Doc Glasgow came up with this, and I said I'd post it here for feedback...
Basically, we have an issue with the biographies of living people
where - by the simple act of repeating published and verifiable
information - we can give a vastly misleading impression about them;
we report their drunk-driving conviction at 19 in the same tone and
length as we report their Nobel prize. Oh, it's verifiable and true...
but should we be publishing it? Editorial common sense says, perhaps,
no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
Anyway, a thought experiment. I would be very interested to know where
people think we a) should be drawing the line; and b) *are currently*
drawing the line...
----
Let's take Professor John P. Smith, the ninth-most leading Australian
contributor to the field of marine bioscience. He's written a few
books, say, and he's notable (if barely) for it and his impact on the
field.
1) Now, he gets divorced in messy circumstances - his wife accuses him
of sleeping with her sister or something. it is all there is the
on-line court reports. Do we include it? No - and perhaps court
reports should not count for BLP sourcing - if it isn't in the
mainstream media ignore it.
2) OK, now, although Dr Smith isn't that notable to a world-wide
encyclopedia, he is fairly notable in Smalltown NSW, where he once
served as an alderman. So the Smalltown Gazette runs the divorce
story. Now, do we include it? If we do, we are responsible for taking
a local story to global level - we are essentially promoting it.
Usually, if Dr Smith moves to NZ, people will only know of his shining
academic career - not his divorce. But if it makes Wikipedia - it will
follow him about. Perhaps we should exclude information based only on
local press from BLP sourcing.
3) OK, now supposing the Sydney Herald is running a story on 'sex and
stress in academia', and they use the story for the Smalltown Gazette
to illustrate it? Do we allow it now? It is still the same crappy
story.
4) And what if the Sydney Herald get the story wrong, and claim he DID
sleep with HIS sister - and he sues them. Do we report the libel case
in his biography?
How do we write policies that deal with this?
(Disclaimer: Real people were not harmed in the making of this case
study. Any resemblance to actual events or persons (or their sisters)
living or dead is purely coincidental)
Doc
----
Thoughts appreciated.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk