Wikipedia talk:No Moral Code

message: I'd shy away from this one, for the following reasons:
* Gives lots of ammunition to critics, while not changing how Wikipedia operates in any fundamental way.
* Possibily contradictory--some may argue that the desire for truth itself is morally motivated; others are known to assert that relativism itself is a moral position.
* Not really true, anyway--Wikipedia is guided by the collective morality of its body of editors, many of whom who insert content which reflects their own views (even when this done in a way which respects NPOV).
I gather what the author is really trying to say is, "Other than those requirements which are believed to be necessary to build a reliable encyclopedia (NPOV, NOR, WP:V), and those needed to comply with the law; Wikipedia does not subscribe to a particular morality or worldview".  That language may be less contentious.
--EngineerScotty 19:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhat problematic, as Wikipedia does place value on certain attributes (NPOV, VER) and so forth - which is, in a very real sense, a moral code.  WilyD 13:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

message: This proposal is completely unacceptable.  Wikipedia is produced by a community that must demonstrate its trustworthiness to the world at large.  We are bound by the same basic moral sense that the outside world is. --Tony Sidaway 15:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unacceptable

message: Would it be more appropriate to propose this as a policy, a guideline, or something like WP:IAR? --Samael775 19:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy or Guideline

message: Rather than using the words "moral code"; maybe this would be better if stated more specifically:
* Wikipedia doesn't advance or promote any particular ideology, philosophy, worldview, political or economic theory or belief, nationality, culture, religion, or creed.
Of course, many may take issue with that, as there are areas where Wikipedia does tend to take positions (and in many cases, rightly so IMHO):
* Wikipedia is generally intolerant to racism and other forms of incivilty.  While we have articles in which racist points of view are presented (alongside opposing views, see race and intelligence for one interesting example), those advocating racist viewpoints generally have larger barriers to climb in order to get their points across.
* Wikipedia generally considers scientific viewpoints to be preferable than theological ones on non-ecclesiastical matters, such as evolution.  The creationists get their say, per NPOV; but in the end, most of the coverage on the topic comes down on the side of evolution.
* Wikipedia is, in many ways, opposed to censorship; including publishing material which gets Wikipedia banned in certain countries (such as the People's Republic of China; Wikipedia strongly resists attempts by the outside to exert editorial control over the content here.  (Note that I am distinguishing censorship from editorial discretion--Wikipedia frequently exercises the latter, and is often accused of "censorship" by critics for that reason).
So, I'm not sure that this page is even accurate.   --EngineerScotty 19:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the words "Moral Code" is entirely misplaced. Scotty's statement Wikipedia doesn't advance or promote any particular ideology, philosophy, worldview, political or economic theory or belief, nationality, culture, religion, or creed. is the most agreeable. There certainly needs to be distinguished between what is Wikipedia-the project and what is Wikipedia-the community. While the NPOV Policy is aimed at not promoting any particular ideology, the community does have a sort of collective morality--like Scotty's reference to the racism example Agne27 05:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moral code?

message: 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 20:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prefer to [[WP:NOT EVIL]] 

message: That's all I have to say.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good essay, redundant as policy.