 | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This essay makes suggestions for ethical guidelines for editors of wikipedia regarding the way we portray third persons and groups, and how we interact with each other.
Ethics of Representation
Principle number 1 of editing wikipedia:
- Do no harm. Whenever you make an edit, consider whether someone might be harmed by the consequences of having the information published.
Things to consider when striving to do no harm:
- BLP. This principle applies particularly when editing articles about living people, whose lives can be directly affected by what their wikipdia biographies say. Sometimes it is necessary to add possibly harmful information to BLPs, but this is only in the cases where the information is already publically available (as evidenced in reliable source) and its additional availability in wikipedia is unlikely to add significantly to the possible harm. It is always unethical to add potentially harmful information about individuals if there is reasonable doubt about its accuracy and veracity. Doubt should always benefit the subject.
- Minorities. The principle also applies when editing about political issues, where putting a particular group in a particular light on wikipedia may affect power dynamics between groups. In such cases it is particularly necessary to be considerate of the portrayal of groups that are unlikely to be able to speak for their own cause to correct any unfair portrayals in wikipedia - this is the case for example when wikipedia describes minorities, disempowered social groups, groups that are unlikely to have internet access or to be able to participate in English wikipedia. Similarly to the BLP clause, information that could be experienced as denigrating or demeaning by particular social groups should only ever be added to articles, if this information is already readily available online and adding it to wikipedia is not likely to significantly worsen the damage done. Adding such information should of course also always be in line with the policy of neutrality.
- Harm. The principle also applies to adding information that is likely to be used for harmful purposes. In these cases the possible benefits of the information being available should be weighed against the possible harm. For example having an article that describes how to fabricate lethal chemical weapons in one's own kitchen is unlikely to benefit anyone, and could quite possibly incite someone to try it out with likely harmful consequences. It would not be ethically responsible to add such information. Similarly having detailed illustrations describing violent or demeaning practices serves no ethically sound purpose. Wikipedia is not censored, but this does not mean that we are not responsible for any harm we may cause or may contribute to, either inadvertently or through neglect - rather it places a heavier responsibility on the shoulders of each editor.
- Reification. Some concepts or ideas are in themselves harmful to particular social groups, for example stereotypes, anti-semitic canards, historical misrepresentations etc. While wikipedia should of course strive to have a complete coverage of this kind of information, it is important that wikipedia describes such concepts critically and makes sure not to reify those concepts by appearing to support their validity. This is quite difficult because it is often subtle differences in language and in choice of sources and strategies of representation that reify harmful stereotypes. This principle requires the editor to be conscious about representational strategies and about avoiding describing people or groups in ways that accept common stereotypes uncritically or which make undue generalizations, or claims of essential qualities. Editors should always be conscious that any group is heterogenous and that not all members of a group will display even the most essential characteristics - our depiction of the groups should reflect that. Sometimes there may be conflicting interpretations of what the most ethical strategy is - for example, in the case of marginalized groups, is it better to depict affluent member of the group to challenge stereotypes, or is it better to make sure that the marginalized status of the group is recognized and not erased from view by using romanticizing language or trivializing their marginality?
Principle 2 against which principle 1 should always be weighed is:
- The greater good Whenever you make an edit it should be oriented towards promoting an effect in the world that we can call the grater good. Because failing to do good is also harmful, sometimes the requirement to do no harm must be weighed against the greater good of doing so. This is a serious ethical deliberation, which places a significant burden of responsibility on the editor.
Ethics of Interaction
See also
| This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This essay makes suggestions for ethical guidelines for editors of wikipedia regarding the way we portray third persons and groups, and how we interact with each other.
Ethics of Representation
Principle number 1 of editing wikipedia:
- Do no harm. Whenever you make an edit, consider whether someone might be harmed by the consequences of having the information published.
Things to consider when striving to do no harm:
- BLP. This principle applies particularly when editing articles about living people, whose lives can be directly affected by what their wikipdia biographies say. Sometimes it is necessary to add possibly harmful information to BLPs, but this is only in the cases where the information is already publically available (as evidenced in reliable source) and its additional availability in wikipedia is unlikely to add significantly to the possible harm. It is always unethical to add potentially harmful information about individuals if there is reasonable doubt about its accuracy and veracity. Doubt should always benefit the subject.
- Minorities. The principle also applies when editing about political issues, where putting a particular group in a particular light on wikipedia may affect power dynamics between groups. In such cases it is particularly necessary to be considerate of the portrayal of groups that are unlikely to be able to speak for their own cause to correct any unfair portrayals in wikipedia - this is the case for example when wikipedia describes minorities, disempowered social groups, groups that are unlikely to have internet access or to be able to participate in English wikipedia. Similarly to the BLP clause, information that could be experienced as denigrating or demeaning by particular social groups should only ever be added to articles, if this information is already readily available online and adding it to wikipedia is not likely to significantly worsen the damage done. Adding such information should of course also always be in line with the policy of neutrality.
- Harm. The principle also applies to adding information that is likely to be used for harmful purposes. In these cases the possible benefits of the information being available should be weighed against the possible harm. For example having an article that describes how to fabricate lethal chemical weapons in one's own kitchen is unlikely to benefit anyone, and could quite possibly incite someone to try it out with likely harmful consequences. It would not be ethically responsible to add such information. Similarly having detailed illustrations describing violent or demeaning practices serves no ethically sound purpose. Wikipedia is not censored, but this does not mean that we are not responsible for any harm we may cause or may contribute to, either inadvertently or through neglect - rather it places a heavier responsibility on the shoulders of each editor.
- Reification. Some concepts or ideas are in themselves harmful to particular social groups, for example stereotypes, anti-semitic canards, historical misrepresentations etc. While wikipedia should of course strive to have a complete coverage of this kind of information, it is important that wikipedia describes such concepts critically and makes sure not to reify those concepts by appearing to support their validity. This is quite difficult because it is often subtle differences in language and in choice of sources and strategies of representation that reify harmful stereotypes. This principle requires the editor to be conscious about representational strategies and about avoiding describing people or groups in ways that accept common stereotypes uncritically or which make undue generalizations, or claims of essential qualities. Editors should always be conscious that any group is heterogenous and that not all members of a group will display even the most essential characteristics - our depiction of the groups should reflect that. Sometimes there may be conflicting interpretations of what the most ethical strategy is - for example, in the case of marginalized groups, is it better to depict affluent member of the group to challenge stereotypes, or is it better to make sure that the marginalized status of the group is recognized and not erased from view by using romanticizing language or trivializing their marginality?
Principle 2 against which principle 1 should always be weighed is:
- The greater good Whenever you make an edit it should be oriented towards promoting an effect in the world that we can call the grater good. Because failing to do good is also harmful, sometimes the requirement to do no harm must be weighed against the greater good of doing so. This is a serious ethical deliberation, which places a significant burden of responsibility on the editor.