User talk:Herostratus/Wikipedia Not Evil

Some prelimary addressing of core questions
The theory behind this being, a collection of value-neutral entities can together be value-positive, but (1) it's impossible for a collection of value-negative entities to be value-positive and furthermore (2) individual value-negative entities cannot increase the positive value of the the whole. Usual rules apply, changes following discussion, also I'd suggest not crufting it up with a bunch of weasel words (e.g. "evil is an entirely subjective term that depends on one's culture, gender, race, health, size, class, yadda yadda"), proposal not designed to get into that level of detail. Herostratus 18:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, especially considering that Wikipedia is an information source. My point is, to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, if you know everything that is wrong about something (ie. an exhaustive, value-negative, list) then you have to be left with what is right: a value-positive outcome.
 * For example, say you had an article which detailed a method to organise a complex terrorist/criminal action (such as a hijacking or building a computer virus), or explained the workings and structure of a terrorist network. These articles could have educational value - sometimes reverse-engineering a problem is the best method of protecting against it - but could very easily be considered evil by reactionaries. Could a detailed description of the hijackings of September 11 be seen as a how-to guide (I think so)? - Drrngrvy 19:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this policy. Muhahahahahahah! DJ Clayworth 18:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? Herostratus 18:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I think it's silly. Is there anyone who actually tries to be evil? DJ Clayworth 19:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia? Good Lord, yes. Do you want examples? Herostratus 19:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase that:intent is not at issue. Herostratus 14:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Do we need this? Surely WP:AGF people will not be evil? - Runcorn 18:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do. AGF does not mean good faith is always present. It means assume good faith at the beginning, as long as reasonably possible, and in instances where evidence of bad faith is lacking or unclear. We do not continue to AGF for WoW, for instance. Herostratus 20:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is too subjective.--Urthogie 19:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How is that? No definitions are given. What is subjective here? Herostratus 20:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If there are no definitions, then this is not actionable, and fails policy guidelines. Regardless, this is a bad idea: it is policy creep, it is seriously subjective, as what evil would be is never defined, and it is divisive- implicitly, if someone tries to go against whatever might be defined as NOT Evil, are they not evil? --maru  (talk)  contribs 03:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to expand on this a little bit. All human words are subject to interpretation, and the definition is inherently subject. "Copyvio" -- I have argued much over what that word means, exactly. "Neutral" -- how many arguments have there been over this word? "This statement is neutral because X." "No it's not, because Y." etc. Still, consensus is usually achieved, because most people know basically what "neutral" is even if they can't exactly define it. And at least the argument "OK it's not neutral (or is copyvio, or whatever), but that doesn't matter." cannot be successfully made, because there's a policy to point to.

Here's a good instance of evil: knowingly inflicting emotional distress on a private person for no commensurate gain. Right? Most people would agree that that's evil, don't you think? This is basically the reason why the Brian Peppers article was deleted by an WP:OFFICE action - because it was evil. In the arguments about the article, many persons said basically "This article should not exist, but I can't point to any actual policy or guideline that would justify deleting it." Because there is no WP:NOT EVIL.

WP:NOT EVIL would help to reduce WP:OFFICE interventions. And nobody likes WP:OFFICE interventions. They are demoralizing all round, although necessary at times I suppose.

Further, I have seen editors make an argument basically "Such-and-such is horrible, and it sickens me to vote to keep it, but I must vote Keep as there is no policy against it." Why should we be put in this position? No one should, as part of their volunteer work, have to do things which are evil.

Of course, adoption of this policy will result in exchanges like this: "Delete, because WP:NOT EVIL." "No, it does not fall under WP:NOT EVIL, because X." "Yes it does, because Y." etc. Of course. Just as we do over WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL and, really, every policy. That's OK, that's healthy. If you can get a consensus that WP:NOT EVIL applies to a given case (which would be rare, I would think), then there you go. If not, not. Believe me, we have enough moral relativists here that WP:NOT EVIL will apply only in the most egregious cases -- cases that typically go to WP:OFFICE anyway, or some other out-of-process action. Herostratus 21:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * From that description, I have to say this policy is evil. 70.219.77.54 23:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I could support this guideline if we could define "evil" in an NPOV manner. -Will Beback 04:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * evil \'e--v*l\, (from Old English yfel, from Indo-European "exceeding due limits") adj.: bad; having qualities which tend to injury, or to produce mischief; producing sorrow, distress, injury or calamity; morally bad or wrong; wicked; deliberately causing great harm, pain, or upset; infamous; malicious; characterized by a desire to cause hurt or harm; arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct; that which produces pain, distress, loss, or calamity, or which impairs the happiness of natural beings; depravity, corruption of heart, or disposition to commit wickedness. n.: malignity; the quality of being profoundly immoral or wrong; mischief; a situation or thing that is very unpleasant, harmful, or morally wrong; something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction. adv. (arch.): injuriously; unkindly; unjustly. Herostratus 14:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Even with that definition, there is still the problem that I might think that some edit or even editor is evil but others disagree. It will often come down to POV. - Runcorn 05:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, of course. And there is the problem that some edit is biased but others disagree. That some edit is original research but others disagree. That some posting is uncivil but others disagree. That's what discussions are for. I guess what I'm thinking is, the definition of the word "evil" is not much more complicated than for the word "bias" or "original" or whatever. The problem is, to what does the word apply? That's maybe a little harder to determine for "evil" than for "bias", "original", etc. -- but not much. Those are hard too, sometimes. If it comes down to it, "Is X evil?" would be determined by consensus. And on;y in the most blatant and egregious cases is the consensus likely to be "yes", I think. Herostratus 08:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

For editing ease, I'll break off a new section below here. IMO this first section has established at the least the arguments that:
 * The term "evil" is not especially more difficult to define than other terms we use ("bias", "original", "civil", etc.)
 * The question of what is evil should not be especially more difficult to determine than what is biased, what is original research, whether a source is valid, etc., and this would be established by discussion and consensus like all other such questions.
 * There's no reason to believe that safeguards agsinst the inappropriately broad use of WP:NOT EVIL are likely to be any less effective than the same safeguards used to prevent inappropriately broad use of WP:NOR or WP:VANDAL or WP:WEB and so forth. Herostratus 13:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Methinks thou dost protest too much. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I dispute the premise. "(1) it's impossible for a collection of value-negative entities to be value-positive." Obvious counter-example: prison. AnonEMouse 19:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion continues
I wholeheartedly support this proposal. Among all the activities included in the definition of "evil" provided by Herostratus, there is not a single one in which Wikipedia or its editors should engage. It's all bad. I think that Wikipedia should not be evil. This is not to condemn our subjects, be they Satanists, murderers, rapists, etc, all of whom we should continue to handle in an NPOV manner. But we, ourselves, should not be evil, nor tend to injury, nor produce mischief, sorrow, distress, injury or calamity; nor deliberately causing great harm, pain, or upset; nor be infamous; malicious; be characterized by a desire to cause hurt or harm; nor produce pain, distress, loss, or calamity. That's not what Wikipedia is about. The purpose of having an encyclopedia is to promote good, not evil. -Will Beback 09:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Including information that has the effect of being hurtful or embarrassing to another person when there is very little information content added is the issue. Fred Bauder 12:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I support this proposal. The proposal supports the ethical standards that most serious professional journalists and media organizations follow. see Journalism ethics and standards FloNight   talk  14:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do we need a new policy to prohibit adding information that has the effect of being hurtful or embarrassing to another person? It's obviously somethin gthat should be prohibited, but I doubt that we need yet another policy. - Runcorn 19:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with FloNight. We need to support ethical standards.  I would support extending this proposal to include some concrete examples and prohibitions.  If we want to be taken seriously as a resource, we need to abide by mainstream ethical practices. For now, acknowledging that we ware WP:NOT EVIL is a good start. Johntex\talk 20:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's have some examples, if only to clarify what this policy would cover that is novel. Does any other major reference source prclaim its ethics in this way?  It might seem good PR to have an ethical policy, but then again people might think we're flaunting our ethics to cover up something! - Runcorn 20:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to do some examples, but actually this discussion was had before at Wikiethics.


 * There is problems with biographies of non-living people. WP:BLP is an excellent policy. Stops the harmful content. After Dana Reeve died, tabloid-ish, unencyclopedic content was added. It is more difficult to stop without WP:BLP. FloNight   talk  21:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Examples

 * The real name of a retired porn star Talk:Brandy_Alexandre_%28porn_star%29.
 * The cartoons of Muhammad
 * Details of the personal life of Gregory_Lauder-Frost and the Arbitration Committee's resolution at Requests_for_arbitration/Robert_I. This is a bit confusing but involves inclusion of information which might be actionable in the UK under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
 * The material discussed at Talk:Min_Zhu.
 * Brian Peppers (Deleted article)
 * Mention in Joe Scarborough of the death of Lori Klausutis. Absolutely no connection has been found between the Congressman and the death of his aide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fred Bauder (talk • contribs).

Herostratus and Noosphere go to the mattresses
Are these supposed to be examples of good or evil? I think they're quite good. :) Whereas the proposed addition to policy is completely unactionable, vaguely worded, and subjective/POV.  It would only lead to more flamewars, and is therefore evil.  -- noosphere 03:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think they're supposed to be examples where WP:NOT EVIL could be argued. Herostratus


 * And argued... and argued... how about a policy that helps to resolve arguments instead of start them? -- noosphere 04:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think in difficult cases detailed argument is appropriate... argument is OK if it helps to clarify issues and convince people, so that consenus can be reached. I don't know any way to resolve arguments except by achieving consensus or by out-of-process actions by fiat, which we are trying to reduce... Herostratus
 * How is this going to reduce out-of-process fiat? In fact, what process is there in this proposed policy?  All there is is a subjective determination of what counts as evil by whoever comes along.  -- noosphere 06:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the WP:OFFICE will intervene in truly egregious cases, like it or not. Letting editors invoke WP:NOT EVIL and (at least have a chance to) obtain consensus that it applies would, I hope, let at least a few of these cases be handled in-process before it gets to that. Herostratus 08:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. People will certainly invoke WP:NOT EVIL, but there is no clear way to determine if something actually is evil or not.  Or have I misread the proposal?  Is there something in it that tells us how we can detect evil?  Some clear, unambiguous guideline?  -- noosphere 09:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The Brian Peppers article is one of the ones I was thinking of. For those not familiar with it, Brian Peppers is crippled person of deformed countenance who is "notable" because internet lowlifes enjoyed posting his picture around and mocking him. His article was AfD'd. He did supposedly meet WP:BIO. Many editors were appalled by the article; some voted to Keep the article anyway because, being good Wikipedians, they had no policy they could point to to counterbalance WP:BIO; others voted to Delete the article anyway, even though they had no policy to point to, which means that technically they were advocating policy nullification. (No editor should have to be placed in that position IMO.) No consensus was reached, and the article had to be deleted in WP:OFFICE action on the grounds of simple humanity. All in all, a difficult experience all round, which WP:EVIL could have helped to obviate.Herostratus


 * How so? I think including such an article is quite good.  It brings laughter to the world.  Whereas censorship is evil.  But others, maybe even you, might think the article is an example of evil because it exploits the suffering of others, and might think censorship is good.  What would having WP:NOT EVIL bring us on this matter?  More flamewars.  -- noosphere 04:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm, am I parsing your argument correctly, you are saying that exploiting the suffering of others for personal amusement is a positive moral good? Uhhhh... are you serious? Herostratus 06:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the sort of argument this proposed policy change would encourage. And assuming people disagree on what constitutes good and evil (which they will, as is obvious from watching any morally charged debate on Wikipedia) this policy will only foster more bickering.  As for your particular question, I don't see the exploitation of people's suffering as particularly evil, no.  Watch any slapstick comedy, and you'll see people slipping on bannana peels, running in to doors, and shooting each other for laughs.  Witness the popularity of TV shows like Jackass, or Fear Factor.  Are you going to brand those as "evil" because they "exploit suffering" and delete them?  What happens when people like me disagree that they're evil?  More flamewars.  We should avoid this proposed policy change like the plague.  -- noosphere 06:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, Hoosphere, Brian Peppers is a real person. There is a difference, there. Herostratus 08:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * After thinking a bit, these are probably not the best examples of the kinds of articles where this policy would do the most damage. There really isn't all that much outrage at these TV shows, or even the Brian Peppers article.  Where people's idignation and holier than thou attitudes really get going is over religious, sexual, and political topics.  It's patently clear that people just can't agree on what counts as "evil" in those areas.  Is Christianity evil or Islam?  Does having an article on sadomasochism, Mein Kampf, or David Duke evil in that they promotes immoral acts or views?  These are the kinds of things people have been arguing outside Wikipedia forever, and now you want to give them another incentive to bring those arguments here?  -- noosphere 07:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Is Christianity evil or Islam? Does having an article on sadomasochism, Mein Kampf, or David Duke evil?' To all: no, of course not, no reasonable Wikipedian would argue that. OK, I see your point that that WP:NOT EVIL would encourage trollery. I can't absolutely refute that, although I don't think it would. Trolls don't really need an excuse. People have brought George W. Bush to AfD, I think. There might be a brief uptick at first. Herostratus 08:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you may not think those religions are evil, but I can assure you plenty of other people do, or haven't you been watching the news (or the cartoon controversy) lately? Mein Kampf is prohibited in certain countries as hate speech.  Sadomasochism, and homosexuality for that matter, are certainly considered to be evil by many fundamentalists.  It's not beyond the pale that some editors would consider these articles to be promoting "evil".  People have tried to censor the Harry Potter book because they allegedly promoted witchcraft, for God's sake.  There'll always be people looking to censor what they don't agree with, and this policy would give them the perfect excuse.  But, of course, it's impossible to prove what constitutes "evil" to anyone who doesn't already agree with you, so all this will lead to are more flamewars.  -- noosphere 09:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The Muhammed cartoons are in interesting case. WP:NOT EVIL could be raised against them. In fact, many of the arguments around the Muhammed cartoons were around whether they were evil or not. The existance of WP:NOT EVIL would perhaps have helped focus these discussions, but the adoption of WP:NOT EVIL does not mean that its invocation in any particular case need be accepted, of course. Wikipedia, like Diderot's original encyclopedia, and indeed all encyclopedias including Britannica, is at root a child of the Enlightenment, the Age of reason, and scientific methods of inquiry. The Wikipedia community of encyclopediasts can be entrusted to consider this when deciding what is evil and what is beneficial to humanity, I hope and assume.Herostratus 06:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How specifically would WP:NOT EVIL have helped with the cartoon controversy? What is evil there?  The cartoons or the censorship?  I think the latter.  But others disagree.  What use is this policy?  -- noosphere 04:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I don't see how it would have helped either. I didn't pick the examples. The board lit up pretty good on that article for a while; I don't think it WP:NOT EVIL could have made it any worse.Herostratus 08:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it would have been worse because they would have yet another vague policy to argue over. -- noosphere 07:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't get with the "vague"; It's three paragraphs; you could even cut out the first two and just have "Any article, category, project, image, policy, or any other sub-part of Wikipedia should avoid being actively evil or serving an evil end." I don't know how much more concise you can be, in a policy. Unless you think the word "evil" is inherently vague. The cartoons, I don't think it wouldn't have made it worse. In fact it would probably have focussed the discussion somewhat. Because if you have a specific policy that might apply, all you have to do is determine if the policy does apply. As opposed to endless bloviating trying to get a consensus for editors to ignore policy. It wouldn't have stopped the bloviating, though, but I can't see how it would have increased it. Herostratus 08:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because it's brief doesn't mean it's clear. I could just as easily say, "bring me the beautiful painting."  Or, "all wrong acts are forbidden."  Or, "play me some good music."  All of these are very brief statements, but they're quite vague.  What do I mean by "beautiful", "wrong", or "good"?  If I haven't specified what I meant or you don't know me very well, you may have no idea what I meant by those terms.  Same with the term "evil".  As can be seen by the numerous controversies surrounding ethical issues, people tend to have quite different conceptions of what it means.  So, if you want your policy to be clear you should specify what you mean by "evil".  Otherwise, it's just an invitation to argument if this ever makes policy, which I very much doubt.  -- noosphere 09:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Will the adoption of WP:NOT EVIL lead someome to AfD (say) the Abortion article on grounds of WP:NOT EVIL? Oh, probably. That's what speedy keeps are for. After a few days of mild trollery with the new toy I don't think this will be a problem.Herostratus 03:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Herostratus 06:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe in some alternate universe where everyone already agrees as to what is good and what is evil. -- noosphere 04:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't agree what is bias, what is original research, what is fair use, and we get by. Probably the two policies most used by trolls are WP:NPOV ("It's POV to omit the simple and irrefutable fact that George W. Bush is a war criminal" and WP:NOT Censored ("It's censorship to delete my penis vandalism"). Trolls will troll, regardless; I doubt that WP:NOT EVIL will incite much or any actually trollery that wouldn't have occured anyway. Herostratus 06:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How could yet another vaguely worded policy not incite more arguments? This will be just be another arrow in the troll's quiver.  And I don't know how you could compare this policy to WP:NPOV, which is much more clearly worded than this, with many examples and explanations regarding what the policy intends... and it still gets argued over.  This policy is much more vaguely (and more inflamatorily) worded, so it is inevitable that there'd be more disagreements over it.  It's a troll magnet.  -- noosphere 07:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That is possible, but on the other hand, consider that it could also be helpful. Example: the infamous Lolicon image. The main revert-warrior on that one was User:The Psycho, since permabanned for trollery and sockpuppetry. A great deal of prose was expended on that one, since arguments had to go along convoluted lines. WP:NOT EVIL would have helped there. Eventually an out-of-process deletion was required to lance the boil. With no repercussions for the deleting admin, since anyone with two neurons to knock together could see that the image was not in the interests of the 'pedia. Which incidently shows that that at the extremes WP:NOT EVIL is a de facto policy anyway. Having a "secret" policy is very bad. It would be much better to lay it out and let editors invoke it in argument than require out-of-process actions in which leave everyone feeling demoralized. Herostratus 08:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that WP:NOT EVIL would help, but you never specify how. What exactly would have happened if someone invoked WP:NOT EVIL on a Lolicon image?  Are you claiming that that image was evil?  If so, what would keep someone from disagreeing with you?  Who gets to decide what's evil?  Now, what if someone invoked WP:NOT EVIL against the deletion of the image, saying that censorship was evil?  Again, who gets to decide if that constitutes evil or not?  What you'll have in each of these cases is a huge flamewar over whether a given act is or is not evil.  That's why policies strive for clarity, and give plenty of examples of what they mean and where the policy applies, and not merely resort to some vague, POV term like "evil".  -- noosphere 09:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

