed in on the talk page against the link. Again, I ask that you respect the consensus and stop inserting the link to the quotes. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, I am just a random wikipedian, but... I am satisfied that there is a consistent rational argument put forward that has nothing to do with anybody's personal opinion of Noam Chomsky.  The articles referenced are all about the abstract philosophical concept, whereas the Noam Chomsky quotes are about the concrete application of that concept to real world situations.  This wikipedia article is about the philosophical concept, and not about any particular concrete applications of the concept.  The Noam Chomsky quotes are out of place.  Omnifarious 04:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Orlowski
I thought I might add my two cents to this The Register article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/12/wikipedia_no_responsibility/) so here is what I am writing to him. On that note, if anyone would like to edit this letter to make it more comprehensible, please do. This isn't meant to be an article, just discussion.

Dear Mr. Orlowski,

I am writing in reference to the article you penned on The Register entitled: “There’s no Wikipedia entry for ‘moral responsibility’.” Though, admittedly, much of the article amounts to banal slander acutely reminiscent of that for which you decry, you do make some arguments which I feel the need to refute.

I hope I get this right:
 * The users of Wikipedia are not responsible for the content they write. Wikipedia has a responsibility to present fair and accurate information.
 * Wikipedia is not a real encyclopedia because a good deal of the information is inaccurate. Instead, Wikipedia is a piece of ‘spontaneous graffiti.’  Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, it presents a slippery slope to unchecked libel and copyright infringement.  If ‘publication’ by an ‘encyclopedia’ means anything, it means that you have to get those facts right.
 * ‘Publication’ entails responsibility.
 * Wikipedia cannot be trusted to present accurate information. It lacks ‘social responsibility.’

I will try to address these in the order I presented them; however, in true Wikipedian fashion I may skip around a bit.

You claim that Wikipedia as an organization is in some way responsible for the information contained therein. How? Is eBay responsible for the legitimacy of the items they allow users to purchase? Is Google, then, responsible for the content of everything they index? The Wikimedia Foundation has created a framework for organizing information in the same manner, why are they held to a different standard than Google? Is it not acceptable to leave some things uncensored? As a responsible individual, I feel perfectly capable of making that decision because, as in all interpersonal transactions, caveat emptor (which Wikipedia tells me is Latin for ‘let the buyer beware’) applies. Wikipedia is a private organization, they have no public responsibility and they claim no public authority. The users who support the Wikipedia edit freely and censor freely. If an article lacks neutrality, Wikipedia has provided editing mechanisms by which individuals may correct the text to better harmonize or categorize differing perspectives. In the end what wins out is consensus between private individuals from inherently subjective viewpoints on what is and is not objective fact.

Wikipedia is a source of libel and copyright infringement. More so than in the real world? Wikipedia has stated their policy on copyright infringement (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright), they have explained to users how to spot it, and they also actively fight it to the limited degree with which they, as individuals, are able. Libel is another story. Wikipedia is a constantly evolving medium, it is not ever strictly ‘published’ hence there is no last word or definitive statement made in any of the articles. This is understood by Wikipedia users and is considered a necessary evil in order to attain the dynamism of content that Wikipedia is capable of.

What is this dynamism that I speak of you might wonder. Since the articles contained herein are freely editable, what we experience is a mini-internet. The true internet is just as dynamic: one can find breaking details on just about anything desired from the latest hurricane information to circa 1940 John Deere tractors to--you guessed it--libel and copyright infringed materials. Shall we call for the elimination or stricture of the internet? “Welcome to The Internet, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law…” What makes Wikipedia special is that it takes this experience and contains it within one search box and a standardized format all without limiting freedom of expression as most other websites do to some degree (be that due to policy or selectivity). It appears that Wikipedia’s advantages present an ideal target for those against freedom of expression since the internet as a whole is a much more elusive target.

