"

HurricaneWarning Template

Greeting, My Friend,

Both ""camps"" in this discussion have compelling arguments, and I'm not sure on which side of the dispute I'd settle if I decided to comment.  You are correct that the template in question is contra ASF, and is not something anyone would wish to see universalized by extrapolation: every WP article could merit some sort of advisory template, if one accounted for every possible precaution.  I concur also with MiraLuka, and find the wording of the template slightly paternalistic.

You have requested consultation, I think, because the arguments advanced by your respected opposites appeared insufficient and/or policy-contravening.  I do believe their arguments have great strength, despite some flaws.  Examine, for a moment, your comment:

""If the primary purpose of the template is to aid/advise readers in a humanitarian fashion (as I think it is), then the template exists to serve goals that are, IMHO, wholly unencyclopedic and irrelevant to the project (the death of a few readersor even valuable contributorsand the concomitant bad press is likely to have only a de minimis deleterious effect on the project)""

From the record, I see that you registered with Wikipedia in late-December 2005; as such, you may not be familiar with the facts (and the turmoil) surrounding John Seigenthaler, Sr.  In that instance, a single false assertion (albeit a very significant one) garnered for Wikipedia enormous negative press attention, and caused many observers to question the viability and basic premises of the project  a great boon for the Britannica boosters.  The lessons of that episode are numerous, but those applicable here include: 1) The smallest misplaced line of text is a potential danger; 2) Liability for a project in the public eye exists not simply in the law, but even moreso in the press.

It is a sad commentary on the state of the American public that I can easily imagine many readers relying solely on Wikipedia without thinking for themselves.  In most contexts, caveat lector; let them be undone by their ignorance.  In highly visible situations, however, where the press is likely to overextend itself in finding and pillorying any ""villian,"" no matter how remote the causation, or how unjustified the charge, Wikipedia must take care.  This is an encyclopedia first, but also a non-profit foundation existing on donations.  As editors, we have a duty to protect the reputation of the project.

This raises a second point.  There is a rhetorical error in your comment cited above that has little to do with logic, except perhaps the logic of human psychology.  Large groups are rarely coldly analytical, a fact I find unfortunate quite often.  Nevertheless, it is a fact to which a wise persuader should adapt. ""The death of a few readers...is...a de minimis deleterious effect...""  This sentence is likely to win one more opposition than support, even if it be logical and empirically correct.  Those who think first from emotion might well react to such sentiment with alarm.

On the precedent of Seigenthaler, I understand why your opposition is showing extraordinary caution when confronting the spectre of a possible high-visibility ""press event,"" ie. natural disaster.  Given your rhetorical misstep, I understand also why you might fail in this argument, even if the opposition were meritless (thankfully, they are not so.)  On balance, you are probably more correct; the case is not unambiguous, though.  Policies and guidelines exist as principles to be applied by the responsible community in its decision-making fora.  Very rarely, an underdeveloped discussion will ignore these principles, in which case, review (and chastisement) are warranted.  More typically, well-meaning editors apply principles as best they can to cases where principles conflict or overlap.  This case is an example of the latter, and you should waste no worry over the result. Best wishes,  "