More
This is pretty nuts. Think for a minute. Is truth evil? You say, revealing certain elements of truth is evil? But if it's clearly verifiable and notable truth? To me, there is nothing here that is not accomplished much better through simple verifiability and notability requirements. Introducing "evil" into the mix would turn things in a bad direction. I do not want to have to argue with people who say providing information on Brian Peppers is "evil". "Evil" is a stupidly strong term to apply to any good faith editors or their actions, anyway. Everyking 06:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying. You have a certain stance, which is honorable and reasonable. But you are denying others the chance to make even an argument from a different position.

Let's think through a thought experiment together. Suppose a article exists with verified information about a basically private person who became marginally notable due to an incident that was no fault of her own. The article is up for AfD. If the article continues to exist, one has reason to believe that the person will kill herself. What side does one come down on? If Keep, I would say the that one is not a good person. But if Delete, I would say that one is not a good Wikipedian, because one is advocating an action based on no policy and in fact directly in the face of policy. The actual choice made doesn't matter here, what does matter is that Editors should not have to choose between being a good person and being a good Wikipedian, and forcing editors to do so will only cause good editors to quit in disgust, which harms the project.

Lest you think this entirely abstact, I have seen editors struggle with this very conflict, at Brian Peppers and elsewhere, and it really is a problem IMO. People do (and should) take their obligation to follow policy quite seriously.

As to good faith: intent is not at issue here.Herostratus 08:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I, as one might well imagine having read other comments of mine apropos of bios of living subjects, wholly oppose the idea that ethical concerns should ever enter into our editing; where information exists, it should be disseminated, consistent with our other policies (NPOV, verifiability, notability, etc.), irrespective of the potential harms. I write here, though, to raise a very strong objection to the intimation of Herostratus that one who votes to keep an article knowing that such vote will lead to the suicide of the article's subject is acting as a "bad person"; even as some may hold to that view, I cannot imagine that the underlying normative position would garner a great deal of support.  I readily recognize that this isn't the place for us to engage in deep moral arguments (of course, policies such as this and Wikiethics invite these sorts of discussions; where some see the dissemination of information that tends to inflict emotional damage as morally inappropriate, others see the dissemination of any information as morally neutral, such that a reconciliation of the positions is essentially impossible and, in any case, requires much moral debate), but I cannot imagine that Herostratus means to suggest that one's passively abetting a suicide is a moral wrong, or even that one's taking an otherwise justified action that will surely result in a suicide is morally untoward.  Certainly neither would I feel responsibility--or, more appropriately, guilt--were the subject of a biography here to off him/herself after having read the biography nor would I feel compelled to intercede to remove the "offending" article, as I certainly don't find the preservation of any particular life (or even of several lives) to be more important that the dissemination of information, even where the information is largely private but nevertheless verifiable and notable.  Joe 20:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a perfect example of where reasonable people may disagree regarding whether a certain action is immoral, much less "evil". WP:NOT EVIL provides absolutely no guidance as to what to do when people disagree as to which actions are evil and which are not.  This is why the policy is vague.  And the more passionately people disagree as to whether a given action is evil (such as on religious, political, and sexual issues) the more inevitably will this policy lead to flamewars, which we just don't need more of on Wikipedia.  -- noosphere 21:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your logic is flawed. This scenario makes absolutely no sense. In order for content to meet WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:BLP, content must already be public knowledge in order to be put on wikipedia, and must not be asserted as truth unless it is absolutely known to be true. So if information about someone is already available to the public, why would they kill themself just because its on wikipedia? --Samael775 04:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition
Because evil is a word so widely subject to personal interpretation, I feel that this policy would benefit from a definition of what we mean by it. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 09:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'm not clear how Wikipedia can be evil: it can be wrong or misleading or POV, certainly, but 'evil' is hard to apply. Wouldn't being evil depend primarily on performing evil actions, whereas Wikipedia articles are passive beasts which don't do anything of themselves? Brian Peppers is perhaps an unusual case because of debatable notability (and yes, I feel that one should have gone), but it would be bad for (sourced!) information about a notable person's misdeeds to be deleted on these grounds - true information isn't evil in my opinion. -- Mithent 10:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember, the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth! Inclusion is based on being encyclopedic and verifiable from reliable sources. This policy would help define "encyclopedic" by making it clear that Wikipedia goal is to promote good over evil. Professional journalists are expected to follow ethical guidelines that embrace the concept of doing good. FloNight   talk  11:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The purpose of wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia - not to tell people the difference between right and wrong. Let's not let wikipedia get all SANCTIMONIOUS!!! Sludgehaichoi 14:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A google search for "Joe Scarborough" "Lori Klausutis" gets 655,000 hits. Quite a lot for a event which was not an event. Fred Bauder 14:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fred's hit the nail on the head here. Suppose there are many sources that say that somebody has done something illegal or improper, but the person has never been charged.  Under all the usual Wikipedia rules, we're entitled to quote these sources.  Wikipedia is not censored.  Would this policy prevent us from reporting these sources? - Runcorn 18:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Runcorn, our policies/guidelines already guide us away from discussing some types of illegal or improper actions. According to WP:BLP, a person might be notable enough for mention on Wikipedia and maybe even an article but not be notable enough to have harmful information about them placed in an article. It depends upon how closely the improper or illegal action is associated with their area of notability. This is a perfect example of how NOT evil should work. FloNight   talk  16:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

suggestion
How about you rename the policy...it sounds kind of goofy, but the policy itself really isn't. --Osbus 14:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, a take off from Google's hypocritical nonsense. How about Responsibility with an emphasis on considering the consequences of how our powerful website may affect the weak, powerless and innocent. Fred Bauder 14:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Gee, I was just about to add "Words like "pornography" or "censorship" or "evil" tend to inflame the discussion and should be avoided. Objective terminology is more helpful than subjective terminology." from Profanity. I highly recommend immediately moving this to WAS 4.250 15:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Responsibility works for me. -- FloNight  talk  17:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Not completely happy with it, but I'd say it's an improvement. - Runcorn 18:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It works for me. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 19:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Something like Responsibility would probably be better given that evil is such a subjective, emotionally charged and unavoidably moral term. Alternatively, something more descriptive like Do No Harm or NOT Harmful might work. Either way, I think terms such as "evil" needs to be kept far away from policy guidelines. --Despair 19:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia: Responsibility, Duty, Honor. Seriously, the whole thing has POV and original research written all over it. -- Chodorkovskiy  ( talk )  19:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Proliferation of nuclear know-how
Would this proposal address the content of articles that one can reasonably assume will significantly lower the bar to making a nuclear weapon, a fertilizer bomb, a nerve agent, etc? In other words, information that isn't "evil" by itself, but which one can reasonbly assume will help make the world a significantly more dangerous place in ten or twenty years? If the proposal doesn't cover this kind of thing, is there a guideline or policy that does? If there is none, should there be one? Perhaps WP:RESPONSIBLE or something. Maybe there's already consensus on this, in which case a link to the archive would be appreciated.

I realize that a person can find anything he or she wants on the internet now, and that what is responsible or not is a subjective question. But I think people will agree that Wikipedia can save a lot of time for someone trying to put the pieces together, and that it would also be possible to reach consensus, or at least a good majority, when a concern arises. Modify 17:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would say so. When I was in Navy boot camp in San Diego in the early 60s I witnessed torture. It was a pretty slick method, "didn't leave a mark on em". I certainly don't think we need to tell folks how to do this. Or how to make a nifty improvised roadside bomb. Fred Bauder 18:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line? Don't say how to pick a lock, ransack a house speedily and quietly, turn back the odometer on a car? The latter two I'd say would only be used for dishonest practices, but I'm not sure about picking a lock. - Runcorn 18:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a good question and should be discussed, because it isn't straightforward. But I don't think it's a showstopper. modify | talk 18:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am thoroughly opposed to this. This is clear censorship.  -- noosphere 18:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's more the middle way. We don't want to censor unpopular opinions or events embarrassing to governments, but we also don't want to be an internet version of the Anarchist's Cookbook. Fred Bauder 19:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's still censorship and I'm still completely and utterly opposed to it. -- noosphere 19:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight Noosphere. It's difficult, but not impossible, for verifying documents held only by a Wikipedia editor[s] to be used to meet verification requirements. So assuming that notability is also met, you would have Wikipedia publish information that shows how to obtain an atomic bomb? I suppose the identities of secret agents and names and phone numbers of rape victims would be fair game too. Just curious, as a philosophical question, is there anything that Wikipedia oughtn't publish, assiming verifiability and notability are met? Herostratus 02:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Revealing the identities of secret agents is illegal, as is stalking and harrasment. Wikipedia should obviously not do anything illegal.  Furthermore, the names and phone numbers of rape victims is not encyclopedic.  However, if the information is encyclopedic, and does not conflict with any of the existing policies it should be allowed on Wikipedia.  As WP:NOT says, "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where the servers are hosted."  -- noosphere 02:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To answer Herostratus's question directly, assuming arguendo that a piece of information is verifiable and notable, I do not believe there can ever be any reason in view of which we oughtn't to pubish the information. Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide, but if directions toward the obtaining of an atomic bomb were otherwise notable, verifiable, and encyclopedic, surely they should be published.  Phone numbers are generally not encyclopedic, but, where they are verifiable (see, e.g., in public records or as parts of news stories), the names of rape victims, if notable, should surely be included.  I would go further than Noosphere to suggest that, given the murkiness of the laws surrounding the identification of secret agents, there are many circumstances in which a verifiable and encyclopedic identification of a spy qua spy would be altogether appropriate.  In sum, there is, for me, nothing that could militate sufficiently against the publication of a verifiable and notable (i.e., encyclopedic) piece of information that we wouldn't publish that information.  Joe 03:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if publishing that information would put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy? -- noosphere 21:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There are, IMHO, very, very few things the publication of which would put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy; even WP:OFFICE readily concedes that often we make elections to avoid prospective legal problems even where we are surely indemnified against action relative to those problems. Where there is a genuine issue of legal jeopardy, I certainly think we ought not then to publish.  Joe 03:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So if anyone has a WP article, hence is notable, and we can find published information on their home address or phone number or other personal details, it's OK to post it on Wikipedia? - Runcorn 08:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a directory. -- noosphere 21:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think its kind of weasely to fall back on the law. Are you (Noosphere) thinking "We should publish the names of secret agents, but unfortunately we can't because of legal jeopardy", or "Whew, I'm glad I don't have to answer that question because, you know, illegal?". Which is it? And rape victims names are notable if the accused is famous. Heck, we have a whole article on Megan Marshak. If George Pataki was arrested for rape, you wouldn't publish the name of the accuser? What about Tawana Brawley? Her new name is obtainable with a little digging. Doesn't the article seem, well, censored, without it? I could find it and add it to the article right now. Should I? Herostratus 17:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think publishing anything is "evil". But it's this policy, not my opinions which are on trial here.  To that end, I would like to ask you to answer the questions I asked you earlier in this thread.  Also, I find it quite ironic that you apparently think revealing the names of these people would be "evil", yet have just revealed them in your comment.  -- noosphere 01:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Noosphere, Herostratus made a point of not posting her new name. How do you find that ironic ? Anyway, first of all, the policy as I understand it is not about articles that cover „evil“ content. It is about articles that could or do cause considerable pains/ „suffering“ to certain people. So an article about Hitler (arguably an evil Person) would in no way be touched by this policy, as it is only about an evil person. In this sense saying that an article on Islam or Christianity is against the „not evil“ policy is invalid, as even if one (or both) of these religions is seen as evil, it does no direct harm to any person.

I also want to make clear the difference between articles that can lead people to inflicting harm by infering knowlege, and articles that are as of themselves an insult to certain people, or lead to molestation of certain people. To allow or disallow either or are two separate questions. An example for the first kind of the above stated: A guide to making explosives. Now it is quite obvious that by having access to that article, some people would be enabled to do „evil“ that they could not without that knowlege. However, these kind of articles do not belong in the Wikipedia anyway, but should be posted in Wikibooks, as they are not Encylopedic. And I can´t think of any articles that enable people to inflict harm that would be (please post an example if you can think of one!). Any discussion about if such guides should be allowed or not should therefore be lead on Wikibooks, so as too keep this page on topic.

That much for now, the only thing I still need to say straight away is that I am strongly in favor of this policy, in case you hadn´t noticed yet :D. And that the name is good in being consice and the intent being clear, but has the disadvantage of not clearly defining what exactly is meant. If noone else does, I´ll try making a positive definition soon (instead of the negative parts above, which state what the policy is 'not). Kind regards from Sean Heron 07:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the question of articles that insult specific individuals (or that could otherwise obviously lead to their harm) and that of articles that can be used to infer knowledge are different. Maybe for that reason any guidelines discussed here would not apply to articles of the second kind, and care should be taken so that the discussion isn't diverted from the topic. Articles of the first kind are unencyclopedic in my opinion and should be excluded. There are probably other good reasons to exclude them as well. To address a point that has been made further up in this regard, I personally find arguments that proceed from an unspoken assumption that that censorship is bad to be unconvincing for the most part. Such an assumption is an overgeneralization at best. In the context of a collaborative project like Wikipedia, where the community would be the final censor in this case, and only after significant debate, issues relating to censorship and self-censorship seem almost irrelevant.


