Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is comprehensive

Comment
Good essay. I think a clear distinction should be made between Wikipedia and it's USERS, that is, Wikipedia is amoral but WikipediANS are not. Wikipedians just follow the neutrality policy and it's that neutral point of view that results in Wikipedia not being able to afford to have any morals. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, I don't know how to work in the point about editors directly, but your reference to NPOV has inspired a further line of justification I hadn't quite considered before. Thanks! --Cyber cobra (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I was familiar with a few of these points-of-interest, and appreciated learning about the others. I was particularly intrigued by WP:Sensitive wildlife locations which directly related to this recent episode of Radiolab. I'll be watchlisting this page. Thanks for writing it. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of inquiry is not amoral
This essay uses the term "amoral" to describe the freedom of speech, information, and inquiry; but this is not so. Wikipedia is based on the moral belief of many peoples that the right of the lower classes to access knowledge is a fundamentally positive thing. To say that our belief in freedom of inquiry is "amoral" is to say that we have no heartfelt reason to maintain it — it is to mark it as weak and a victim to whoever first arranges to attack it. But the truth is that we believe that this information, all information, can be highly beneficial, and more to the point, that any infringement against it would serve the basest ends.

I will put aside here the question of whether, say, the utter vanishment of all knowledge about nuclear reactions or chemical weapons would be a good thing, because we can't do that — we can only decide whether the "general public", by which I mean those without special status in the government or special occupational permits or specialized educational degrees or job descriptions, have the right to know it.

