Talk:Diffusion of responsibility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diffusion of responsibility has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

[edit] Proposed insertion

In all such examples the individual has a choice on whether to participate in these actions, or lack thereof, and incurs responsibility because of some degree of control over the outcome of an action. One cannot be held responsible for something one had no control over. If through duress or threat of one's life one is compelled to commit a crime, then one is still obligated to report such at the soonest opportunity. Control and the ability to chose is what determines responsibility in any situation.

I'm sorry, but the above remains quite factual and self-evident, not a tangent at all. This article is already very slanted and biased towards one point of view. The mere use of the word social instead of natural is biased, for it is and always has been human nature to follow the masses regardless of moral conpunction, and a clear case of destiny being allowed to cancel free will. This is not a social problem.

How does one cite self-evident truths? Murder being immoral remains a self-evident truth that needs not be cited. "One cannot be responsible for that which one has no control over" remains simple fact. Can anyone possibly argue against it? Please do so. If not, I am reinserting this paragraph, thank you. Jcchat66 01:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You really picked a bad example there. "Murder being immoral" has not in fact been "a self-evident truth" in all cultures or at all points in history. And, yes, in most cultures there are situations where you can be held responsible for that over which you had no control. But that's a tangent itself - the truth of those statements is irrelevant.

The section was removed as an apparent violation of Wikipedia's strict policy against original research. If you can find a reputable academic study or journal article supporting that point of view, add the section back with the citation. If this is merely your own personal opinion or analysis, then it has no place in the encyclopedia. Very little in this world is truly "self-evident". Rossami (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it very strange that I would be accused of proposing original research when what you have stated could be construed as original research itself. When the facts have been known for all of human history, for thousands of years, that is the status quo. If one challenges the status quo then the burden of proof is on them, which every academic student understands and accepts. Murder is immoral, period, a simple fact (unless one is confused by the meaning of murder, which is not used for military or self-defense situations.) Any argument against this would prove laughable and absurd. Self-evident truths have been recognized by the vast majority of the human race since long before the ancient Greeks, though the Greeks defended it the most it seems. Wikipedia has never demanded that such obvious truths be cited, for that would be impossible as they are too numerous.

Rossami quoted: "And, yes, in most cultures there are situations where you can be held responsible for that over which you had no control." Just because one is held responsible for something one had no control over does not make them responsible. This is, in fact, a very serious problem in most cultures, which is exactly why I am presenting the above paragraph to remove such bias and ignorance.

Furthermore, the notion that there is no self-evident truths has gained ground only in recent history amongst the various Germanic philosophers like Nietzsche, one of the worst offenders for original research along with Marx and Freud and many others of that period. Axioms, self-evident truth, absolute facts, etc are just that, and to undermine them with sophism is nothing short of biased social attacks against those few cultures that believe in free will and despise aristocracy. That is not original research, for any intelligent understanding of history makes it quite obvious. One has only to look at those ancient cultures that believed in free will who suffered the worst; Jews, Celts, Carthaginians, etc. But that is another topic altogether.

Again, no viable argument has been made against my proposed paragraph. Rossami has only made opinions. Does anyone have an argument justifying why one should be held responsible for that which one had no control over? That is the important question here. Jcchat66 19:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding what we mean on Wikipedia by "original research". Please go read (or re-read) this policy page and it's accompanying commentary. Rossami (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read it many times, because too many people use it as an answer in place of not having an argument. There is also some degree of hypocrisy, for Wikipedia encourages editing even against its own rules for the benefit of sharing knowledge. But I have made no original claims whatsoever, nor original research, and no opinion. Likewise, where are the reliable citations for this article? And article which seems to have conveniently left out the textbook definition of responsibility.

Again, no argument against the status quo from anyone. You have supplied no reason or citations for your opinion. Jcchat66 05:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop inserting the disputed text until you can cite an independent, reliable source for the assertion you are trying to add to the article. The rest of the material in the article can be verified by checking any first-year psychology or sociology textbook. The text you are trying to add is not part of the standard discussion of the concept of "responsibility". If that is a statement held by a particular faith, ethical framework or other scholarly discussion, simply cite your source. Rossami (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable! This article has no citations and relies on your claim to be in psychological textbooks, and you feel immune for citations? While the definition of responsbility, as it obviously relates to this article, is clearly evident in any dictionary. No one is obligated to cite definitions for every word we use on this site. I am trying to PREVENT this article from being deemed biased as it stands, and assert no opinion whatsoever. The meaning of the word is well beyond the scope of religious or social context, for the concept is basic as a natural psychological level ... not social as you assert. If this is your article, it is you that is challenging the facts, and the burden would then lie with you. If you do not like the rules of debate, then do not debate. If you can offer a valid reason why my attempt to balance this article with some factual content, then we can debate. But you have not done so, and you have no sought a third party.

As I have already made perfectly clear with all due civility, the paragraph will be inserted unless someone can rationally object. Jcchat66 18:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have revised and refined the paragraph to intergrate it with the general meaning of the word, without adding a rediculous link to one of many dictionaries. Jcchat66 05:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the problem here is original research, but that the paragraph is argumentitive. This falls less under the category of OR and more under the category of inappropriate tone. It would probably end up with a tag like:

{{Essay-entry}}

The point is not to argue a position, but simply to state facts. It may seem self-evident to the writer, but this is not necessarily the case. Murder being wrong is not necessarily a self-evident truth. (Think war situations.) It is better left out; the article explains the concept adequately. If anything, I would say it goes into too much detail and yes, in places does "read" like OR, even if it is not. BenC7 11:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have actually cleaned the article up a bit. BenC7 11:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to BenC7, I fail to see how this addresses the dispute. The word "responsibility" as defined conflicts with the spirit if this article, and needs clarification. In other words, we need more facts. The word is factually defined, yet my attempt to add this was shot down. The casual reader, for example, may not understand what responsbility really means by reading this article, whereby it would fails in its purpose. And murder means specifcially a crime. To kill in self-defense, or in war, is not defined as murder. Attention to detail is needed here. Jcchat66 01:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes for article improvement

• The phrase "certain critical size" needs to be made more specific, either with a number or a range for group size.
• References are needed. I am assuming that this phenomenon is actually named in the literature, and not an abstraction of other concepts. BenC7 11:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, researchers have not yet determined what that "certain critical size" is though there is some thought suggesting that Dunbar's number is probably related. Rossami (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)