 * I disagree that articles that can be used to infer knowledge are by their nature unencyclopedic or that they would automatically belong in Wikibooks. Take, for instance, the one on the Teller-Ulam design, which is well-written, fascinating, not too long and not at all a set of instructions. It covers an area of knowledge that, in a better world, would be ideal for an encyclopedia. It just happens that, in the present world, it is probably a catalyst for any number of bright people who don't have access to that kind of information through other routes. It's easy to imagine that there's a class of such articles. The question above was what to do with them. Is the obvious value that they have for an encyclopedia outweighed by the danger they pose? If I had to guess, there isn't any consensus on this question, or perhaps, it's that the value of such articles is higher than the danger they pose. But the question shouldn't be excluded from the discussion on the basis that such articles belong in Wikibooks or because they are unencyclopedic. There would have to be a different reason in my opinion, such as the question's not being relevant or interesting enough. modify 16:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't be evil. Yeah.
This policy would be a parody of itself. At least it (sort of) recognizes that fact. zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested motto
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts negative power, but leaves positive power unchanged. Rick Norwood 21:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How about just, "We love power!" :)  -- noosphere 21:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Demote to guideline
I don't think this can be a policy, because it's far, far too vague. It's like Don't be a dick or Ignore all rules. It can't be pinned down; people can't agree on what it means, even if rough consensus would agree to it. Therefore, this should be demoted to a vague guideline. If such were done, I would support it. As policy, though, I oppose it. Alba 02:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with this comment, if we cant drop the proposal altogether. Enough damage is done already by the whole concept of us vs. them, good vs. evil and other overly simplistic dichotomies.  Such a vague, unpractical policy will eventually be used to argue sensorship of information that is seen as un-American or un-something-or-other.  Wikipedia is not a religion and I think outside religion such overly simplistic ideas such as evil are not appropriate.  Let's use something instead such as not_dangerous or responsible as suggested above, but surely these are guidlines not practical policy.Danieljames626 03:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with the first part. This "not evil" concept is even more subjective than "not notable". I'm not even sure that "not dangerous" would make any sense as a policy. Would that then exclude articles on chemical warfare? &mdash; RJH 16:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Or articles on Mein Kampf, Hitler, Communism, Capitalism, Christianity, Islam or even Heavy Metal... since it could be argued that each one of those articles is "dangerous". We don't want to be giving anyone any ideas that could cost innocent lives.  -- noosphere 21:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Practical Application?
I'm still trying to imagine one situation where this policy (or whatever it may be) would help in making a desicion of any sort on Wikipedia. Through all this argument, the question remains: under all of the theoretical questions, even those whose answers define who people are in and out of Wikipedia- and define Wikipedia itself- is there a single time where someone will actually call this policy into play... and make a difference? Neither side can even figure out where to draw the line, much less call it into play! Scytheml 02:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Here is a very simplified but basically accurate digest of the Brian Peppers AfD. I can well see the same playing out at a hypothectical Kelly Tripplehorn AfD (see below) and at the other AfD's from the list above.


 * Group A: Keep, meets notablity and verifiability.
 * Group B: Delete, this is horrible.
 * Group A rebuttutal: Meets WP:BIO and WP:V. "This is horrible" is not a policy and your personal opinions do not bear on the issue.
 * Group A counterreubuttal: ...
 * Group C, a splinter from group B: [disingenously:] Well, OK, but does meet WP:BIO.
 * Group A rebuttal: Yes it does meet WP:BIO because [irrefutable fact], [irrefutable fact], and [irrefutable fact].
 * Group C counterrebuttal: ...
 * Group D, good neutral Wikipedians: Keep. Meets Wikipedia policy, does not violate any Wikipedia policy.
 * Group E, trolls: Keep, funny highly encyclopedic, and besides Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored.

Result: Keep, or at any rate no consensus to delete. WP:OFFICE action required, demoralizing to all involved.

Now suppose WP:NOT EVIL was adopted:


 * Group A: Keep, meets notablity and verifiability.
 * Group B: Delete, violates WP:NOT EVIL
 * Group A rebuttutal: Does not violate WP:NOT EVIL because [argument] and [example].
 * Group A counterreubuttal: Yes, does violate WP:NOT EVIL because [argument] and [example].
 * Group D, good neutral Wikipedians: WP:BIO and WP:V, but on the other hand WP:NOT EVIL. Votes split, or follow most convincing argument.
 * Group E, trolls: (no change).

Result: Delete. Maybe Delete, depending on the strength of the competing arguments. Herostratus 17:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you lost me on that very last step. How did you get from an argument over whether that article violates WP:NOT EVIL to "Result: Delete"?  -- noosphere 21:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in the second example (unlike the first), you have the "good neutral Wikipedians" group, the policy wonks, splitting their vote, or perhaps even tending to Delete if the stronger argument runs that way. In theory that ought to be enough to change the outcome to Delete. Herostratus 07:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So now the result is no longer "delete", but "maybe delete", if "the argument runs that way". So what, may I ask, is the argument to be made for this particular article being "evil"?  And how does this policy help to resolve that argument instead of incite it?  -- noosphere 07:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, I changed the result above as you suggested. The main point here is that editors at least have the opportunity to make an in-policy argument against the article, and are not presented with the Hobson's choice of either accepting a bad article or arguing that policy should be ignored. No one has addressed my contention that this is one one of the core benefits of this policy. Can you?


 * Oh yes, I can certainly see that this proposed policy would lead to plenty of arguments. What I don't see is any guideline in the policy as to how those arguments can ever be resolved.  The term "evil" is just too vague and POV.  -- noosphere 02:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as our hosting of a particular article being evil, I'm not making that claim for any particular article, although the Brian Peppers article is one where I would at least contend at an AfD that it violated WP:NOT EVIL -- contend, and possibly lose, fair enough. Why? Because Peppers is a basically private persons with, pretty clearly, a horrible life, who is notable only because intenet lowlifes find it amusing to mock his disfiguration, and a Wikipedia article would serve to enhance his suffering and and make deeper his private hell for no commensurate scholarly gain. Is that not evil?


 * No it's not evil. Auschwitz is, arguably, evil.  Torturing people to death is, arguably, evil.  Raping and killing children in front of their parents is, arguably, "evil".  Genocide is, once again arguably, "evil".  Making fun of a disfigured person might be in bad taste, and it might even hurt his feelings, but I think you've lost all sense of perspective if you call that "evil".  Anyway, even all the things I admit are arguably "evil" are not "evil" beyond dispute.  Some people believe there is no such thing as "evil" at all.  And, once again, this policy says nothing whatsoever about how to judge whether something really is evil.  If you want to make a policy prohibiting articles that "mock disfiguration" or articles that may "enhance suffering", you should make that explicit in your policy instead of leave it implied, because not everyone would agree that those things are "evil".  For some people "evil" means merely whatever is prohibited by their religion, whether or not it "enhances suffering".  In fact, something which would "enhance pleasure" (such as sex) is viewed by some people as "evil".  So it would be great if you could precisely what you mean by the term instead of letting everyone imagine their own, often contradictory, definitions.  -- noosphere 02:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would make a similar contention for other articles such as, say, List of retards considerd to be especially funny-looking, expecially if had pictures. Such an article would probably not be encyclopedic anyway, but who knows? Verfiability could be met by using cites of existing websites, and notability could be argued, as it was for Brian Peppers, if enough websites had images of the people listed. Herostratus 14:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a bad joke
Proclaiming virtue just makes an organization look pretentious, it's what it does that counts, so spare us the rhetoric. Who could look at this without thinking about how google sold out to fascist China? Delete now. Golfcam 03:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Evil: "...that which is regarded as morally bad, intrinsically corrupt, wantonly destructive, inhumane, or wicked." Goes in direct violation of the NPOV policy. -- Chodorkovskiy  ( talk )  05:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree also. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further..." porges 11:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't that imply that the policy is equivalent to the statement "An encyclopedia is a benefit to humanity?" Alba 14:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "An encyclopedia is a benefit to humanity to the extent it is WP:NOT censored." -- noosphere 14:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that WP:NOT censored would the first attribute to pick, over say accurate or complete whatever. Anyway, I think its a misconception to think that WP:NOT EVIL is more than tangentially involved in censorship, I'll address this in a seperate section below. Herostratus 14:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No, this is a bad joke:
 * PAT: I heard your wife's in the hospital. What happened?
 * MIKE: She brought me lukewarm coffee, so I slugged her.
 * PAT: Whaaaat, you, Mike? You're always so considerate, so empathetic, so good.
 * MIKE: Well, I was editing Wikipedia at the time. And you know, when I edit Wikipedia I put all moral considerations aside. Herostratus 18:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Now here's something
This recent occurance bears on the matter under discussion.

I see that someone created the article Paul Kelly Tripplehorn Jr,, it was sent to Prod (with comment "his 15 minutes are up"), then speedied. I can't read the article, but the fact that it went to Prod first indicates that most probably was not blank or gibberish, and that the speedy was almost certainly out-of-process.

For those who don't recall, Kelly Tripplehorn was an intern for a Republican congressman who wrote a long, semi-literate breakup email to a girlfriend in which he revealed himself to be an almost preternaturally egregious prick, the type who truly believes he's better than most people because his dad has a condo in Aspen (he actually mentioned this). This truly amazing document was or course released by the recipient and picked up as an object of mockery by the media.

Now, Kelly Tripplehorn is hella more notable than Brian Peppers and some others who have articles. His name was all over the papers, there is (or was) at least one website dedicated to him, and so forth. I don't know if Leno et al mentioned him but I'd surprised if they didn't. And he's hella less sympathetic than Peppers, since he really is a jerk, and stupid to boot.

Kelly Tripplehorn broke his reputation, possibly his career, and maybe his life, while still a teenager. Naturally he lost his internship, and the event appears to have been traumatic. He turned to Jesus (although this appears to have merely transformed him into a religious egregious prick.) I don't know where he is now, but although his name will never be entirely erased from the internet, he can probably hope that as the years go by he will be able to have interactions, relationships, and job interviews with people who've never heard of him or have forgotten his brush with infamy.

But then, you know, someone wrote a Wikipedia article about him.

So now he is -- or would be -- immortalized on one of the most-used information sources on the web. Maybe he wouldn't care. Or maybe it would drive him to despair, his hope for the healing blanket of time and forgetfullness to be drawn over him dashed, for as long as Wikipedia exists and is popular, which could be a long time.

Anyway, he was Proded, but somebody would have probably recognized him and pulled him to WP:AFD. Where, since his story is easily verifiable, and IMO probably notable enough, it would have been difficult to keep him from passing. Oh, sure, some people would have maintained that, policy or no, he should go. But with no WP:NOT EVIL to cite, that argument would have been weak, and decisive arguments probably would have been made by those -- good Wikipedians -- who don't countenance actions with no policy backing.

I'm going to infer that the editor who speedied and the admin who deleted the article know all this. Which is why they did it. They had to. Why? Because, good lord, man, we can't do that to people. I mean, c'mon: it is evil. I can't blame them. Hell, I'd violate Wikipedia policy just to avoid betraying my country or my family, let alone my basic principles of humanity.

But I'd hella rather have a policy that could help make these out-of-process actions less necessary. Out-of-process is a strain on the sytem, and its nature's way of indicating that something is out of sync, that policy is not addressing reality.

You know, by denying editors even the chance to cite W{:NOT EVIL in argument, in actual effect you are saying We are children, here, we accept that out-of-process deletions will have to be made because we don't have the moral compass and subtlety of mind to make or even to consider reasonable arguments about the meatspace effects of articles.

That is sad. Herostratus 03:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I must be missing something. How is a Republican intern's breakup letter encyclopedic?  Sure, it might be notable... in People magazine or in the Star.  But encyclopedic?  -- noosphere 03:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you make a good point Herostratus, but hopefully there is something else we can do. Please note Golfcam's point; evil suggests that we are the judiciary that knows good from evil and I dont want to see wikipedia take on that sought of language.  Evil is a religious word that in my part of the world has done more harm than good.Danieljames626 04:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what to call our guideline, but clearly, no matter how many Google hits this guy gets, a pathetic situation like this has no place. Fred Bauder 15:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So you say. That didn't help Brian Peppers, and I sincerely doubt it would have helped Kelly Tripplehorn. Noosphere you might have voted that Google hits or no the article is not encyclopedic. I'll bet you would have been outvoted. No he wasn't in People or the Star, he was picked up by the wire services for starters. Herostratus 19:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You can be outvoted no matter which policy you cite. The fact is that an existing policy is applicable in this case, making the proposed policy superflous.  And the proposed policy, as I've noted many times earlier in this discussion, would hurt rather than help, since people would just start arguing whether something is evil or not.  Same with this particular case.  I don't see anything in the least bit evil about posting something that's already public.  But I do view censorship as evil.  Someone else may disagree.  And we don't need more arguments of this sort on Wikipedia... arguments that this proposed policy will do nothing to resolve, but everything to foster.  -- noosphere 21:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Shortcut?
You consider WP:NOT_EVIL a good shortcut? I'd vouch for WP:NE or something else significatnly shorter than the actual title. --DarkPhoenix 08:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, WP:NE added. Herostratus 06:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Useless
Since some believe censorship is evil, and others believe not censoring is evil, the policy is useless. WAS 4.250 22:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That is probably the most succinct and accurate objection one may raise. Of course, were a consensus to develop in either direction, we might then define "evil" through policy (even as I would oppose our making such definition), but a consensus is wholly unlikely to develop... Joe 03:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, what has WP:NOT EVIL have to do with censorship? I don't see the connection... It's true that on occasion most every policy has been cited as censorship, e.g. You are using WP:MUSIC to censor the article on my band, WP:CIVIL to censor my free expression of feeling, etc. But I think those are extreme positions that most editors don't really take sereiously... I don't think that anyone has suggested that "not censoring is evil"... I'm just not following you, am I missing something? Herostratus 06:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the point is eloquently made there. This policy is a polarising policy for exactly the reason you make: for people to follow the rule of NOT_EVIL would be to others - and no small fraction I'm sure - precisely evil. - Drrngrvy 14:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think (hope) your not meaning what your words say, that "no small fraction" will or would contend that evil in and of itself is a desirable object of Wikipedia, e.g. "Well, doesn't really meet WP:BIO, but including the article will cause needless suffering, so Keep"? I think you're trying to say that WP:NOT EVIL is somehow involved with censorship, which it mostly isn't. I'll address that below in a separate section. Herostratus 14:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're not clear on how this rule would be carried out? The only course of action for an article/etc. that is deemed 'evil' is to remove it, which is of course censorship. If you could simply make it 'not evil' by altering the wording and not removing any content, then that is simply a case of WP:NPOV - the content isn't wrong, it's just worded in such a way as to make it biassed towards a certain viewpoint (ie. an 'evil' one). Could you explain how the rule could be actioned without removing content? - Drrngrvy 15:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Certainly removing content is how I was thinking of it. But the only course of action for an article/etc. that is deemed not notable or hopeless gibberish or whatever is also to delete it. Is that also "censorship"? If not, why not? What is the difference, here? Herostratus 16:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, it is censorship since it's removing objectional content. It just isn't controversial since garbage removal is generally in the interest of absolutely everyone. In the case of information that is 'not notable', removal is in the interest of Wikipedia's finances and information bloat (ie. why talk about your house's slug infestation when so many more relevant things are missing?). Removing things that people don't want to waste their time reading is different to removing things that people don't want to read because they don't trust themselves with the infomation. If this policy is to keep the information from other people, rather than just oneself, then this is an inherently patronising proposal, which is wrong. - Drrngrvy 16:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, not all the non-notable articles removed are about my slug infestation (how did you know about that?). Many are controversial and come down to preponderance of argument on AfD. Anyway... goodness, I'm not saying remove information because it will harm you, the reader, but because it will harm the victim. Take a look at the Tawany Brawley article. You'll note that her name is missing, indeed it doesn't even mention that she took a new name. Kind of gap in the story, don't you think? Surely as notable as where she was born or whatever. How is it patronizing to anyone to not include that information? ''Should that information be included?' Yes or no. Herostratus 17:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Information has a victim? That point has been made by many people on this page so far: it's not information that is evil, but the people that abuse it. - Drrngrvy 18:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase that. Should an editor even be permitted to make an in-policy argument that the information should not be included? Herostratus 17:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The non-inclusion of her taking a new identity (I assume that was under the witness protection act?) is not a problem: just add that in if you want to and you have evidence. - Drrngrvy 18:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Will only lead to more conflicts
Really, how would such a policy be implemented and cited on AFD? "Delete, the creation of this article is evil" is a violation of WP:AGF, WP:BITE (if the contributor is new) and WP:NPA unless the discussion is strictly held away from discussing the submitter of the "evil" article.

Also, I agree wholeheartedly with everyone above who says that "evil" is not well defined. We have about a billion people in the world who can argue that including the image at the top of this article is evil, and probably a billion people who would argue that removing it is censorship (which is really evil). Most people already try to do what they think is beneficial to Wikipedia, and that includes writing about things which might be offensive to someone.

Really, making a policy like this will only lead to more conflict with nasty accusations of articles being evil and inevitable accusations of people being evil.