Back to the subject. Wikipedia is not an ‘encyclopedia,’ it is and has always been a ‘free-content encyclopedia, written collaboratively by people from all around the world.’ There is no subterfuge involved; the users understand this caveat and appreciate it. You do not make a distinction and instead treat your topic as if Wikipedia were a true print and bound book. Just as an online message board or USENET group contains questionable content, so too does Wikipedia, the most useful online message board I have ever come across. Sometimes this questionable content is exactly what the user seeks! That which the user cannot easily find elsewhere is often contained within these electronic walls.

Now apparently you believe that publication entails responsibility. This invites the question: responsibility to whom? In the free market, book publication occurs when someone has enough money or knows people with enough money to print and distribute the work. I could easily write an ‘encyclopedia’ filled with poorly written argumentation, biased against certain political figures, market it as absolutely, positively true, and sell it at Barnes and Noble—failing that I could buy my own book store and sell it there. Would one not have a right to claim caveat emptor in this situation? And let's back up a moment, why would Barnes and Noble refuse to sell my book? Perhaps due to public outcry, more likely the direct result of loss of overall profit. Wikipedia is controlled in this same manner, people can choose to patronize them with donations or they can refrain and eventually the foundation will lose monetary motive force. You claim Wikipedia lacks regulation, I argue that Wikipedia is regulated by its patrons.

You assert that Wikipedia has some sort of responsibility to society. In essence, you conceptually place a private organization--that has made no claim of authority--in the public realm. However, public organizations that actually do make authoritative claims already appear to lack the sort of social responsibility that you insist upon. Take Grand Juries for instance. A prosecutor can indict an individual with very little conclusive evidence and later find that person not guilty. Raymond Donovan, secretary of labor under Reagan, was indicted by a federal grand jury for larceny and fraud and later acquitted. But the public does not see this; instead they read the big bold headlines, “Raymond Donovan under Grand Jury Investigation for Larceny and Fraud.” Is this not libel? Donovan was later quoted as saying “Which office do I go to get my reputation back?” and “Who will reimburse my company for the economic jail it has been in for two and a half years” (Quoted in George Lardner Jr., “Bronx Jury Acquits Donovan,” Washington Post, May 26, 1987.)  Before you infer that Wikipedia is in some way similar to or should be a public utility, let us fix the public utilities we already have.

You state that Wikipedia cannot be trusted. You may very well hold that opinion, many others do. I agree with you, I trust Wikipedia just as much as I trust the results I find in Google. Google is full of hit or miss statements and Wikipedia is no different. In the academic pursuit of knowledge, one examines all avenues and makes up his or her own mind; one cannot ever accept any single source as unmitigated truth. Knowledge often arises from open forum and in that manner Wikipedia succeeds.

I am a bit dismayed that your article is so destructive of the topic; you fail to present constructive criticism and instead lash out with highfalutin prose that seems more intended to shock your readership than present suggestions to make Wikipedia a better, safer place for factual information. Next time, start an article here, perhaps we can help you with it before it makes the press. ~ Nhandler 23:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"Nothing is objectively true!" There is always a salient truth, we may simply lack the means to identify it. That quote of your is absolute incorrect. People may have the wrong impression but that does not nullify the truth. Mathematical logic is objectively true, period. It has no basis in culture, bias, or taste.


 * Thank you, unsigned person, I have corrected my statement to better match your observations. Nhandler


 * I'm not the original commentor, but I'm still not pleased with that particular section. Everybody does have a right to judge it objectively true or false.  That is exactly the sort of careful analysis and critical thinking you tell him that people should excercise when viewing the entries.  I think something along the lines of "Since we all only have subjective viewpoints, the best we can hope for in describing some idealized objective viewpoints is a thoughtful merging of our individual subjective viewpoints.  We call this consensus.".  I'm not recommending you use that text though.  It's a bit wordy and difficult to work in with the rest of the paragraph.  Just trying to help you clearly think through what you mean to say.  Other than that, I think this is fairly well done. (Omnifarious)
 * Thanks for the comment, I've tried a different take on it. Nhandler 20:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it looks good now. :-)  Omnifarious

The Wikipedia is not just a web forum or online listing service comparable to eBay or USENET. In both of those, users can post, but not edit the posts of others as they can on the Wikipedia. The Wikipedia does seek to be a comprehensive encyclopedia. ("Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.")

