Wikipedia Ethics--Is it ethical to alter content regarding ones self? - wikipedia broken capillaries
Wikipedia is an online encyclop which everyone can edit the content. Recently, headlines erupted when a person publishing an article Scandel commitment.
Reginding look, is it ethical to change for the good of the public communication of individuals to their own article. For example, a murderer may be able to make changes in his life, or former President Clinton to change the article itself, or the Monica Lewinsky affair article?
Sure, the source documents are recorded by the parties on a question for the welfare of the public debate, but how the entries can be made, submitted by ordinary people brand? Should we?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Wikipedia Broken Capillaries Wikipedia Ethics--Is It Ethical To Alter Content Regarding Ones Self?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Nothing in Wikipedia needs to be added without a source. Wikipedia is clearly not his own research, including yourself do not know whether certain things.
Unless the information was confirmed by a reliable source, which is not allowed and will be published eventually deleted.
It is immoral to a certain view of the person whose article you edit to change if they themselves or someone else. Delete all the negative and increases a lot of good information on each item that is unethical, and was informed by relevant guidelines neutral point of view.
If the content is true, then it is ethical. If there is an outright lie, it is not. It's easy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI
Your article is .... what to do "right"
While it is immoral, in an article in Wikipedia, and that I strongly oppose the repeal of the relevant information, advice. Nothing else, that an article is improved very well.
If you are the author himself, but no. If, however, identify a question of defamation, then that should be in a court and is a misrepresentation, I would say that you can delete or edit. No legal advice. CCL GPL or think that you can make changes that the intention of making things as is, precisely as possible, peer, and open to change.
If you are the author himself, but no. If, however, identify a question of defamation, then that should be in a court and is a misrepresentation, I would say that you can delete or edit. No legal advice. CCL GPL or think that you can make changes that the intention of making things as is, precisely as possible, peer, and open to change.
While this is not only immoral, but I recommend you to correct inaccuracies
10 points please
It is unethical, but it is related to the removal of a malignant are acceptable.
Wikipedia is worthless. It's easy to avoid.
Wikipedia is worthless. It's easy to avoid.
Post a Comment