What things are evil (well in my view)? Aren't things being done about it already? What will such a policy enable us to do which we cannot do now? After all, as far as I can see:
 * External links to pornography sites are already being removed as link spam.
 * Images with disgusting content and no conceivable encyclopedic use are already deleted, often as vandalism.
 * Vandals who insert libellous things into biographies are already being blocked from editing (and I really don't think they'll stop even if we start waving a "Don't be evil" policy at them.)
 * Jimbo still has the authority to remove things which slip through the cracks, so as long as he is not evil, we have a safety net. (Considering that he is fairly inactive, I don't think we've let Wikipedia got to the dogs just yet.)

Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC) (According to my userpage, not a good person :-))


 * Argh, don't even say that this policy has anything to do with "external links to pornography sites and images with disgusting content and no conceivable encyclopedic use". It does not. Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored, and I agree with that, and furthermore no policy that goes against that has any chance of being accepted. It's true that WP:NOT EVIL could be used to "censor" material at the far margins (see seperate section below), but that's it. This policy does NOT address pornography; pornography is not evil.


 * So you say. But there're plenty of people who say otherwise.  What makes your definition of "evil" better than theirs?  -- noosphere 02:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Libel, fine. In the US true statements cannot be libelous, and I'm talking about true statements -- rape victims phone numbers, that sort of thing (OK rape victims phone numbers are not generally encyclopedic... Brian Peppers' face, then.)


 * The whole point of the policy is that no one wants Jimbo to have to step in. Jimbo doesn't want to, I don't want him to, you don't want him to. Sometimes he has to step in, usually for purely political/PR reasons, but we want to reduce that. It's demoralizing and upsetting to all concerned. Herostratus 16:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Violates NPOV
Sorry, but this violates an even more basic principle than WP:NOT - WP:NPOV! There is no objective/neutral definition of what constitutes 'serving an evil end' therefore this cannot exist at all unless we abolish WP:NPOV (I'm not suggesting we do that btw!). Cynical 10:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been waving that flag all over this place for days now. It's no use: if somebody wants to save mankind, mankind better start running... -- Chodorkovskiy  ( talk )  10:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing that, at all. "Evil" is a common, much discussed, and well-defined English word and concept. Certainly at least as much as "original" (as in original research), "point of view", "fair" (as in fair use), "trolling", "personal" (as in personal attack), and many other terms we use.


 * There's a dicdef (not copyvio, taken from several sources) near the top of this talk page; I'll move it to a separate section below to make it more accessible.


 * Would "harmful" be a better term? WP:NOT HARMFUL would be acceptable... except that "harmful" doesn't exclude harm done where the scholarly gain outweighs the harm, which we do all the time; lots of our articles cause harm, and that's OK if there's a good reason. "Evil" just excludes those cases where there is not a good reason, and is more precise. But WP:NOT HARMFUL would be OK as long as the body of the policy made it clear that it was really talking only about egregious harm.Herostratus 14:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Still think that where something is NPOV, encyclopedic, and verifiable should be included regardless of any subjective interpretation of 'evil' (incidentally, that lolicon image can already be deleted due to being unencyclopedic). By the way, Wiktionary's definition is 'intended to harm'. Deciding what someone intended something to do (as opposed to evaluating what the content is, which is what we do for everything else) is inherently subjective, and therefore inherently POV. Cynical 19:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

-- Chodorkovskiy  ( talk )  05:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)== DicDef - evil ==

evil \'e--v*l\, (from Old English yfel, from Indo-European "exceeding due limits") adj.: bad; having qualities which tend to injury, or to produce mischief; producing sorrow, distress, injury or calamity; morally bad or wrong; wicked; deliberately causing great harm, pain, or upset; infamous; malicious; characterized by a desire to cause hurt or harm; arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct; that which produces pain, distress, loss, or calamity, or which impairs the happiness of natural beings; depravity, corruption of heart, or disposition to commit wickedness. n.: malignity; the quality of being profoundly immoral or wrong; mischief; a situation or thing that is very unpleasant, harmful, or morally wrong; something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction. adv. (arch.): injuriously; unkindly; unjustly. Herostratus 14:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How about Knowledge, not mischief? "Characterized by a desire to cause hurt or harm", that is the essence of our concern. Fred Bauder 15:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Same-sex parenting, destruction of the rain forests, abortion, animal experiments, economic embargos, snipers, suicide bombings, calculated collateral damage, strategic bombardements... Let's just agree on one thing: evil is subjective. Okay? -- Chodorkovskiy  ( talk )  18:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Everything is subjective. So? It's subjective to say "Babe Ruth was the greatest baseball player ever"; that doesn't necessarily mean its not true, and that arguments for and against that proposition can't be made and a consensus achieved among a group of people whether it not it is likely true.


 * We have a moral sense, do we not? We have brains to determine what truth is the best truth, yes? Truths can conflict, grasshopper; let go your conscious mind. You know better what is good and what is bad then you let on, I think (see "I'm not an amoral person...", below). Herostratus 22:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * These are exactly the kinds of arguments we want to avoid. Arguing about whether something is "evil" pretty much opens the doors to a neverending theological and philosophical debate that has been going on for thousands of years.  This is not like WP:NPOV or WP:V, where there are some relatively clear guidelines as to what makes something NPOV or verifiable (even there people still argue until the cows come home).  No.  This is a whole 'nother level of flamewar we'd be opening up if we allowed a policy based on such a vaguely wored and POV concept as "evil".  Some people don't believe there even is such a thing.  Others believe it's whatever their particular sect tells them it is.  Some people think it's pr0n, others Michael Jackson.  Some think it's Americans, others the French.  Some think it's Bush, others Clinton.  Some sex before marriage, others women who expose more than their eyes.  Think about it, do we really want to encourage arguments about all of these things?  Getting consensus on NPOV and verifiability is hard enough.  -- noosphere 02:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Case and point. Not "everything" is subjective, just evil. -- Chodorkovskiy  ( talk )  05:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

my opinion
i believe knoledge as such should be neutral. any knoledge can be used for good or evil, and has therefor no conection to one or another value. you can cualify intention, and use of knoledge. but not knoledge itself. look at the definition of encyclopedia "comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge..." to take out any part of the knoledge would be against the main nature of it. to impose a value of evil, or even a value of good into knoledge would remove its natural imparciality and therefor its aproach to the truth. is the atomic energy bad becouse one can do bombs with it? or good becouse one can have energy with it? or even then bad becouse one gets terrible wastes from it?...knoledge should be and will always be NEUTRAL. and in my opinion free and to the hand of everyone. so that we know weather we do good or evil by our own moral measure, and not just becouse we didnt knew.LadyofHats 14:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT EVIL is not about censorship
Some of the arguments above are going on quite a bit about censorship. I'm not seeing that as main point of the policy, at all. The main points are to (1) avoid putting editors in untenable positions and (2) reduce WP:OFFICE actions and out-of-process actions; and the main use to be to avoid screwing up the lives of private persons.



It is, however, true that WP:NOT EVIL could be used to "censor" some text or images at the far margins.

For instance, I did mention the infamous Lolicon picture in the context of WP:NOT EVIL, and I would contend that our link there to ('Note: contains images that may be illegal to view in your jurisdiction) the Renchan board would violate WP:NOT EVIL, because it promotes and increases the traffice to a site that displays, normalizes, and revels in the violent rape and other sexual use of young children,

I think that many, or at least some, editors would agree that that is evil. Some would (and do) contend that rather than evil it's a postive good, while the Saying-Hitler-was-more-evil-than-Bhudda-is-hopeless-cultural-bias crowd is always ready with the argument that nothing is evil. Let the arguments be made, and the most compelling argument gather the consensus. But let the argument at least be made.

I guess that's censorship of a sort, although at such an extreme margin that I don't think that that's what WP:NOT censored was really intended to address.

And the thing is -- the Lolicon image was deleted anyway. It's not like the lack of WP:NOT EVIL prevented the censorship of the image; it just forced it off the books. Because at the exteme margin the old hands, the dedicated encyclopediasts, the Foundation, and Jimbo are not going to allow Wikipedia to be used in that way, for purely political reasons if nothing else.

As a matter of fact, I called for the out-of-process deletion of that image (partly if not mostly for political reasons), and I very much resented having to do that, but I did not have a policy tool that would allow me at least a chance to work for an in-process deletion.

But again, this type of "censorship" under WP:NOT EVIL is likely to be a secondary use. Herostratus 16:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And the point is?.. Jew Watch is a hate-promoting site famous for its position on Google, but I personally support WP linking to it: because it's an encyclopedia. This is exactly what I'm talking about: merely having an entry on WP is already considered somewhat of a status-mark. Does that mean we should delete the one for the KKK? Or maybe just David Duke? Following your line of logic, we'll end up telling people what's good and what's bad. That's not what I signed up for. The image you speak of was deleted because WP doesn't have a policy on offensive images, not because we haven't found the Path of Ultimate Goodness yet.


 * All the problems you mention can be fixed on a case-by-case basis by creating appropriate policies, such as Offensive Images or Links to Hate Sites. Attempting to get them all at once will create much more problems than it will solve, as all quick fixes do.


 * P.S. Making this a guideline is even more vague and just gives the editor a bigger headache. -- Chodorkovskiy  ( talk )  18:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, it should not a guideline. Herostratus 23:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT EVIL: the core benefits have not been refuted. Can they be?
With all the prose so far, not one person has addressed the two main reasons that this policy has been proposed:


 * To reduce WP:OFFICE and other out-of-process actions (which everyone agrees should be avoided when possible), by giving editors a tool to use for at least a chance of in-process deletion of material that is likely to otherwise require WP:OFFICE or other out-of-process action.
 * To prevent editors from being put in the difficult position of having to either (1) accept and countenance and argue to Keep material which is inhumane, or (2) argue that policy should be ignored. (Many editors, including some of our best, really do take their pledge to follow policy quiet seriously, and this is painful and demoralizing bind in which to put them.)

No one has addressed these. Can anyone? Herostratus 16:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll try to offer refutations to what are seen as the salutary effects of this proposed guideline.


 * With respect to WP:OFFICE, office protections should only be used where there is an imminent legal issue, and, in such cases, editors already have sufficient tools to use to remedy problems. Other office protections have been imposed where there are questions as to NPOV or V/OR, and these such protections should be looked upon with disfavor; where there is no prospective legal culpability for Wikipedia or its editors, such as in the cases of Crystal Gail Mangum or Christopher Ruddy, we should, instead of creating another policy under which to effect the same outcome, argue against the use of office protection in such situations, where editing and sysop tools are sufficient to bring articles in line with policy (editing articles to remove unsourced, unencyclopedic, or POV material and blocking users who vandalize the articles or otherwise volitionally push POV).  WP:OFFICE plainly does not exist to protect, for example, living subjects from having information about them disseminated on Wikipedia, but only to ensure that information provided, especially about living subjects, can be sourced and is encyclopedic.  It is true that WP:OFFICE does seem to suggest that office protections may be employed to show kindness toward biographical subjects, but such showing is only cursory/pro forma, toward the end of avoiding conflict; in the end, encyclopedic and sourced information may be added, irrespective of the wishes of a biographical subject (see Daniel Brandt and the sundry associated AfDs).  In sum, WP:OFFICE does not exist to prevent the sorts of editing against which this proposed guideline would counsel; it exists primarily to protect Wikipedia from legal [cf., broadly, public relations] harm.


 * With respect to the conflict between policy and personal concerns, this is the point on which we will never find consensus in the community writ large, in view of which this guideline is destined to fail. One must understand that there are many editors like me who do not see the publication of verifiable, accurate, and encyclopedic information as inhumane and who categorically believe that the dissemination of truth is never evil, whatever may be the consequences of such dissemination.  For us, then, the project is not at all about having to balance one's personal feelings with one's desire to create a complete encyclopedia; we cannot, I suppose, understand why one would find him/herself in a "painful and demoralizing bind", or, at the very least, cannot abide the suggestion that one may, while working on the project, have any goal different from that of improving the dissemination of information.  At the end of the day, there are going to be those who believe that encyclopedia should exist toward the betterment of mankind and who participate in the project toward that end, and there are going to be those of us who believe the encyclopedia should exist only to provide information, inasmuch as such provision is generally beneficial to mankind, even as specific instances may be altogether harmful; in any case, we are going to believe that providing information can never be evil.  Because each group is relatively large, the two views can never be reconciled or even conflated to form an overarching policy, and so we must settle on the greatest common denominator (i.e., the broadest conception of the encyclopedia on which all can agree).  Here, all can agree that the encyclopedia exists to disseminate information, and that such dissemination is generally seen as good, but some believe that specific dissemination can be evil, and others don't.  We are left, then, with a consensus as to the former proposition but not as to the latter.  Finally, it may be said that, even as I, for example, don't feel the need to comport my editing with my moral views, others may, and so WP:NOT EVIL should be something that they may cite in order that they should not have to choose betweeen breaking their commitment to policy and compromising their moral views.  Because I firmly believe that those moral views have no place here, I can't abide the suggestion that we ought to give editors a tool in order that they might preserve categorically their integrity; the use of such tool would be inconsistent with the encyclopedia I envision.  Joe 16:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Joe for your cogent and considered reply. If I may make a couple of points in reply:
 * "...office protections should only be used where there is an imminent legal issue..." Maybe they should, but they aren't, always. Well, maybe WP:OFFICE is, but personal intervention by Jimbo and out-of-process actions aren't, for sure, which is what I also meant to include. As far as I'm concerned an out-pr

Jimbo dumped the Brian Peppers article by fiat, and approved the deletion of the Lolicon image by fiat, and neither of those involved imminent legal action
 * "...we should... argue against the use of office protection in such situations, where editing and sysop tools are sufficient to bring articles in line..." Well, arguing against office actions is probably not very effective. If I thought that editing and sysop tools were sufficient, we wouldn't be here. They're not, always. We should always be looking for ways to use them more effectively and to provide new ones where there's a gap, and WP:NOT EVIL is exactly just such an editing tool, a small one of perhaps limited use, but useful in certain limited situations where other tools won't reach.
 * "It is true that WP:OFFICE does seem to suggest that office protections may be employed to show kindness toward biographical subjects, but such showing is only cursory/pro forma, toward the end of avoiding conflict..." I'm not sure that that's true. I think that some WP:OFFICE actions, direct interventions by Jimbo, and out-of-process admin actions with Jimbo's tacit approval -- and I basically include all these together under WP:OFFICE for shorthand, perhaps I should be clearer on that, but the effect is the same -- have been made for the sake of simple human kindness, nothing else.
 * And if it can be shown not, then scratch "to eliminate WP:OFFICE actions" and substitute "because WP:OFFICE actions are not taken in these matters" - an entirel different point, but one that (if true) would make WP:NOT EVIL even more urgent.
 * "...we will never find consensus in the community writ large, in view of which this guideline is destined to fail..." If by that, do you mean that consensus to apply WP:NOT EVIL in a particular case will never be achieved? If so, no worries for you. But let's a least give it a try.
 * For some of your other points, see "I'm not an amoral person..." below.
 * But a key point is well taken: we both agree (I think) that Wikipedia should be a benefit to humankind, otherwise, why bother? We don't have stock in it. We probably would both agree (I think) that a hypothetical Bizarro Wikipedia which only allowed hurtful, hateful, destructive, evil material could not achieve this end. We probably would both agree (I think) that an encyclopedia that allows some hurtful, hateful, destructive, evil material can still be beneficial. The question is, can or does such information detract from the value of the whole? I say yes, you say no. I'll have more to say about this later. Herostratus
 * But why? Why do you want to abandon your basic sense of what's right when you open Wikipedia? I'm imagining this scene being played out in the homes of Wikipedia editors:
 * "Hi Honey, how was your day?"
 * "Oh, the food bank was busy, the homeless shelter was a madhouse, but reading time at the orphanage was nice."
 * "OK, relax, dinner will be ready in half an hour."
 * "OK, I'm gonna edit Wikipedia for while then. I've got some new close-up pics for the Bloody evisceration article I wanna upload, a new link for the Gang rape advocacy article, and I dug up some more methodologies for the Teen suicide advocacy article."