Also, article talk pages are for discussing articles, not responding to critics of the Wikipedia. You can use your user space or a 'blog for that, so I won't discuss this further here. Jobarts-Talk 07:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge
I vote to merge


 * As do I. This page seems to exist purely to spite the writer of the Register.com article, (honourable though that cause may be) in the true spirit of Wikipedia, surely this is fairly superfluous and should as such be merged with responsibility.  Cai 00:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This article was certainly written as a pointed response to the Register article. However, this does not mean that the topic is not worthy of having an entry. We must separate the reason for it's creation from what was created as we think about keep/delete/merge. For an (slightly infamatory and not entirely accurate) example, if the Register article pointed out that we did not have a Wikipedia entry for the Enola Gay, would we then argue that such an entry should not be present because it would be added as a response to the Register article? Clearly not: let's evauluate the wiki entry and the topic that it discusses solely on it's own merit. Dxco 00:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

As the merge would be from here to Responsibility, it would be more appropriate to discuss this on the other page. Jobarts-Talk 07:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Seen this yet?
I am not sure if this artical was written before or after the artical in the newspaper but the title is still funny.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/12/wikipedia_no_responsibility/

Reallybadtrip 01:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"harm"?
This article says:


 * It generally concerns the harm caused to an individual, a group or the entire society by the actions or inactions of another individual, group or entire society.

