Where you say that you aren't sure that there are any Wikipedians who could
write a neutral article about Brandt... I think that you are vastly
overestimating the number of Wikipedians who even keep up with the whole
Brandt/WR saga. Don't get me wrong, I think lots of Wikipedians know about
it, I just think that most don't really care.
I frankly have no opinion one way or the other on the guy. I think that the
people who attack Brandt because they think they have a right to privacy or
confidentiality are deceiving themselves, since editing what is essentially
a public document sort of makes each Wikipedian a public figure, if only in
a microscopic way.
In any event, I am sure there are plenty of editors who could do the
research, interpret the sources, and render a pretty reasonably accurate bio
of Brandt. Do you really think that every Wikipedian is following this
story?
DickClarkMises
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:07:00 -0400
From: Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales should reconsider
<snip>
Those all seem like creative and possibly acceptable solutions, at
least so long as "consensus" in
"consensus to keep" is treated more
like the "supermajority" that is currently the de facto standard.
I think the problem with a bio on Brandt goes beyond the usual,
though. [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] seems to apply to that
biography for pretty much all active editors, which suggests that all
of us should at least exercise great caution when editing the page.
I'm not sure a neutral bio can possibly be written about Brandt by
Wikipedians.