 * Advocacy is a biassed term. Those articles would no doubt go under WP:NPOV. - Drrngrvy 00:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is healthy? What's wrong with this picture? Is it just me, or does this seem out of kilter? Herostratus 23:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (I'm replying here to Hero's response to my responses to his queries, as our formatting has gone largely awry) Your question apropos of why I bother with Wikipedia is a fundamental one that must be posed, and it is one's answer to this question that likely determines one's views on this proposed guideline; I am surprised that the question hasn't been posed previously and think your posing it to be representative of a profoundly incisive mind.  We edit, I think, for different reasons.  I edit from self-interest, at least tangentially.  I enjoy, for reasons about which I'm not altogether sure, learning, and I think Wikipedia to be an excellent   edification tool.  I believe that my editing, for reasons I can enumerate but will omit here for space, encourages others to edit, producing a better encyclopedia, one from which I derive a benefit.  I also enjoy partaking of the intellectual environment here, finding stimulation in editing articles, offering responses at the Reference Desk, and, of course, discussing proposed guidelines.  I am not of the Walesian belief that there is anything particularly noble about our offering the sum total of human knowledge to everyone; I am concerned primarily about the availability of that knowledge to me.  Even were I of your mind with respect to the encyclopedia as a tool, ultimately, of some meta-good (where such good is understood as somehow distinct from a simple dissemination of information), I would nevertheless think this guideline to be inappropriate, but, as you say, on that question one may offer more later.  With respect to WP:OFFICE, if indeed one accepted that the fashion in which the protection is currently used (either as an appropriate use or as a fait accompli), then perhaps the use of WP:NOT EVIL (in order that community consensus might determine the disposition of an article) would be fine, and, indeed, preferred.  I am not, though, prepared to accept the fashion in which WP:OFFICE is currently used, and I will continue to avail myself of all discursive means to argue for our changing the policy.  If I should conclude that WP:OFFICE, in its current fashion, is here to stay, I might reconsider my views on WP:NOT EVIL as a tool for allowing us to abide my our general policies and procedures and nevertheless (in process) to remove articles that would otherwise be office-protected or -removed.  Fundamentally, I suppose, our "basic sense[s] of what's right" are very different (as you will surely appreciate from a reading of my reply to "I'm not an amoral..." below); remarkably, your facetious (and rhetorical) third example of a Wikipedia conversation at home is not at all ridiculous to me--I have, indeed, edited several articles here in order that they should not reflect an anti-suicide POV and have recently argued (here and here that we oughtn't to have any official policy for dealing with editors who declare here their intentions to commit suicide and that we oughtn't, as a  rule (and under the color of adminship) seek to dissuade anyone who announces such intention from killing him/herself.  Our visions of the encyclopedia cannot, I think, be reconciled, and so I continue to believe that we must devolve our ideas to the points at which we do agree, as I explain above.  Joe 04:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

BLP
Many concerns listed here (real names, info on their children, details of personal life, tele #, address) are already taken care of by:
 * Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while marginally notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. from Biographies of living persons. WAS 4.250 18:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, some. Not all. Herostratus 21:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Cartoons are incapable of being evil
Cartoons are incapable of being evil, no matter what the cartoon is of. Behavior can be evil, not data. Calling data evil is an excuse for censorship as surely as communism has been an excuse for dictatorship. WAS 4.250 18:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your belief if you really believe that (see "I'm not an amoral person..." below), and remind me not to let my kids play over at your house. All I'm saying (again) is I should have the right and power to respectfully disagree within Wikipedia policy. Again, its not about whether driving traffic to images of small children being violently raped, presented in an approving manner, is evil. Its about whether it can be reasonably argued that it's evil. I've said this many times... Herostratus 21:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, cartoons are only lines on a piece of paper. They cannot of themselves be evil. However, the intent of the artist in drawing them, or the transmitter in placing them wherever they are, might well be evil. Runcorn 12:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Point of Veiw
Although it may be cliched, I think that this is in need of some Star Wars advice: GOOD IS A POINT OF VEIW. Conversely, that means EVIL is a point of veiw. What most consider good and acceptable could horrify and insult me to no end. Having Wikipedia not be "Evil" would never satisfy everyone, as evil and good are not definite: they change with the perception of the person. Dee man45 21:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See below. I don't pick up babies by the ankles, swing them around, and pop their heads open against a wall, fun as I suppose that would be. But I guess that's just a personal quirk of mine, right?


 * Star Wars, good grief. What about Socrates, Spinoza, Kant, Heiddiger, is that asking too much? You know, smart people have wrestled with the question of "what is evil" and come up with more than that's it's just a point of view. How about letting this discussion be an opportunity for a little autodidactism, people? Herostratus 21:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. WAS 4.250 23:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a quotation out of context. The Hebrews are weeping as they recall how the Babylonians massacred their babies, and are hoping that they will be done by as they did. Not a great sentiment, but understandable in the circumstances. Runcorn 12:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Socrates
The ultimate aim of Socrates' philosophical method is always ethical. Socrates believed that if one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good. Thus if one truly understands the meaning of courage, self-control, or justice, one will act in a courageous, self-controlled and just manner.

The corollary to this view is that all vice, then, must be due to ignorance. Nobody, he believes, knowingly does what is wrong: they always think that what they are doing is right. Can you imagine someone saying, for example, "I know that this act is completely wrong and totally wicked, but I am going to do it anyway." In fact, even the person who performs the most heinous acts imaginable always thinks that he is doing them for some good reason.

It follows that Socrates could never accept the possibility of what Aristotle would call "moral weakness" (acrasia)--that is "knowing the good and yet doing the evil." In his view, we deceive ourselves into thinking that the evil we do is actually good, so that we can justify our wicked actions. In this sense, the evil-doer neither really knows what the good is nor does he intentionally choose evil

Spinoza
from his book ethics....As for the notions of good and evil, they exist, but only to the extent that they fit our own personal inclinations. "Such things as please us, we denominate good, those which displease us, evil...

LadyofHats 00:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Kant
...According to Kant, freedom to do evil for evil’s sake is no freedom at all, but a compulsion to immorality, which turns the agent into a wanton and nullifies the attribution of responsibility to her actions.... ...Thus, while sensibility “comprises too little” as a ground of evil, a corrupt reason “comprises too much”. Only the will can be its source –a will, indeed, which is susceptible to the influence of both sensibility and reason, but which is determined by neither, since it is free to give itself a form....

complete text here LadyofHats 00:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh-hunh. I'll take a look at this, but the first thing that springs to mind is this: Wikipedia talk:NOT evil. How do you explain the difference. What's the deal? Herostratus 01:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

deal? well, my opinion remains my opinion, knoledge should be always neutral,free and general. but i wanted to answer to your text "...Star Wars, good grief. What about Socrates, Spinoza, Kant, Heiddiger, is that asking too much?..." Personaly i think Starwars is as valid as the bible, or socrates, or kant, or the president. dee-man just tryes to give his opinion and uses something everyone else knows as example. I find your answer not only agresive but unfair, so i desided to give you what you asked. As you may notice i completly agree with Socrates, as you may also notice Dee man seems to agree more with Spinoza thinking that Evil is only a point of view. in my opinion evil is more a value judgment independent from the act itself. I would actually prefer to go back to the real subject on this dicusion and to stop insulting everyones way of life. we are not here to define what is moraly correct nor to know where you like to send your kids to play. the discusion is weather WP:EVIL would be a constructive and positive reform for wikipedia. and i say NO.
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to be aggressive, I apologize. I was just wondering about the stylisitic difference between your earlier post and the later post, uh I guess the latter was a paste, which is fine, sorry. I'll address the substance soonest.Herostratus 21:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"I'm not an amoral person, but I play one on Wikipedia"
Here is a recent quote from an editor, but I think I can say without fear of contradiction that it succinctly summarize what many editors have been saying:

"...[We] categorically believe that the dissemination of truth is never evil, whatever may be the consequences of such dissemination."

That would be more acceptable if that is how you really live your lives. I don't believe it, frankly.

I call bullshit.

Do you rat out out your coworkers? Do you tell Timmy that Spot suffered horribly before he died? Do you tell your neighbors exactly what you think of them? Do you give porn to your kids? Do you tell the neighborhood pusher when the cops are nearby? Do you tell Lisa what grandma's corpse looks like after six months underground?

Well why the hell not? It's all true information, and "the dissemination of truth is never evil", right? Or maybe you don't do these things solely because of fear of the law or of other retaliation?

I don't believe it. I call bullshit. You're better than that.

While I'm sure that there are sociopaths and amoral persons editing Wikipedia, I'd guess that their representation is even lower here than in the general population; most amoral persons are too busy running corporations or being guests of the state, and anyway there's no incentive for a sociopath to be a good Wikipedia editor.

So what's going on?

Wikipedia is WP:NOT supposed to be a playground for people to work out their fantasies of a world without moral responsibilities. I know that the world is full of annoying and constraining rules, but Wikipedia is WP:NOT supposed to be a fantasyland escape from all that. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a place for people to play at being amoral, and its destructive to the project for people to imagine that it is, in my opinion.

Yes I know that on teh interwebs nobody knows you're a dog. Hell, I'm Floyd Alvis Cooper, I think I know something about playing around with an outrageous persona on the web.

But Wikipedia is not supposed to be like that, otherwise how can it make the internet not suck?

So cut it out. Come to argument from where you really are, otherwise I cannot engage you. Herostratus 21:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You're making many assumptions here, I think. Just to argue the examples you mentioned:
 * Do you rat out out your coworkers?
 * No, but if your coworkers are doing wrong, then it's OK for other people to catch them and publish the details of what they've done wrong. The information is on the table.
 * Do you tell Timmy that Spot suffered horribly before he died?
 * Probably not until he's old enough to deal with it, but how Spot died should go on his death certificate. Out on the table (no morbid pun intended).
 * Do you tell your neighbors exactly what you think of them?
 * If it's not asking for trouble then why not? Then again, you're assuming you tell them something biassed, which is already covered.
 * Do you give porn to your kids?
 * Porn is either visual or fictional, which Wikipedia is not. That isn't contested.
 * Do you tell the neighborhood pusher when the cops are nearby?
 * The closest I can imagine information fit for an article could get to that analogy is the kind of stuff we find in the news all the time - stuff like 'Army closes in on Bagdad', 'Police search for crack den in London'. That said, if it gets the pusher to move on then it's probably best to massage their paranoia. I'm slightly baffled by that analogy though!
 * Do you tell Lisa what grandma's corpse looks like after six months underground?
 * Don't tell Lisa the second her grandma stops breathing, but definitely put up information about decomposition, no doubt about it. Should we remove the article on gangrene too? The information is definitely out on the table here.
 * The point is that either this proposal is already covered, or you're into censorship, which Wikipedia is definitely NOT. - Drrngrvy 23:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Inasmuch as the quote about which Hero writes is mine, I think I ought to respond, and there are two primary objections I have to Hero's characterizations: (1) I do indeed undertake much of the conduct he suspects one wouldn't, at least where the benefit to me outweighs the cost; and (2) extra-Wikipedia actions ought in no way to be relevant to Wikipedia activities. Hero, I suppose, propounds the idea that we cannot--or ought not--to divorce our Wikipedia selves from our extra-Wikipedia selves; I disagree entirely.  Even as participation in this project is wholly volitional, we are, as I understand it, here to do a job.  Just as a judge who strongly opposes abortion and realizes that his applying Roe v. Wade is likely to result in undertakings he views to be sins, in which sins he is a (passive) participant nevertheless acts as he must, consistent with his job, so must we do things that we might otherwise find objectionable (although I'd likely not find most of the things of which Hero writes objectionable in any case).  Perhaps it reflects poorly on me that I am so readily able to separate views I might otherwise hold from the job I must do here, but I think many here are similarly able and realize that it is necessary to the production of a good encyclopedia that one edit dispassionately.  Why, then, do I demand a good encyclopedia, containing even information the revelation of which might harm others?  Because I want ready access to this information, and I realize that my participation within the guidelines I espouse encourages others to participate similarly, with the benefit to me that I may learn much from Wikipedia; this learning, for whatever reason, makes me happy.  But, with respect to Hero's questions, let me offer thoughts on each (these thoughts are, I think, wholly irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but, inasmuch as there is nothing I dislike more than the infirmity confirmed by one's being intellectually inconsistent, I think I ought to explain how my Wikipedia philosophy does, for me, translate into "real life", even as I think the fact of such translation to offer little to our current discussion):
 * Do you rat out your coworkers?
 * I generally look with disfavor upon such ratting, inasmuch as "snitching" tends usually to cause the snitcher more harm than good. Would I, though, rat where some benefit would be conferred as a result and where I was altogether certain that my coworkers wouldn't learn of my ratting?  Of course.
 * Do you tell Timmy that Spot suffered horribly before he died?
 * If Timmy asks, I surely tell him. If he doesn't, I likely don't tell him, but only because the issue hasn't come up.  I happened to be a relatively precocious child and on several occasions informed similarly-aged friends that I was certain their pets hadn't simply "gone to live on a farm"; one doesn't take pleasure in such disclosures (though neither is one off-put by his/her having to make them), but one never feels bad about telling the truth.
 * Do you tell your neighbors exactly what you think of them?
 * Where my doing so causes me more harm than good, I do not (see, e.g., where my neighbor, for whom I don't care, shovels my driveway for me); where I have nothing to lose by telling my neighbors what I think of them, and where such telling improves my mood (even if only out of schadenfreude), I, of course, tell.
 * Do you give porn to your kids?
 * I don't anticipate that I'll have children, but certainly I wouldn't essay the protection of my kids from porn, not only because I've no moral objections to porn and don't believe its impact on its viewers--however young--to be anything but propitious (except in extreme cases [e.g., addiction, where the underlying illness, and not the porn in which it manifests itself, is the harm]).
 * Do you tell the neighborhood pusher when the cops are nearby?
 * Yes, except when I am induced (by the cops or a rival pusher, for example) not to tell. Here, in part because I find the proscription or regulation of the sale of any drug to be an infringement on, inter al., liberty of contract, I derive, somewhat inexpicably, a visceral pleasure from the frustration of the efforts of police and prosecutors to curb drug dealing/use, and so I certainly protect the pusher where I can.  Joe 03:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps thence, Hero, amongst others, will find me to be "amoral", but at least one will not suspect me of logical inconsistency or intellectual frailty. Joe 03:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikiethics
Wikiethics is would have been way more useful and much more clearly worded than this vague "every article should avoid being actively evil or serving an evil end." Do you want a real improvement or do you want to focus the talk discussions on "what is evil and what's not"? Raphael1 03:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting that a rejected proposal should be cited as being way more useful. Netscott 04:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you do remember WP:NBD. Raphael1 11:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes but for WP:NBD to apply there has to be community consensus to overturn the previous rejection, which I don't see here. Cynical 11:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, but maybe we get there someday. What do you think about Wikiethics vs NOT evil? Raphael1 12:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How about Ethics? Fred Bauder 17:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you should mention the wikiethics proposal since this appears to just be another reincarnation of that same proposal. Pegasus1138 Talk 18:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but it seems to be formulated very vaguely. Maybe it'll give the admins more power, because they can always call your edits evil, but I don't think this will help a lot. As you know, admins are already very powerful and can ignore the WP:3RR rule if they wish to do so. Raphael1 18:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The earlier proposal was conflated with the pictures of Mohammed controversy. We need to view this without reverence to any particular editing controversy. Fred Bauder 18:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The feeling I'm getting off this one is that it's still about the images, and if this passes the first action based off this will be an excuse to remove the images. Pegasus1138 Talk 18:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Pegasus1138, I'm almost 100% sure that the person that wrote this proposal is not in favor of using it to get rid of those images. I'm glad that you raised that concern. I can ask him to be sure. FloNight  talk  19:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's good news, isn't it? We do want to repeat report all incitement of religious hatred in the most offensive way we can, don't we? No policy should stop the majority to tyrannize any minority here or should it? Raphael1 20:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, not in the most offensive way we can, no. But WP:NOT censored. I address this issue below. Herostratus 21:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what the author of this proposal intended it to be used for. The fact is that it will be used for censorship based on moral (read POV) grounds.  That is what I'm opposed to.  -- noosphere 20:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. It's an interesting issue, and a tough issue, and it's a valid point. Here's my take on the issue:

The question of what is and is not "evil" is determined by consensus and preponderance of argument.

For instance, anyone can nominate (say) the portrait of George W. Bush for deletion under WP:NOT EVIL, with the argument This is evil. Probably someone will, and I do anticipate what I hope would be a small and brief flurry of WP:NOT EVIL for this purpose. (But, you know, people nominate the George W. Bush article on the grounds of non-notability or whatever anyway.) Anyway, that would be speedy kept, and if not, it would certainly be a near-unanimous keep on the grounds that WP:NOT EVIL doesn't apply.

But the Muhammed cartoons... they could very well and probably would be nominated for deletion under WP:EVIL.