There are times when the most obvious benefits of information run contrary to law and custom; nonetheless they are there. For example, if disseminating knowledge about the synthesis of methamphetamine allows a few American "meth cooks" to convert their scavenged packages of cold medicine into the drug, we should know that this must partly alleviate the brutal violence, to the brink of civil war, caused by the smuggling of the drug at the Mexican border. Those who would censor such information are the true amoralists, serving a law enforcement guild agenda that is concerned only with maintaining the "business" of search and seizure no matter what the human cost of such market distortions, to the point where they seem in league with the drug gangs themselves to maximize illegal profit by such measures as prohibiting the sale of fake methamphetamine with the same penalty as the real drug to prevent fake drug dealers from interfering with the gang marketplace. When one has the courage to look into such controversial cases it is easiest to discern the weak but reliable morality of the unbiased information, which seeks always to distribute power, bringing equality and peace back into the world. Wnt (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree. But those challenging said freedoms usually phrase their justifications in moral/ethical terms. This essay seeks to rebut such justifications, hence the (imo snappy) "negative" title. --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe 'immoral' will be a better word to describe it?  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 11:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we're not actively evil; and "Wikipedia can be immoral" sounds like waffling :-) "Amoral" correctly conveys the lack of a place for morality in Wikipedia (in the given context). --Cyber cobra (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the truth is that Wikipedia expresses a common morality, codified in a constitution (the five pillars) and a variety of lesser laws, enforced by an elaborate though imperfect judicial system, and elaborated in a tremendous volume of writings and debates throughout countless talk and project pages. Wikipedia strives for neutrality, yes, but neutrality is not amorality.  To say otherwise would be to believe, e.g., that the United States is "amoral" for permitting freedom of religion, or that individual churches are "amoral" for encouraging religious tolerance. Wnt (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is to be a counter to those extremists who would indeed call such actions imm/amoral. --Cyber cobra  (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're countering their statements that Wikipedia is amoral by saying it is? Bear in mind that when the term is used properly, regarding sociopaths and the like, "amoral" is not typically regarded as a badge of honor.  Even some social movements that seem to have a strong evil morality may be viewed as amoral (and evil) in nature; for example there are some places in Mein Kampf where Hitler all but admits that scapegoating the Jews happened to be a convenient tactic for mobilizing public support rather than an intrinsic belief (his longest rant against the Jews there can be seen as an example of a method of presentation that he lays out immediately before he makes it).  When people act amorally, the benefit to them is tangible in nature - money, women, leadership of a mid-sized country - but what personal bribe do the people editing controversial topics on Wikipedia receive?  You're simply not using the right word. Wnt (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Amoral "1 a : being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply ". Wikipedia is amoral like a knife is amoral; both are mere tools that have both good (cooking, construction; research, education) and bad (stabbing people; etc.) uses. Are knives immoral? Preposterous. Non-psychopathic Editors do each have morality; Wikipedia-the-project/Wikipedia-the-written-work doesn't. --Cyber cobra (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia isn't amoral like a knife is amoral. A knife doesn't care if one person wrests it from the hand of another, or grinds it down to uselessness, or uses it to kill.  But Wikipedia — if one views it as the community that continually refines and develops the content, and not just a single snapshot of the database saved to disk — Wikipedia does care.  If Wikipedia chooses in some cases to ignore apparent risk, it is not because it is uncaring, but because people here have a strong faith that informing the public will still be the best course overall.
 * When I say faith, I don't mean this merely in the mundane but in a religious sense, the sense that people choose to trust their fellows rather than binding them in ignorance for fear they might do something wrong — the sense by which a Creator is believed by so many to have given mankind free will rather than compelling sinless behavior. The alternative embrace of censorship finds at its end a high priest asking the Romans to murder Jesus for blasphemy.  No less than that is the deception of using "prudence" in deciding what people are allowed to say, because really it is a cruel pride. Wnt (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Essay is more POV pushing
The desire of the writer to squelch all human passions and feelings from wikipedia in favor of a cold, calculating, "amoral" uniformity is quite obvious. My only question is whether this essay is covertly advancing some other, hidden, agenda. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (If you haven't already, you should read WP:ESSAYS)
 * Could you choose a few specific points that you have issues with? For example, is the "nutshell" incorrect in some way? Are any of the examples incorrect? Are any of the exceptions incorrect?
 * This essay is simply describing existing practices. As far as I can tell. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Quiddity meant WP:VALUE.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 06:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the essay but I'm not as sure about the title. WP is not completely a moral force because it doesn't pass judgment on whether homosexuality, marriage equality, marijuana, etc is moral or immoral - but WP is supposed to just give facts. But WP may not be completely amoral either. An argument can be made that WP's goals of free access to neutral information editable by anyone without arbitrary censorship could, in fact, be its morality. What I'm trying to say is the word "amoral" may not be the best word/description. WP is not a moral force or authority, but it does seem to stand for certain moral objectives - free exchange of idea without censorship of certain topics, quest for knowledge, etc. To Donald: What "other" "hidden" "agenda" could be "covertly" "advanc[ed]" by this essay? I honestly have no idea.  EdEColbert  Let me know 21:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for new title?
Based on feedback, it seems the current title is too easily misinterpreted (or people expect it to be a more perfect summary, despite the subtleties inherent in any essay/guideline/policy). Any suggestions for a better title? --Cyber cobra (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Morality" is not a requirement for Wikipedia editing might work? As opposed to the implication that Wikipedia is somehow unethical per se? Collect (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't really have a problem with the prior title. I get that some might mistakenly confuse "amoral" with "immoral", so opening with that clarification might be warranted. The suggestion offered by Collect is a good alternative.-- SPhilbrick  T  11:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately WP:Wikipedia is not censored is taken. I have to admit that "amoral" hit me negatively, despite knowing it's meaning of neither being moral or immoral. It has the emotional and semantic baggage of morality with it's religious associations. Much like inflammable being thought to mean non-flammable, I'm afraid amoral will be associated with immoral. Off the top of my head, how about "Wikipedia is content agnostic".  Agnostic not in the sense of religion, but as in "platform agnostic", meaning a piece of software that doesn't care what platform it runs on (e.g.- PC, Linux, Mac). — Becksguy (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How about Wikipedia is not censored (Essay) — Becksguy (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts: It's unfortunate that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia is taken, since that would be the best jumping-off point. Any negative definition is going to have problems. I don't like "content-agnostic", either, because the same people who misinterpret "amoral" as referring to Hannibal Lector will misinterpret "agnostic" as being a call to prefer irreligion over religion. I would not be so concerned about this if there were not a huge mess developing along those lines in the encyclopedia right now. I don't like the use of emphatic quotes in Collect's proposed title, but otherwise I think it's on the right track. How about "Wikipedia has no inherent morality"? I should point out that I think Wikipedia does have an inherent morality - but it is simply an encyclopedia-building morality, and not the sort of moral complex that is being argued against here. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point on "content agnostic"; Withdrawn. What about the essay title? — Becksguy (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not my favorite, mainly because it's too similar to an existing title. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "Wikipedia is not a moral force"? --Yair rand (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's the best suggestion so far. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it too. It's more fitting because I do not believe that WP is amoral and yes I know what the word means.  EdEColbert  Let me know 22:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is incapable of having a conscience" -- &oelig; &trade; 01:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Better. --Yair rand (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But not really true - vide the BLP changes made this year.  The point is that edits are made on the basis of what is objectively to be found on a topic, not how any given editor regards the topic through his own moral sensibilities. Collect (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia includes potentially harmful information"; or "Wikipedia includes objectionable content" ? --Cyber cobra (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe "Wikipedia is not politically correct"? I'm not sure that one exactly fits either though. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Different tack: "Wikipedia is comprehensive"? --Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not decide moral questions" (or substitute words such as determine/decree or opinions/judgments)  EdEColbert  Let me know 06:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying "Hitler is evil" or similar doesn't imply the censorship this essay aims to condemn though. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is value-neutral. There is a difference between the content of the encyclopedia and the institution of the encyclopedia. The institution constantly enacts its moral conviction that value-neutral content is a good thing. --Whoosit (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I like that one. -- &oelig; &trade; 20:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

_____

The internet as a whole is clearly totally amoral. But Wikipedia is a part of the internet which has some moral guidelines.

