Bryan Derksen wrote:
Ben Emmel wrote:
No, I do agree that it's not a open-and-shut
decision. But like Jimbo said,
if we still care about this article in a year, then we can argue then.
Woah, a whole _year_? I'd thought the article was just temporarily
deleted while some details got sorted out. _Now_ I've got a serious
grounds for objection.
The point here is not the article itself, it is the abuse of process
that was involved.
As I said in another post, I'm happy to reduce the time period from one
year, but what I'd really like to see first is for us to all take a
really serious look at WP:LIVING, and in particular a strengthening of
the "Presumption in favor of Privacy".
"In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm."
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be
sensationalist, or be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating
claims about people's lives."
--
#######################################################################
# Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge #
#
http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world #
#######################################################################