So how did the original debate play out? I know it was lighting up the boards, but I didn't follow it. Was it close?

Anyway, a new debate under WP:EVIL would play out much the same, I suppose... except that deletionists could cite a policy. This would be an advantage to them. First of all, they might sway some fence-sitters. Second of all, they would get the support of some strict policy-followers (not all or even most, because WP:NOT censored would also apply, and one could choose which policy was more apt. But some.)

Hmmm.

In this case, I would maintain that WP:EVIL doesn't apply because the cartoons are not evil, and I expect that (as in the original debates) most Wikipedians would agree. Wikipedia-en, after all, is the English-language Wikipedia and presumably most editors draw their understanding of what is "evil" from the moral heritage associated with the English language: the Enlightenment and Age of reason and indeed Diderot's original encyclopedia, from Locke and Jefferson and and all that. After all, the idea that unfettered information is a social benefit underlay the first encyclopedia (in a time when that idea was quite radical), and all subsequent encyclopedias including this one.

I guess I wouldn't expect a huge differece in debate. WP:EVIL mostly works around the margins, I would not expect it to sway a large debate very much. But the problem mentioned is a problem, and I'm not sure how to fix it, exactly.

We could also have similar problems down the line with the Chinese (by this I mean spokesmen and lackeys of the PRC government). The Chinese party line (and a similar theory is held by many non-democratic regimes) is that information should serve a positive good, the supposed good being, I dunno, social cohesion or popular contentment or whatever - basically, whatever the party line is. It's partly for this reason that the proposed policy explicitly states:

"Any sub-part of Wikipedia should not strive to be actively good''."

So hopefully that takes care of the Chinese and like-minded folks, at least. Herostratus 21:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You are actually pleading for Majoritarianism which will, without any further policies like Wikiethics, eventually lead to a Tyranny of the majority. Raphael1 22:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What you are stating and have been stating from the beginning is that your view is correct even though nobody (as in strong consensus against) agrees with you you still contend that your right and screw consensus and screw how things work because your right and that type of stubborn attitude doesn't help and is actually harmful. Pegasus1138 Talk 22:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Is your comment addressed to Herostratus or Raphael? -- noosphere 22:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say he refers to me. But what should I answer to a plain ad hominem argument? Raphael1 22:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Raphael, who has non stop been striving against strong consensus and supermajority in any way possible (including attempting to create 2 policies and changing at least 3 or 4 existing ones) to support his views. Pegasus1138 Talk 22:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Pardon me? IIRC the only policy I tried to improve was Verifiability. Raphael1 22:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Should not strive?

 * Any article, category, project, image, policy, or any other sub-part of Wikipedia need not and indeed should not, however, by itself, strive to be actively good in this sense.

I query the 'should not'. Does that mean that if an article strives to be good, in the sense of trying to benefit people, it is in breach of policy? (Anyway, an article cannot strive, only its author and editors.) - Runcorn 19:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does mean that. Striving for an individual article to server a social good would put way too much pressure, conscious or subconscious, for the editor to let bias creep into his edits. Just the facts, please. The 'pedia as a whole will take care of the doing of good.


 * This is also included to make manifest that WP:NOT EVIL is a very different animal from a hypothetical WP:GOOD, which I presume would be properly rejected out of hand.


 * That being said, I don't expect any articles proposed for deletion on the grounds that the editor appeared to be striving to do good, if there's nothing else wrong with the article. I wouldn't worry about it.


 * True, an article cannot strive... however, we don't want unncessary words, I'd say it's clear enough IMO. Herostratus 21:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If I write an article, I can avoid the pressure if I want (need not ... strive). However, why shouldn't I take on the pressure if I choose to? Human nature being what it is, somebody will one day invoke "should not ... strive" against an article they don't like. I can't see that anything is lost by deleting it. - Runcorn 21:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, nobody can see inside your head when you're editing (although The Cabal is working on it (joke)). So, I mean, OK. In a sense the proscription is meaningless, I guess. It could be taken as an exhortation. I think its useful as a clarification of the intent and limits of the proposed policy. No, Runcorn, I think I can safely assure you that no one is ever going to AfD article with the notation "This article meets all verifiability and notability standards, good NPOV, fine writing, but I infer from his notes on the talk page or whatever that the editor was trying to perform a social good when creating this article, a violation of WP:EVIL, so delete." I mean, just trust me on this one, its not going to happen, and if it does the nominator will be told to go sleep it off. Don't worry. Herostratus 22:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you don't want that to happen, why don't we simply change that sentence to: "*Any article, ... need not and indeed should not, however, by itself, strive to be actively good in this sense." or remove it altogether? Raphael1 00:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Now here's something else
(On consideration, I elected not to publish the link and name here. The link would point to a former Wikipedia article, deleted by a WP:OFFICE action but hosted on another website, which gave the name and and a brief bio of the complainant in the Duke lacross team rape case.)

Check this out: [redacted]. This kind of bears on the crux of the matter,

Now, I visit AfD now and again. Suppose this article was up for AfD.
 * 1) I can't say it doesn't meet WP:V. The source traces back to Drudge, and there's no reason to believe it's not accurate.
 * 2) I can't say it doesn't mmet WP:BIO. "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events..."
 * 3) I can't just skip over the AfD entry and go on to the next. That would be weasely. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing -- Emerson
 * 4) I can't say "Delete as horrible, even though it meets all policy and doesn't violate any policy," After all, as an editor I agreed not to violate policy or suborn others to do so.
 * 5) I can't lie and say "Delete, doesn't meed {{WP:V]] (or WP:BIO or whatever)" if I think that it does. That would be dishonest.

What I would actually do is #4, because humanity trumps tacit agreement; after all I didn't take an oath. But I don't like having to do that, and it's a very bad precedent, and besides it would be to little effect, precisely because it would be fairly pointed out that I didn't have a policy leg to stand on, and besides WP:NOT censored.

And anyway, the article doesn't give out her address, her phone number, and the names and addresses of various of her relatives.

You have to click on the link for that.

Only she doesn't live there anymore. She moved, you see. She's in hiding, on the run somewhere in America.

Sure, the information was on the net anyway. Except, you know, most things in Wikipedia are on the net anyway. The point is that Wikipedia makes information easier to access, else why have Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia is now a very high-traffic purveyor of information. The fact is that putting information on Wikipedia greatly increases its visibility. And its lifespan. Drudge's article etc. will be archived soon enough, but a Wikpedia article may last for years and years. Soon enough the Wikipedia article may be the only source for [name redacted]'s identity.

You can ignore that fact, but that doesn't make it less true. You can say that it's not your problem, but that doesn't alter that fact that it is your problem.

Now here's where the question of social ill comes up ("Ill", by the way, is just a contraction of "evil"). Forget any evil done to [name redacted]; I realize that's not gonna cut a lot of ice with many of you, because meh she's just a person on the internet, that's not really the same as being a real person, and after all let's get our priorities straight here: WP:NOT censored.

After all, if a rape victim gets the 3:00 AM phone calls "You liked it didn't you bitch", the flattops driving slowly by the house, the rock in the window, that's a small price to pay. Everybody's got to make some sacrifice to keep WP:NOT censored, you know.

The question is, what happens when rape victims in general realize that if they report a rape by a notable person, or in a notable situation, or in a situation that might conceviably become notable - which is most cases, because you never know what the media is gonna pick up (I doubt that [name redacted] expected all this attention) - it's gonna mean a Wikipepedia article, on top of everything else. Highly visible and long lasting fame.

Fewer rapes reported. More rapes comitted.

But wait. WP:OFFICE. Oh, thank God for WP:OFFICE (or just an out-of-process delete by admin)! Daddy will come and make everything all right. And we promise to never, ever complain anymore about that ever again.

But wait. What about [Renchan? Isn't that a social ill? I've been assured by a couple of editors above that's there's always other ways, other policies to handle non-encyclopedia material. Not true. I deal with stuff like this all the time. I need this tool. I think its too bad that people who could use it would be denied it by their fellow editors. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 19:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused. Does the drudge report itself mention private details such as addresses and phone numbers? Andjam 00:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Actually, the reference/verification link is to a private web site which lists all that, and also links to Drudge. Drudge has the name and a pic and biographical info, at least, if not more. Herostratus 06:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not really a question of one's denying you the use of a tool by which to shrive (for lack of a better word) one's conscience either in view of his/her failure to comply with policy or his/her voting to keep information the presence of which he/she believes to be evil. One may, if he/she feels uncomfortable supporting the existence of an article or the presence of certain information in an article, elect not to participate in an AfD discussion, and so he/she need not to choose between his/her values and "Wikipedia values".  Plainly, this "tool" is not only a method by which one may live with him/herself and continue to edit Wikipedia but also a means by which to change existing policy, which doesn't generally apprehend any moral duty with respect to disseminating information.  I, for one, oppose the creation of this "tool" because it would help to produce a Wikipedia with which I would not be   a fan and that would be inconsistent with my conception of Wikipedia.  Perhaps some users will, no longer desiring to have to choose between their values and Wiki values, leave the project, but I am eminently confident that, in the end, we will be left with more and better editors where we maintain our policies as they are.  Joe 04:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not make into a policy
Honestly, I don't think I can contribute much to the discussion. Most of the points have been made by User:noosphere already. But I would like to comment anyway. The whole idea of this policy is based on the misconception that any specific act (or even piece of information) is easily recognized and agreed upon as being evil. This is not the case, as many have pointed out. To some, the World Trade Center incident was an evil act, while to others it was an act of divine justice. To some, the subsequent invasion of Iraq was an evil undertaking, while to others it was rigtheous revenge. I find it very unlikely that a new policy will be able to help the mediation between two so different points of view. Therefore I would support not making this into a policy or even a guideline. User:Manfalk

Where we stand I
Numbers. Here's where we stand by my count as of yesterday:
 * Oppose: 26
 * Support: 6
 * Support, but only if a guideline, not a policy: 1
 * Doubtful: 1
 * Other, neutral, unclear, just a comment: 9

Sorting opposition by reason, usually taking the thrust of the person's first comment if more than one: Herostratus 20:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Too subjective / POV: 8
 * Not needed / useless / policy creep: 5
 * Sanctimonious, pretentious: 3
 * Censorship: 3
 * Silly: 2
 * Itself evil: 1
 * Limiting: 1
 * Simplistic: 1
 * Polarizing 1
 * Joe: 1 (too complex to summarize)
 * My position, a categorical one, doesn't lend itself to simple placement as above, but could best be summarized as a belief that each of the "too subjective/POV", "censorship", "limiting", and, "itself evil" objections is appropriate and that each itself is a sufficient reason for which this should be adopted neither as a policy nor as a guideline. Conflating those objections, my best quasi-singular reason would be that "The dissemination of information, in my opinion, is never evil, and, while other editors have different subjective preferences, they ought not to be permitted to act on their personal points-of-view when determining what is encyclopedic and what is not.  The encyclopedia, for me, exists only to disseminate information, and that which happens as a result (even as a direct result) is of no concern at all to me." Joe 21:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Where we stand II
Here what I see as the main anti-arguments:
 * Could be used for innapropriate censorship.
 * In my opinion this has not and cannot be entirely refuted. It is possible. I (personally) think most would agree that it would or could not be used to for truly improper deletions, e.g. removing the picture of sexual intercourse from Sexual intercourse or whatever; if that happens the Leauge of Decency folks have taken over anyway and we're all screwed. I very much doubt that it would or could be used to delete simple porno type info (like the picture shown earlier on this page), but it is possible. However, the main problem is that it could be used to argue for deletion of stuff like the Muhammed pictures, and other things that offend religions sensibilities. This is a serious and cogent objection in my opinion.
 * Could be used for trolling.
 * That is possible. My guess is that this would not be a big deal, after perhaps an initial spike. But it can't be proven either way.
 * Could lead to sterile arguments about the nature and definition of evil.
 * That is possible. These arguments take place anyway, e.g. see Brian Peppers AfD. In my opinion WP:NOT EVIL would not lead to a huge increase in this sort of thing. But it can't be proven either way.
 * Pointless or unneccesary.
 * To that I would say, basically, if it is pointless or unneccessary, don't use it. If some editors find it necessary, that should be given more weight than editors who don't want it because they don't use it. So in my opinion this is not a very important objection, although instruction creep : the policy isn't true.
 * '''Gives editors an way to deal in-policy with the conundrum
 * In my opinion this has not really been sucessfully refuted, BUT on consideration I will grant that this not a very important benefit; I don't think that editors really agonize over this as much as I may have stated, although the situation is annoying at least. I think maybe I should have stated, it's not so much a moral quandry for editors as a frustration in dealing with material that they know will probably be deleted anyway, out-of-process, and not have a policy tool that will enable them to participate in the process by forstalling that on their own.

In summary, I think the basic core conflict is seen as between WP:NOT censored and WP:NOT EVIL. I don't think this is really true, and I have tried to argue that is not true, but I don't think I have succeeded - one reason being that, after all, I might be wrong.

I personally don't think that creeping censorship is or is likely to become a problem, in fact the problem is the opposite, that pointless and offensive (but not evil, so not addressed by this proposal) material is peppered around the 'pedia; and that WP:NOT censored is misunderstood as to what it is really supposed to mean, and interpreted too expansively.

But, I recognize that that is probably a minority position, that many editors fear creeping censorship, and that WP:NOT censored is very important to many editors.

Until or unless this is addressed, the proposal is unlikely to gain consensus, in my opinion. Herostratus 20:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hero is certainly correct that WP:OFFICE actions should be looked upon with disfavor as insufficiently involving the community writ large, and there is much to be said for our attempting to reform WP:OFFICE; the solution, though, for me, is not simply to give WP:OFFICE an imprimatur of support but rather to work to delineate more specifically the situations in which WP:OFFICE should be used (which certainly must be many fewer than one would apprehend now). Essentially, the suggestion that this policy would result in fewer actions where a community discussion is not had (as with office protections/deletions) is accurate as far as it goes, but the underlying assumption is that the community will act in the same way in which Jimbo, Danny, or a Foundation designee would otherwise act; where this is not the case, we can reasonably imagine that an office action will be taken.  The proposal, though, does not seem to consider that many WP:OFFICE actions might be wrong (with respect to Brian Peppers, for example) and that, rather than allowing editors to use as a deletion criterion the humanitarian principles which are sometimes invoked in the use of WP:OFFICE, we ought to encourage Jimbo, et al., to cease editing/deleting in consideration of humanitarian principles; otherwise, we're simply saying either that (a) we agree with the way in which WP:OFFICE is generally applied now but want not to feel impotent or (b) we don't agree with the way in which WP:OFFICE is being applied but, since it's going to be applied anyway, we should at least make ourselves feel as though we're making the decisions.


 * With respect to whether there is a conflict between the idea that WP is not censored and this proposal, I will say this: under our current policy (not as sometimes unilaterally amended under WP:OFFICE), where a subject is notable and information in an article is verifiable, we keep the article about that subject. Under WP:NOT EVIL, if, for example, it became clear that Brian Peppers was being harassed largely/exclusively because of our article or that he was certain to kill himself because of our article, editors would have a legitimate reason to vote "delete", leading, perhaps, to the censorship of an article to protect a subject.  If one indeed accepts the premise that the encyclopedia should work toward some "general good" (or at least avoid/limit harm where possible), perhaps this is the outcome he/she desires; for those who, like me, view the encyclopedia as solely a disseminator of information and are absolutely not concerned with whatever might the direct effects of editing, this will not be the desired outcome.  Joe 21:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn´t have stated my argument for this policy better than you (Joe) have if I had wanted to! As you say it boils down to:
 * do we want the Wikipedia to be uncensored
 * or is it more important that people are not "harassed largely/exclusively because of our article"
 * For me that isn´t really a question. I hope and believe that the majority of Wikipedians most obviously find the "general good" more important than the sole "dissemination of information"
 * -- Sean Heron 07:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I am eminently hopeful that the majority of Wikipedians care only about the dissemination of information and aren't particularly concerned about ancillary happenings.  I suspect the position which might draw a consensus would be somewhere in the middle.  I don't think most concur with my position that, were directions for the production of a nuclear weapon notable and verifiable (encyclopedic, notwithstanding WP is not a "how to" guide), we ought to include such directions, even where we can, ex ante, be entirely certain that millions will die as a result, likely to reflect that of the community; neither do I think that the position that, even where verifiable and notable, we ought not, as a matter of policy, to include the names of rape victims (as, e.g., in the Duke lacrosse article) likely reflects the views of the majority of Wikipedians.  Joe 04:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Where we stand III
Some other points:

So far, this discourse has been at a high level all round, and I congratulate all concerned.