Wikipedia has its pillars, but every individual editor has a personal point of view. They just have to dress it up with appropriate quotations for it to be permitted on Wikipedia. (OK, just kidding. But only just.)  (Tell me it never happens.  :)

No editor would be allowed to promote a case for child pornography or racial hatred (etc etc) purely for the sake of "fairness and balance" ? (Or would they ?) I would guess that probably there are quotable sources for such things. Darkman101 (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved to WP:Wikipedia is comprehensive (WP:COMPREHENSIVE) and rewritten accordingly. Feedback welcome as always. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference
Medical article on how internet (and specially wikipedia) can aid to fake their symptoms to those that suffer Munchausen: it could be added to this essay as a reference. . Nice essay.--Garrondo (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Added. Thanks. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could also add as an specific example of "plot possible damage" the signpost of this week on the complaint from Agatha Christie's grandson. See here. I'll think I will propose some more references and specific examples to show that there has been some debate inside (or even better outside) on that specific issue...--Garrondo (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent eye. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons?
There is an example that says "Articles on nuclear weapons describe their designs and operating principles, which would be of aid to those wanting to make them". This is a poor example and perhaps should be removed. This isn't like seeking help on C++ to design software or help in image editing to create "fake" photos. Does anyone truly believe that a nuclear weapon may be created simply by following descriptions or tutorials at some web page? To make a nuclear weapon you need, at least, a complete staff of college graduated nuclear technicians, labs with all the needed hardware and infrastructure, system checking and double-checking the security at every step, and so on. And surely there is a part of the information on the whole process that is public, but a core part of it is kept classified by the governments that know it. If the whole system to create atomic bombs was known by everybody, China wouldn't have needed to use spies to steal them during the Cold War. MBelgrano (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Point well taken. I'll switch to a less hyperbolic weapons example. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Does this essay directly contradict WP:BLP?
This essay states that information is not excluded from Wikipedia on moral grounds. However, WP:BLP, in spirit if not in letter, is about preventing Wikipedia from causing harm to living persons by disseminating private information or negative allegations about them (see also WP:Do no harm). Surely that's a moral ground for excluding content? Or would the people who wrote this essay say that the purpose of BLP is purely legal, to prevent Wikipedia from getting sued? Robofish (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * At least for rhetorical purposes, this essay views BLP as a particularly strict enforcement of WP:V and a way to keep the WMF out of legal hot water. Less rhetorically, yes, BLP could be considered the sole established exception to "no morality/ethics-based censorship". See also the "Exceptions" section. Though the failure of WP:News suppression suggests that even BLP may have some limits. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Amorality not a requirement in a reference work. Accuracy and intellectual integrity are.
Whoever wrote the first sentence seems to be under the impression that reference works, or encyclopedia are by nature amoral. I am not sure where they would have got that impression from, or even what way they are defining amoral here, but there is no "therefore" to be drawn. In actuality I suggest there simply is no overarching stipulation on refence works to be amoral, and certainly none cited here. The writer here should also familiarise themselves with WP:EVERYTHING

There is also the very troubling issue of deliberately trying to distance editors from wikipedia and wikipedia from anything that happens as result of content that is put their by editors. Surely wikipedia should be about responsible editing, not a double-distancing of it's users from consequences of material submitted as though once it is on it's wikipedia's (whatever that is) responsibility. Wikipedia, in a sense, is it's editors. On many subjects the norm should be for very serious, sober and thoughful consideration to be given before inserting or changing content. In many cases any consequences which arise from content won't be the responsibility of editors. Nevertheless surely the mindset to encourage amongst editors is to consider what if consequences that arose from what I am writing did come home to my doorstep in some manner? DMSBel (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * " I am not sure [...] even what way they are defining amoral here" There was a very clear footnote stipulating the intended definition. It's amoral like a knife is; they are both tools that can be used for good or evil but have no inherent moral value.
 * I was unaware of WP:EVERYTHING specifically, but I was/am aware of the underlying principles and have endeavored to clarify this in the text. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)