I find it surprising that anyone thinks responsibility is primarily about harm. What if I award someone a barnstar because of that person's responsibility for the content of an article? What if I put away money for my retirement because that's the responsible thing to do---responsibility being my recognition that if I want something I shouldn't just wait for it to be given to me, but rather I should do something? Michael Hardy 05:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Self-reference
Now that we have an entry on "Moral Responsibility", it should probably offer a link to the appropriate Wikipedia:... pages covering the responsibility of editors for keeping their facts straight and readers for editing mistakes they find, or at least checking facts if they intend to do anything important with them. The appropriate information would provide a clear object lesson in "moral responsibility" for the reader -- ke4roh 15:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No. --  BRIAN  0918 17:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * But isn't there a Template:Selfref intended specifically to mark self-reference so that it can be automatically deleted by downstream republishers simply by blanking the template? One potential use of such a template is to disambiguate topics in article namespace to topics in Wikipedia: namespace. For example, we could add --Damian Yerrick 01:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * H*ll, look at the top of the Self-reference article itself. --Damian Yerrick 01:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why Brian0918 keeps deleting the Register article - seems like a legitimate addition to me. Removing it gives the appearance that one is trying to pretend ignorance of the article which obviously prompted the updating of this page (which was first created back in August, I notice). The notation of self-reference is spurious, since the entry for "moral responsibility" is not about the Register.com article per se. Seems to just be encouraging an edit war, &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.200.185.25 (talk &bull; contribs) 20:13, 12 December 2005.
 * Our article doesn't discuss the Register's article at all. Why should we have an external link to it? --  BRIAN  0918 20:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The Register's article discusses the moral responsibilities of Wikipedia users (i.e. technologically anonymised individuals) in providing accurate information; it's a contemporary topic and may be specifically addressed in the entry. Removal of the link, which does directly relate to the Encyclopedia, appears to be obfuscation of a clear connection between the entry and the recent John Seigenthaler Sr. debacle. Incidentally, the Seigenthaler entry does point out the Wikipedia controversy, and even has a spin-off entry John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, which includes multiple links to articles referring to Wikipedia; would that be "self-reference"? —LeFlyman 20:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Seigenthaler article references the controversy. This article does not. This article doesn't discuss Wikipedia at all. The link you want in so badly should be in the Seigenthaler article, not in this article. How much more obvious does it have to be?? --  BRIAN  0918 20:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I say keep it out. The moral responsibilities of Wikipedia users is way too narrow a focus to merit inclusion.  Same with the connection to Seigenthaler.  There's just not nearly enough relevance outside of self-reference. --64.186.172.227 03:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It should remain for the reasons given above. You are making an executive decision about the reference, which seems to contravene the thoughts of many authors. Additionally, the reasoning you give above conflicts with your expressed prognosis so far of "self reference." I also agree with LeFlyman - deliberate obfuscation. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.200.185.25 (talk &bull; contribs) 20:33, 12 December 2005.
 * Clearly, Brian0918 is not interested in accurate representation in this entry. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.200.185.25 (talk &bull; contribs) 20:42, 12 December 2005.
 * I'm with Brian0918. This article is about "moral responsibility." The Register attack piece does not provide the reader with any information about this subject; their article is about Wikipedia itself. | Klaw ¡digame! 20:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Neither your nor Brian's objections address the reasons for including it provided above. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.200.185.25 (talk &bull; contribs) 20:50, 12 December 2005.
 * Throwing in my two cents in favor of the Register link. --April Arcus 00:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not think the Register link should be there. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site.  The link to the register article doesn't offer any compelling clarification of the topic of moral responsibility.  The links in Seignethaler's entry make more sense since that's a part of his record as a public personality now, and that entry is about him.  Omnifarious 18:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm reversing my position on including the link; as the entry's status in reference to The Register has now been well-discussed here on the Talk page, and is understood by communities (such as Slashdot) outside of Wikipedia to be an indirect response to The Register's specious article, the link is no longer necessary. The Register's Andrew Orlowski doesn't deserve the attention for his poorly edited anti-Wikipedia opinion pieces. —LeFlyman 18:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As an intelligent individual with a desire to enlighten the masses, I feel that it is my one and only responsibility to convey this truth. Free will and moral responsibility are mere concepts developed by those who have power as a way of controlling others into actions that directly or indirectly benefit them. To assume that morality exists, one must prove the existence of free will or freedom. To assume that any one of us is free, is to assume that we chose to exist prior to our actual existence, created the universe in which we all exist on this physical plane, and created the sense of individuality that exists in all beings that possess self-awareness. If such is true, then "self" is nonexistent based upon the fact that we all simultaneously coexist as each other as well as that which is nonexistent. So, either we are not responsible because we have no recollection of supreme diety abilities, or we are not responsible due to the fact that we are all the same being, in which case, right or wrong are nonexistent.--Prodvocalist 06:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Of course we don't have absolute control over our lives but we do have control over how we react when we encounter a moral dilemma. Of course, past experiences can change the likelihood of an individual acting in a moral or immoral way but this is only true to an extent. If one thinks about doing an action that would be harmful, and realises that he/she has the ability to prevent his/herself from doing that action yet doesn't exercise that ability, he/she has responsibility from that harm caused.

Edit to Introduction
The introduction includes reference to the argument that one can never be 100% responsible for an act. While this is true it neglects to mention that certain persons are far more responsible than others due to risky actions taken by them. I suggest that an edit be made to either the introduction or to another part of the article touching on this point.--86.42.2.200 (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That sentence was sort of floating out of context there anyway, and the subject was covered later on to boot, so I just removed it along with a general copyedits and cleanup / minor reorg.
 * BTW, new topics go at the bottom of the talk page, not the top. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Highly misleading mistake
Libertarianism does not say that pshysical deteminism is false nor that "free will" in the sense meant here is possible. Libertarisniam means that free will in sense of free of coercion can and should exist. That's all! Please correct that picture ans correct the article. 79.112.21.245 (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