Whether this proposal is accepted or not, I think everybody can relax about whether this would be a big change to the 'pedia.I feel confident that it would not be used much, if adopted. If not adopted, its not the end of the world either, as we continue to have WP:OFFICE and out-of-process deletion as a backstop.

I'd like to offer a compromise: as a compromise, would it be possible to adopt the proposal on a provisional basis, say for a month, with an automatic expiration date. If the proposal is not adopted in that time, it automatically moves back from provisional status to proposed status. I don't know if this have ever been done or could or should be done.

If the above is not acceptable, is there anything else that could be used to reduce WP:OFFICE and out-of-process actions? In my opinion this is fairly important, although it's not necessarily urgent to address this right away. I see Office and out-of-process actions as toxic and demoralizeing to the community. Not necessarily the actions themselves (most if which I support), but the fact of the community being cut out of the process.

One valid point of view, I guess, would be that WP:OFFICE and out-of-process actions just generally suck and should just be endured, deplored, and resisted to the (very limited) extent possible. If that's a general attitude, I guess... not much to say about that; I would urge people with this attitude to try to put themselves in the Foundation's shoes and consider with a mature attitude some of the perils and moral and practical difficulties one might face if one were Jimbo.

But if, like me, you see Office or out-process actions taken for reasons of legality, avoiding bad publicity, humanity, or just basic common sense as being sometimes necessary, is there another way, if WP:NOT EVILis not adopted, for the community to be more involved in this and to reduce the need for these actions? This is the core question. Herostratus 21:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To the extent that Hero dislikes WP:OFFICE actions (which, I suppose, are no longer out-of-process, since WP:OFFICE has now become its own process; perhaps it is better to say they are taken without respect to consensus and prior to the undertaking of a community discussion), I am altogether with him. I think, though, that we ought to oppose all WP:OFFICE actions taken for any reason other than to insulate the Foundation against lawsuit (see, e.g., the returning of a page to a bare iteration where the page was previously POV but would not be legally actionable), and that our discussion ought to focus on ways to avoid WP:OFFICE's being used to in view of concerns about morals, bad publicity, or common sense.  Joe 21:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to be flip, but along with "we ought to oppose all WP:OFFICE actions taken for any reason other than to insulate the Foundation against lawsuit", how about we also ought to oppose earthquakes. The Foundation will take what actions it deems appropriate. So you are advocating sterile opposition. Suppose this: suppose that WP:NOT EVIL is adopted, suppose it helps the community to block innappropriate material, and that the The Office gains confidence that the community will do the right thing, and becomes comfortable with not using Office powers to block infomation that has been accepted by the community. All this is possible (not very likely, since WP:NOT EVIL is not really going to change what people believe, but not out of the question either). The net result is a little bit more information is kept, maybe. Is that not preferable to simply deploring The Office? We live in a political world. Herostratus 03:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's settled that office protections/deletions will continue to be used for reasons with which I (with others) am uncomfortable. I think it's eminently possible that discussions can lead to a diminution of the untoward uses of office protection/deletion.  If I accepted that things would not change, I'd likely adopt your strategy, which likely has the benefit of keeping, as you say, a bit more information than might otherwise be kept, but I certainly don't think Jimbo, et al., to be wholly recalcitrant on this issue, and I certainly am not prepared to concede that things will, irrespective of the expressed wishes of Wikipedians, continue in the present fashion.  Joe 03:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is policy making for the sake of it
This has no practical benefit and people often complain that Wikipedia has more policies and guidelines than they can get to grips with. Strong oppose. Sumahoy 00:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Italic textI do agree with youthere, that's an intressting point.

Agreed. In my view, this really does amount to an elaborately argued defense of censorship, regardless of terminology. Very interesting discussion though on the part of all participants. --Klmarcus 13:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Beno1000 15:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Read WP:NOT. Wikipedia IS NOT a bureaucracy.


 * Yes, we have too many policies already. I see no point in this, and fear that it could be harmful by providing grounds for censorship and trolling. Runcorn 12:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

My 0.02USD
First off, this is a direct rip from Google. Anyone denying that is being foolish (go ahead, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL me all you want, I'm sticking by my assertion). Secondly, there is no overall gain from it. I can't possibly see an instance in which this policy could be invoked. I read that AfD example above, and I don't see how it'd affect things. Basically, that discussion is "I'm right," but then person B replies with "No, I'm right, and WP is good." To which person A just suddenly agrees...on the sole premise that the encyclopedia is good? I think not. It's also (as mentioned above) policy making for policy making's sake. I assume that most editors automatically think the encylopedia good, or they wouldn't be here working on it in the first place. The only people who'd think otherwise are the vandals, but we don't exactly need a policy like this to further back up our dislike for them. -- ^ demon [yell at me] / , 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Define evil in an NPOV way
What is evil? The definition (if it even exists) is very POV. And it's not wikipedia's place to be good or evil (however defined), only factual and informative.

Can't we just have a poll and reject this? --Nnp 23:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's not Wikipedia's place for Wikipedia (the encyclopedia as a whole) to TRY to be "good" or "evil", but we all assume that it's overall existance, all things taken into consideration, is "good". Right? Else why work on it? Why not ignore it or try to destroy it? And it is not the place of any PART of Wikipedia to try to be "good". However, it is ALSO not the place of any part of Wikipedia to be "evil" by casually ignoring or waving away actions that ARE evil. All this is stated in the proposal itself. Herostratus 18:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you really think Wikipedia is not good or evil, you should start a proposed policy page called Beyond Good and Evil. Jimpartame 04:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? Wikipedia already strives to be completely neutral and NPOV. Runcorn 13:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Runcorn, however, I fixed your policy proposal... --Nnp 15:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was reverted :( --Nnp 16:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not my policy proposal, but I do support it. Jimpartame 17:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Since we're trying to be fair here, let's just create a counter-proposal over at WP:EVIL ^ demon [yell at me] /13:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would you want Wikipedia to be evil? Jimpartame 12:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm, my friend. ^ demon [yell at me] /13:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I seems that your sarcasm is likely to be lost on many editors here, as they have indicated (at WP:BG&E and on this talk page) that the difference between "good" and "evil" is of profound indifference to them. I think they might feel differently if their streets were being patrolled by evil Nazi goons, but no matter. Since there's supposedly no difference between "good" and "evil", why NOT be evil? It's easier, more fun, and as a rule far more renumerative. If Wikipedia was willing to be evil... imagine the money that would come in to support smear campaigns and the like, just for starters. Herostratus 18:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Open Question Argument
Saying that "good" means "beneficial to humankind" is inaccurate. The sentence "That which is good is good" is obviously true, but it can meaningfully be an open question whether "That which is beneficial to humankind is good" is true. Therefore, "good" and "beneficial to humankind" are different properties. This policy is an instance of the naturalistic fallacy. Jimpartame 04:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cornell Realism maintains that we identify natural properties with moral terms, as rigid designators. This is what undermines the open question argument. Yesterdog 22:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Moral terms such as "good" designate non-natural properties. How can it be anything other than fallacious to confuse them with natural properties? Jimpartame 23:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

biggest problem?
the only problem with all of this is that Wikipedia IS evil. With all of the rules and all of the noise, what it still comes down to is a mob of people doing whatever they want as a mob, against reason, against fairness, against logic, and against truth. Theres no way to deal with abuse and no recourse for the abused. The place runs on ad hominems and pack psychology. It panders to the lowest common denominator, and in the end its articles are well neutered of any actual depth content or meaning. "Neutrality" as a buzzword is used to emascualte a topic so that it has no political implications or consequences. The same standing is given to a pov warrior and a pet admin as is given to a knowledgable expert. Opinion rules here, not wisdom, and not even any real form of neutrality. Wikipedia IS factually evil. The question here, is how to go about fixing that problem. Denial won't help.

Well, enough bothering with pearls and swine for today, my "contributions" file should speak for itself. I have been involved in 3 vfds since showing up, each one of which was run on ad hominems and straw man attacks. I have been blocked on trumped up charges by a pov warrior and his pet rogue admin. I have sought from every corner of Wikipedia some sort of actual problem solving process to adress patent abuses, all to no avail. Wikipedia is in fact evil, and it deserves to fail as an encylopedia unless it can solve its problems. Unless wikipedia can figure out how to not be a mob groupthink social experiment where any idiot, fool, con artist, or propagandist can assume equal footing with knowledge and fact, Wikipedia is just a big fat doomed social experiment, which will die because enough people will recognize that it is in fact evil, and go do better and more important things with their time, like start A REAL online Encylopedia that includes logic and knowledge and truth and basic criteria for defining abuse and basic methodlogies for dealing with it.

Prometheuspan 23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind me asking, why are you resorting to incivility? -- Master  jamie  00:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Question, why?
This addition as it stand seems to provide nothing at all. It doesn't suggest any changes or any guidance. Its simply a statement. This guideline suggests only that people not "serve evil ends" - which obviously lacks the understanding of the human psyche - noone thinks they are evil, everyone justifies their actions in their own mind. Fresheneesz 00:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Advisory material
OK, a added three points of advisory material to the guideline. The first bullet is just the definition provided early in this discussion, and thus is the definition from which further discussion has followed, so it should be unobjectionable.

The second bullet point seems obvious and should be unobjectionable, I would think.

The third bullet point would, I think, give short shrift to the superstitious and tyrranical, that is, for example, to those who object to material as being evil because it violates a religous superstition, and to those who object to material as being evil because it is uncomfortable to some government.

Thus perhaps some editors currently in opposition may be mollified.

