--- "James D. Forrester" <james(a)jdforrester.org> wrote:
Are you saying
that the ArbComm should be amoral?
Hmm. Did you mean "amoral with respect to the participants' nature", or
"amoral with respect to the participants' activities on Wikipedia"? It
rather changes the question, and my answer to it...
Oops, yes it was ambiguous. I meant amoral with respect their activities on
Wikipedia. I do agree with your theoretical comments about Hitler and Mother
Theresa. I was more worried about situations that might occur like the
following (completely made-up, honest!):
User A gets into conflict with User B. Both behave *equally* badly, breaking
various policies and just being gits in general. However, User A is also an
outstanding scholar and prolific contributor of high-quality content, whereas
User B only pops in every now and then for some light editing (and mostly
outside of the main article space to boot). User A hints darkly that, if
sanctioned, she would quit the project for good. A pragmatic, amoral ArbComm
might be tempted to place heavier sanctions on User B than User A, even though
that would be (morally speaking) unfair, because User A is evidently more
valuable to the project than User B.
-- Matt
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog:
http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com