the status of morally deserving praise
I have no idea what the new lead means- Moral responsibility is the status of morally deserving praise...in accordance with one's moral obligations. Somehow "morally deserving praise" has a status and the name of this status is "moral responsibility" and it accords with your obligations? Bhny (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I take it it's the postpositional clause "in accordance with one's moral obligations" that you find confusing -- I'm not super happy about the way that's worded myself. The intended meaning is: A person is morally responsible if and only if he morally deserves [praise/blame/reward/punishment] for an action or omission. Whether a person is [praiseworthy/blameworthy/etc] for an act or omission is a matter determined by whether the acts or omissions actually perpetrated are those which are morally obligatory. E.g. a person is morally responsible for an act if he deserves praise for performing it and blame for omitting it, which would be the case if performing it (and consequently, not omitting it) was morally obligatory.
 * If you have a better idea for a succinct way to phrase that I'm all ears. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I gather you find "status" confusing somehow too. A status is any case of "being..." something. I have the status of being alive, since I am alive; of being human, since I am human; of being male, since I am male; of being awake, since I am awake; of being a US citizen, since I am a US citizen; etc. But what constitutes the status of being a US citizen? One might answer that question by saying "US citizenship is the status of...". Likewise, if I am morally responsible for something, then I have the status of being morally responsible. What constitutes that status? Morally deserving blame or praise etc...
 * The point of that change of terminology is that "moral responsibility is the idea..." is sloppy language. There is an idea of moral responsibility, and it is the idea of being praiseworthy/blameworthy/etc. Moral responsibility itself, not the idea thereof, is being praiseworthy/blameworthy/etc. What is praiseworthiness? The status of deserving praise. So moral responsibility is the status of deserving praise, blame, etc...
 * IOW "morally deserving praise" etc doesn't have a status, it is a status, and it is the same status as being morally responsible. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A lead has to be simple. You've just spent over 300 words trying to explain your lead and I still don't understand it. "Status" is just sitting there without a subject- (the status of a person?) and who is doing the praise, blame etc. I'm reminded of this nyt article about zombie nouns. Also there's no reference. Is this all wp:or?