I wrote the original proposal, and I have added this material. This is a wiki, so of course all material may be edited by anyone. But editing the material to mean something opposite to or significantly different from what I wrote, or adding material that contradicts the material I have added would, I think, be unhelpful as it would just muddy the issue, make the policy overly complicatated, and leave confusion as to what exactly was being discussed. Better, in my opinion, to just state opposition to proposal. (This doesn't apply to phrasing etc. -- actually I think the third point could be expressed more cogently by a better writer than I.) Herostratus 17:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "short shrift to ... those who object to material as being evil because it violates a religous superstition" Is it right to allow carte blanche to trample over religious susceptibilities and add insult to injury by condemning religion as mere superstition?
 * Is it right to allow carte blanche to trample over religious susceptibilities? Yes, of course; it's an encyclopedia. Condemning religion as mere superstition... did I do that? Religion is great -- I go to church regularly myself -- but it has to be consistent with the basic culture that gives rise to the concept of enclopedianism. That it, it has to be at core rational rather than based on faith, hoodoo magic, or whatever. The first encyclopedia, and all others that followed including this one, are partly intended precisely to exist in opposition to the political influence of superstitious twaddle like... if you look at a picture of the Almighty Prophet your beard will burst into flame (or whatever that recent contretemps was about), the Evil Eye, inane random relgious laws, etc. and the priestly classes that enforce them. Sorry. If you want to believe that stuff in private, be my guest, though. Herostratus 23:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot accept the above. Religion and encyclopaedias are far from incompatible. Many compilers of encyclopaedias have been people of deep religious faith. There are even whole encyclopaedias of religion. I suspect that many would regard the statement "Is it right to allow carte blanche to trample over religious susceptibilities? Yes, of course; it's an encyclopedia." as evil. True religion is nothing to do with superstition. --Runcorn 19:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Religion and encyclopedism are not incompatible, agreed. True religion is nothing to do with superstition, sort-of agreed, although it's complicated. Anyway, there are all ways of being religious. I mean, Wikipedia is pretty much bound to present (say) the objective evidence supporting evolution, which is going to trample on some people's religious susceptibilities. But that can't be helped. Can it? By "carte blance" I don't mean to say that anyone should go out of their way to trample on religious susceptibilities (that would POV anyway) but if some religious susceptibilities get trampled on in the course of presenting verified facts, that's life. I think the example in many people's mind is the Mohammed cartoons. But the objection to the Mohammed cartoons was basically that showing Mohammed's face is a (1) a violation of Islamic religious precepts (designed to prevent idol-worshipping) and/or (2) a violation of Islamic tradition, and thus causes pain to many Muslims. But an encyclopedia should not and cannot worry about precepts of individual religions and/or ancient traditions. It's too bad if this causes anguish to anyone, but if there is a valid encyclopedia reason for including material it should be included. We can't worry about what "many people" would say but what Denis Diderot would say, so to speak.Herostratus 03:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "For the purposes of this guideline, all of the above definitions may be assumed to be appended by the statement ...without commensurate gain in encyclopedic value." So the end justifies the means; if an editor thinks that by being evil, he/she can improve an article significantly, it's OK? --Runcorn 19:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No. If the editor can prove (to the satisfaction of enough fellow editors to achieve consensus) that by doing some evil she can improve the encyclopedia significantly, it's OK. The encyclopedia is important, after all, as is our implied pledge to help and not harm it. It's OK to cause pain, anguish, and material harm to (say) Warren Buffet by revealing his Nazi past (if he had one), because he's very important, has a lot of influence in Wall Street and thus on America, and has elected to be a public figure. (He still rates the protection of WP:BLP, though.) Therefore including info on his goose-stepping youth makes the encyclopedia better by a significant (though tiny) amount. Including info that causes pain, anguish, etc to (say) some poor shmoe who became an internet meme by doing something incredibly stupid doesn't make the encyclopedia better in any significant sense, or at least not enough to make dumping on the poor shmoe worth it. And so forth. Herostratus 23:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Telling the truth, respecting WP:V and WP:NPOV, is not evil. --Runcorn 19:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost always. But not always. It would be nice (and much easier) if flat broad statements could always cover our needs. Unfortunately for our poor overworked brains, in most human endeavors there are some outlying cases that break the rule. Like, for instance... "shooting someone is the face is evil". Usually. But not always. And so forth, with most things in life. Herostratus 03:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A Useless and Absurd Ideological Imposition Onto Wikipedia
This policy is an attempt to impose ideological guidelines onto Wikipedia, which represents at its core a violation of WP:NPOV. This policy not only accepts an objective definition of good and evil, which is highly debatable, it endorses one over the other. This policy allows Wikipedia users to use their own personal sense of morality to censor to perspectives of others, and therefore I vigorously oppose it. Are we going to turn an encyclopedia that prides on neutrality into humanistic propaganda? I may be opposed to superstition, I may be disgusted by the explotative mocking of the Star Wars kid and Brian Peppers, but that does not give me the right to censor the views of others. In fact, even though I bet most people share my disgust, that still does not give us the right to censor the views of others. That is a "tyranny of the majority" of the worst kind. As Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Besides, with or without wikipedia, Brian Peppers is still all over the internet. If wikipedia removed its article on holocaust denial as "evil", which I think it is, or removed all arguements for holocaust denial from the article, holocaust denial would not cease to exist. However, when neutrality is maintained, it is obvious to any sane person that the holocaust happened. But you can't ignore debate, even if it is nonsensical and deceptive, because whether you deny it or not, it exists, just like the holocaust. So excluding opinions because they appear, from your perspective, invalid, or even harmful, is only denying human nature. People believe crazy things, and if you look at them from an neutral point of view, they do appear crazy, but if you stiffle them, hurts the discrediting of them, and steels the resolve of their proponents. Furthermore, as wikipedia does not allow material not notable and verifiable from reliable sources, and recquires NPOV, and has strict guidelines for bios of living persons, I don't see what all these poeple are talking about when they say that they have to choose between being a good wikipedian and a good person. You can't put slander on wikipedia, or publish anything not already public knowledge. Finally, proponents of the policy claim it will reduce the need for office actions. However, I would prefer the office to handle legal issues than a bunch of moral objectivist wikipedians. "Truth lives!" - The Ghost of Christmas Past, A Christmas Carol --Samael775 22:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, note that WP:BLP actually says "in borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be 'do not harm'". I do not object to this, because it is to be used only in grey areas on living persons, not as a sweeping ideological vendetta, and cannot be used to censor ideas or valid information. I see no reason why NO EVIL is needed with this guideline in BLP. --Samael775 04:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Samael775 puts some good arguments. However, Wikipedia is one of th emost widely-read web sites in the world. Something can be in the public domain in some obscure corner where few people will see it. If it is put on Wikipedia, it might be seen by far more people. hus I would be reluctant to put things that hurt people into a Wikipedia biography, or anywhere else here, if it would spread the knowledge too widely. --Runcorn 06:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Some observations and responses to the above:
 * No one is suggesting that articles about' evil things (such as holocaust denial) be removed. If there was an article which actively denied the holocaust, it would'' be removable under this guideline, but of course it would first be removed or edited under NPOV and verifiability policies.
 * "Ha ha, look at Brian Peppers, what a weirdo" is not a "point of view" in any meaningful sense. Beyond that, though, there are non-WP:BLP situations where this guideline could be applied. We can't show child pornography anyway because it's illegal, but we can link to child pornography. Should we?
 * Who is Evelyn Beatrice Hall? I thought it was Voltaire. And per the Advisory Material added to the guidline, Voltaire would be a guiding light of Encyclopedianis, but that doesn't mean if he were alive today he would say "I disagree with your decision to publish the launch codes for the United States Strategic Missile Command but I will defend your death your right to do so" or "I disagree with your decision to publish graphic photos of children being raped in a context that implies approval of such acts, but I will defend your death your right to do so". I mean, there is such a thing as being reasonable.
 * Look. Every human activity exists within a moral framework. It just does. You can't wave it away. I mean, instead of launching Wikipedia, Jimbo could have lauched a project to try to destroy the ability of the internet to provide free and neutral information. Would that have been the same as launching Wikipedia? No, of course not, one is good and the other is bad.
 * So what is the moral framework? Does Wikipedia exist in a Nazi moral framework? No, it does not. Does it exist in a Communist or Christian Fundamentalist or Scientologist etc. framework? No, it doesn't. It just doesn't, is all. It exists in an Encylopediast moral framework. It just does, otherwise it would have no reason to exist. What does that mean? That information is free, verified, neutral, and all that. But there is no reason that that has to be pursued to the point where it perverts or negates the purpose of Encyclopedianism.
 * Everybody... enough already with the Philosophy 101 "no objective definition of good and evil is possible" etc. Well of course; hell, no objective definition of anything is possible, and for that matter it's impossible to prove that the Universe even exists. But come on. Do I have drag out Hitler? Hitler=evil, OK? And don't give "can't prove that!" or I'll send the gestapo over to drag your sorry asses to a work camp and then see what you say. So, once you agree Hitler=evil it's then just a matter of deciding what else might fit the definition.
 * Runcorn makes a good point, I think. Herostratus 09:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "This policy not only accepts an objective definition of good and evil, which is highly debatable, it endorses one over the other." Yes. Fred Bauder 11:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Which makes it an NPOV violation. --Samael775 22:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Do I think Hittler is evil, yes. But millions of people thought he was a hero. I also think that Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, the governement of China, and (to a lesser extent) George Bush are evil, but lots of people would disagree with me on that. My point is that once you codify an ideology into wikipedia rules, you open up the door for biased POV. I do not think wikipedia should link to child pornography, as it is illegal in most jurisdictions, and I don't want wikipedia getting into legal trouble. What about linking to Satanist websites? Some lot of people would argue that is evil. What about hosting pictures of the Muhammed cartoons on Wikipedia? You yourself say, people would agree only at the extremes. But what extremes? There was hardly a community consensus about Brian Peppers. So do we really want to turn afd debates into debates about the nature of good and evil? You claim that the morality you are endorsing is an "encyclopedic morality", but does that represent a worldwide, neutral point of view? You claim that the only real application of this rule would be to reduce the need for oa's, but wouldn't you prefer the office handle legal issues? And by the way, the quote is EBH, but its often misquoted because its from a biography of Voltaire. --Samael775 21:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, remember that NE says you can be evil if there is a commensurate gain in encyclopedic value. However, you're not supposed to put anything on wikipedia if there isn't a gain in encyclopedic value, making this rule completely useless. --Samael775 22:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely Himmler did have a strong definition of what evil is, and that was the jewish world conspiracy and communism. All he did was fighting this evil while retaining his high moral standards, e.g. he did not embezzle any money. He must have had a strong believe in good and evil, and that is my point: it all starts with the strong believe in knowing what is good and what is evil. While individuals and groups have to agree on certain rules as how to behave in situations, non of these rules will ever be able to determine what is implicitly evil, because if such thing exists at all, it is outside of the human domain. Herbert heart 08:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not at all sure that Himmler thought he was doing good. Historians differ on whether Hitler and his gang did know that they were evil, but many do believe that Hitler's demeonor and remarks at certain times indicate that he did. It's doubtful to me that Himmler ever, toward the end, sat back and said to himself "Well we have lost the war and I personally may be destroyed, but at least I have contributed something good to the world." In Himmler's case, he was no philosopher and all his psychic energy was directed toward getting and keeping personal power, I think. One indicator that the Nazis did know that were doing evil is the lengths to which they went to keep the holocaust secret. There wasn't really any good reason to do so, especially if they thought it was an active good. We can see this in ourselve; things we do that we know are wrong we tend to keep secret; when we perform good deeds, even if they might be unpopular, we tend to let the world know. Of course there may be practical reasons for keeping good deeds secret, so its complicated. But it's untrue, in my opinion, that everything we do we think is good else we would not do them. We also do things that we know are bad, becuase they bring us pleasure or profit. As to what is good or evil, I think that we do know that, although its hard to put into words. Of course the definition of good and evil are partly determined by culture, but so be it. We live in the culture of the modern West, and it is from that that we take our concept of what is evil, which is basically the definition given in the essay. Herostratus 13:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is the Wikipedia made for, by and meant to be only for the "Culture of the modern West"? I hope not and if it is then I am at the wrong place. I thought that people from Syria are invited to participate. If something would actually deserve the "evil" attribute, then it should be globally evil. Otherwise it is probably just unlawful or of bad taste which again is culture dependent. If somebody settles on something as being "evil", he or she will probably not change his/her mind, at least not easily. The devil is evil, and he will always be - that's it. I think it makes more sense to define certain specific goals for the Wikipedia and judge entries by how good they serve these goals. One good existing goal is the NPOV. Trying to "not be evil" may very likely be contra-NPOV. Because if you regard something as being evil you are not neutral. Wikipedia should be a collection of facts. Attempts of "good-doing" may just introduce an unwanted bias. If there were "evil-doers" that would actually use Wikipedia to distribute word-viruses and use other mind-print methods in order to secretly take over the world, then this would certainly oppose to other Wikipedia policies. No need to use the childish "evil" phrase as in "axis of evil" or in the Google policies (in Google terms it is "evil" to present floating ads while it is certainly "good" to collect all personal data that they can possibly get their hands on in order to take over the world). Herbert heart 15:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if Himmler personally embezzled money, but the Nazis stole untold millions of marks' worth of property; there are stil restitution claims in progress.--Runcorn 19:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, of course the Nazis committed many offences against established human rights. But yet they thought they were fighting "evil", as Hitler wrote in "Mein Kampf" about the jewish: "[...]the impersonation of the devil as the symbol of all evil". I think that insisting on the fact that something is "evil" is a first indication of paranoia. Herbert heart 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course the Wikipedia is made by the culture of the modern West, and made for anybody who wants to use it. What other culture would it be made by? Obviously anone from any culture whatever can edit Wikipedia, but they have to accept certain basic values. If an editor comes in with the attidude of (say) The People's Government serves the Cause of Justice, and so only information approved by the People's Government should be included that would not be so good. Right? But many, many are of the opinion that only information that serves my tribe, my country, my party, my religion, etc. should be disemminated. That is probably a majority opinion in the world. But it is not the Wikipedian or Encyclopediast opinion. It is basically the Modern opinion. I say "modern West" because the culture supporting the Encyclopediast ideology sprang from there, but of course this has spread. Perhaps just "Modern" would be better, but anyway that's why I use the term Encyclopediast. In fact I was specifically thinking of the Chinese, but also of people who want to censor information for any ends. However, not all removal of information is censorship in the sense usually meant by the term. That is what it seems hard to get people to understand. If I remove (say) the street address and home telephone number from the article of a notable person who, if these were known, would be in danger, that is not "censoring" in any real sense of the term. But many Wikipedians do think that that would be "censorship", and since Censorship Bad, that material should go in, assuming it passes verifiability and notability tests. But that's an absolutist point of view, held by people who can only see black-or-white and not shades of meaning, in my opinion. Thus, by what criteria would we withhold this harmful information? Only that by common sense we can see that it would be wrong to include. Herostratus 20:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If - for example - you remove an article about a girl who was a star in a game show but it has been decided that the article is not relevant, that girl might be so disappointed (her mentioning in the Wikipedia was her only proud) that she commits suicide. Have you done something "evil" and therefore opposed to the "NOT evil" policy? Your intend was not meant to be "evil" but at least the deletion was cruel, wasn't it? To avoid such moral confusions it would be beneficial to avoid moral categories from the start and stick to certain (fexible) rules. Herbert heart 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. Herostratus 03:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I just found one definition of "evil", which would make sense in regard to the "NOT evil" policy, it's from Jean Baudrillard's "Simulacra and Simulation", page 6:

Such would be the successive phases of the image: it is the reflection of profound reality it masks and denatures a profound reality it masks the absence of a profound reality it has no relation to any reality whatsoever: it is its own pure simulacrum In the first case, the image is a good appearance - representation is in the sacramented order. In the second it is an evil appearance - it is of the order of maleficence. In the third, it plays at being an appearance - it is of the order of sorcery. In the fourth, it is no longer of the order of appearances, but of simulation.

But of course this is a very "specialized" definition of "evil" and in fact it is not what one (or a least I) would expect to be what "evil" means. However, another policy could be derived from Baudrillard: "Wikipedia shall be the reflection of profound reality, a good appearance with representation in the sacramented order." I predict however, that the three other orders of simulacra will pretty soon take over the Wikipedia. Herbert heart 19:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Now, now. Courage. Herostratus 19:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Point of view versus harm
In most instances a distinction can be drawn between opposing points of view and questions of harm. Let us consider a snuff film, a film depicting a killing done for the purpose of making the film. We have a article about this, perhaps mythical in practice, subject. We ought not to produce a video as an example. We can work back from this extreme example to instances where we might simply be avoiding emotion distress on the part of subjects of our articles. Fred Bauder 23:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is POV
The very policy of NPOV is an ideological statement, and in world-historical terms a radical one at that. If you ask the Chinese goverment (and many other governments) or their supporters, they would say that information must serve society and contribute to the people's education, advancement, and happiness. Which sounds reasonable at first blush, until you consider that it is some President-For-Life who does the deciding about what is good for society and the people.

Even the idea that information should not be controlled, though, is just a different way of ordering information for good. Each individual person decides what they want and overall effect is better than if some priestly or bureaucratic class tries to decide, or if some long-dead writers of scripture decide. Supporting this (modern and radical) idea is the (modern and radical) moral precept that it's a natural right for individuals to have access to whatever information exists in the world.

Because this idea has swept the Western world over the last few centuries, people forget how new and radical it is, and that in world terms it's still probably a minority position.

Anyway, the idea that NPOV is just something that is, like oxygen, is just not so. It applies to information in Wikipedia, not to the structure and processes that put the information there.

The encyclopediast ideology is just as much an ideology as communism or fascism or Catholicism or whatever. It just is. And it's WP:NOT EVIL.Herostratus 19:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

And your point is...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.105.7.206 (talk • contribs).

That the claim made above that this article represents a POV (true) and is therefore unacceptable (false) doesn't stick. Herostratus 13:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Status of this article: downgraded to Essay
Uh, I don't think you can put a big red X on an article that hasn't been sucessfully refuted. The "lack of activity" is mainly due to the Nays having given up. But although voting is evil, I'm OK with downgrading this to Essay status. The "Important to Wikipedia" I just put up because I saw it at WP:SNOW -- I thought I had discovered a new toy. However, the placement of the same message at WP:SNOW's bete noir, WP:PI, led the removal of both (for now), so we'll let that go. Herostratus 01:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that that's one of the things historical was for--proposals where discussion just sort of died down without anything getting agreed on. In any case, though, essay is fine.  The "important to Wikipedia" box you put in originally came from Ignore all rules, where it was created because of constant bickering over that page's status and the bizarreness of having a rule that instructed people to ignore all rules.  It wasn't created as a template and wasn't intended to be used anywhere else, but someone copied it out of IAR and it somehow, er, 'snowballed' from there. --Aquillion 03:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How did this even make it to essay status? I'd never given up.  I'd just moved on to other things since half my points were never even addressed.  I thoroughly and absolutely reject this, as have most of the people who've commented here.  So why isn't this thing marked as rejected per the consensus?  -- noosph e re 22:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if you don't agree, an essay "is any page that is not actionable or instructive, regardless of whether it's authorized by consensus. Essays tend to be opinionated."(WP:POLICY). However, because this was a proposal that failed consensus, I think it should have both the essay and historical tags. --Samael775 23:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It didn't fail consensus, at all; discussion just went dead. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Numbers matter, but so does preponderance of argument. I think any disinterested third party would likely agree that the preponderance of argument lay with the "pro" side. Herostratus 01:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Preponderance? Does that mean your arguments are better? I disagree. Also, I don't think there are many "disinterested third parties" because a policy affects all wikipedians. It says is WP:POLICY "A historical page is any proposal for which consensus is unclear, where discussion has died out for whatever reason", which seems to fit here. However, I don't want to be beauracratic, it doesn't really matter if the page has the historical tag or not, I was just proposing putting both tags on the page as a compromise. I don't really care as long as you don't claim it has consensus, which essays don't. --Samael775 03:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I don't see it as a compromise, though, so no, but thank you anyway. Herostratus 03:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A proposal that fails to meet consensus is, de facto, a "rejected proposal". This page has been a "proposed policy" from the beginning (see edit history). Ergo.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How the hell does it look to have "Wikipedia is Not Evil" tagged as rejected. Stop harassing me. I don't screw with your essays. Herostratus 13:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Harassing" you? Where on earth did you get that idea? I was reading an Arb case where someone made a misguided point that several pages were "non-rejected essays". On investigation, it turns out that one of those (i.e. this one) is in fact a rejected proposal masquerading as an essay. This was a policy proposal; it was rejected; you do not get to hide that fact simply because you dislike it. How does it look? Any journalist worth his salt knows that just because something has a favorable title doesn't mean it has favorable content.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, not only was this essay not rejected, any neutral fair witness would have to conclude that that "anti" arguments were defeated and defeated badly. After all, simple common sense tells us that Wikipedia shouldn't be evil and this is the moral force behind WP:BLP which is policy. Voting is evil (right?) so numbers do little or nothing to change this. However, not everyone believes that, so rather than get into a long dispute with the you're-outvoted crowd I just downgraded it, which was the sensible thing to do. Herostratus 14:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What is this "downgrading" that you speak of, is that defined anywhere?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A bold new concept I guess. Anyway, I guess you have a point, to an extent. Looking over the history it looks like it was never rejected per se and no one contended that it was, rather as the anti side exhausted its weak arguments the talk page fell silent and the essay was marked as "historical". I'm willing to move it back to "proposed" I guess, although it seems like that'll just lead to unnecessary work and drama. But if you want. Or I'll move it into my userspace as an essay if that's more acceptable. Herostratus 15:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not a big deal to me personally, but apparently it's confusing people. I suppose we could call it historical, or use both tags, or put it in userspace, or something like that. "Proposed" does indeed not seem all that useful here. Cheers,  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah well OK I'll move it my userspace then. Herostratus 17:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you seriously intend for this article?
Do you intend that its ethos is integrated into the main WP:NOT article?

I prefer WP:No Moral Code, and as I said on its talk page:

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 21:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Taken from the essay:

''For the purposes of this article, all of the above definitions may be assumed to be appended by the statement ...without commensurate gain in encyclopedic value. That is, unless, by consensus of editors examining a particular case, the entity advances Wikipedia's overall mission significantly enough to justify overriding the considerations expressed in this article ''.

Doesn't the play - off between the tyranny of majority opinion and notability that this implies fly in the face of the encyclopedic principle? --Jim Burton 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong namespace
Can any register user please move User Herostrastus/Wikipedia Not Evil to User:Herostratus/Wikipedia Not Evil and Talk:User Herostrastus/Wikipedia Not Evil to User talk:Herostratus/Wikipedia Not Evil because they are in the wrong namespace? User Herostrastus/Wikipedia Not Evil is in the article namespace, Herostrastus is utterly misspelled and needs to be removed the second "s", and a colon should have been added after "User", followed by no space character. 76.193.119.98 05:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)