 * I think it is you who are simply having trouble understanding a simple common phrasing. Do you have a problem with the analogous example sentence I gave, "US citizenship is the status of..."? For example, "US citizenship is the status of having the rights and responsibilities due to natural-born residents of the United States, in accordance with the US Constitution"? (Whether or not that is a true definition, I'm just asking if it formally make sense to you, grammatically). US citizenship is a status (that of being a US citizen); to have that status is to have the rights and responsibilities due to a natural-born citizen; which rights and responsibilities those are are laid out in the US constitution. Does that parse for you? --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether you can explain it to me or not is beside the point. It needs to be understandable by the average reader (also you have failed to explain it to me and I've even read one of the books referenced). Your intro is both ambiguous and circumlocutious . "Status" is confusing jargon, there is no subject that has the status, nobody is conferring the blame and then there is a weird ending where "it's in accordance with one's moral obligations". Did you read my nyt link? Is this original research? Bhny (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There were no references in the original lede which I simply rephrased, so leveling OR allegations at me specifically is rather lawyerish of you. I changed "idea" to "status" to avoid something like a use-mention error (the idea of something is not the same as that something), and moved the material on blame, praise, and punishment up to the first sentence (and added "reward" as the obvious counterpart to "punishment") as it is more substantial than just the bit about moral obligations that was there before. (I didn't add that "weird ending", I left it there from what preceded my edits; I don't much care if it's deleted for that matter). I'll dig up some references if you honestly think I'm making something up, but this is basic dictionary definition kind of stuff.
 * Furthermore, your objections are grammatical, and you cite (in a note that doesn't show up anywhere on the talk page BTW, I had to view the source to see it) an opinion piece in a recent newspaper about not using certain perfectly grammatical constructs (nominalizations) because they are "too abstract", but this is an article about an abstract topic so they are absolutely warranted here. Saying who has the status, or confers the blame etc, would be so specific as to make the sentence no longer a general definition. I challenge you to rephrase the sentence "Someone (anyone) is morally responsible when they deserve praise/blame/reward/punishment from someone (anyone)" in a way that begins with "Moral responsibility is..." without using nominalizations. ("Moral responsibility is the status of someone of deserving praise/blame/reward/punishment from someone"? Would adding "someone"s in there make you happy? I think it makes it needlessly long when they are implied by not specifying a subject). The title of this article is a nominalization itself. Wikipedia articles in general are often nominalizations: we wouldn't have an article called "Morally responsible", or to use an example from your link, we wouldn't have "tend", we would have "tendency". Your cited opinion piece is ridiculously irrelevant here.
 * Lastly, here's a quick dictionary link for you, | Collins World English Dictionary (via Dictionary.com) on "responsibility" (there isn't an entry for "moral responsibility" specifically): "1. the state or fact of being responsible." Are you going to argue that state means something significantly different from status (I wouldn't object to changing the word in this article to 'state' if that's all it takes), or that the dictionary is doing something wrong there in using a "zombie noun"? --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This argument over the introduction is well-founded: the introductory sentence is meaningless. The Stanford Encylopedia suggests "Thus, to be morally responsible for something, say an action, is to be worthy of a particular kind of reaction—praise, blame, or something akin to these—for having performed it." The Internet Encyclopedia relates it to "arrangements appropriate for addressing widespread harm and wrongdoing". In line with this WP article, neither of these articles actually provides sources for these claims, and both involve extended attempts to further explain what is meant, apparently finding the topic a bit hard to pin down. They also appear to confuse responsibility with its enforcement mechanisms, suggesting one identifies the presence of responsibility by observing that an activity is socially coerced. The ten commandments, on the other hand, attempted to change social behavior based upon higher principles, suggesting a different idea of what was moral responsibility than simply whether or not one was stoned by crowds of the indignant. In any event, the introduction needs sources and needs to avoid the circularity involved in using undefined terms like "moral obligations" and "morally deserving [of various responses]" in trying to convey a meaning for "moral responsibility". Brews ohare (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for lede
Here is a proposal for the lede:
 * Moral responsibility concerns what one ought to do, not in the sense of convention (as in: one ought to use this fork for salad), nor advisability (as in: one ought to look before one leaps), nor expectation (as in: the brakes ought to stop the car), but in terms of human character, of obligation, of duty, and more generally, of ethics, as in: one ought to keep promises and ought to avoid mendacity.1
 * 1

Brews ohare (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Current wording is not brilliant, but it is understandable. Also lede is meant to summarise the article as a whole.  We should not be taking a definition from a single source - and much as I love Cave, he is not the most authoritative of sources.  Open to change, but not that change  Snowded  TALK 10:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Current wording is that "moral responsibility" is a "status of morally deserving praise, blame, reward, or punishment for an act...". The suggestion is that 'moral responsibility' is signaled by observing the means used to enforce it. That confuses the goal with the means proposed to enforce it. 'Moral responsibility' is a goal demanded from adherents of some or another particular code of ethics. Acts of praise, blame and so forth are the mechanisms used by the group to enforce 'moral responsibility', and have nothing to do with the precept itself, but are an outgrowth of assumptions as to what kind of social enforcement is effective.
 * Current wording also uses 'moral obligation' and 'morally deserving' to identify the trigger springing these responses of 'praise, blame, reward, or punishment', which obviously is circular, using 'moral obligation' to explain 'moral responsibility'.
 * One doesn't define a traffic violation as the 'status of being pulled over by a traffic cop'. The cop knows what is a violation, so why wouldn't we use his definition?
 * The proposal made above involving 'ought' is not 'a definition from a single source'. It is a definition supported by a source, which is one step ahead of the current formulation which is the unsourced opinion of a WP editor. Brews ohare (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made another proposal of a more abstract nature in a subsection below.