Ken Arromdee wrote: What Ken is describing sounds more like a reiteration of Wikipedia's existing "no original research policy" than something specifically addressing stalking or cyberstalking. I think stalking happens frequently enough that it deserves to be treated seriously in its own right rather than subsumed under some other concept. In the case of Allison Stokke, the young woman whose experience was the spark of this thread, Wikipedia's article about her didn't *create* any news. Her situation has been reported in the Washington Post and elsewhere. Ken's policy therefore would not be particularly helpful in this case. It's not 100% certain to me, by the way, that the Wikipedia article on Stokke would need to be deleted even under an anti-stalking policy. The versions of the Wikipedia article that I've seen have have not sensationalized or dwelt on the blogosphere's sexualized treatment of Stokke that is the cause of her distress. In fact, it's possible that Stokke herself might be fine with Wikipedia having an article about her, even if (and perhaps especially if) it mentions the harassment and her objections to it. She doesn't seem to object to ALL mentions of her. She just wants the heavy-breathing stuff to stop. The Washington Post article on her situation states that she has sought media consultant advice to help "get this all under control," and it's clear from reading the article that Stokke and her father were both interviewed by the Post's reporter. It seems likely that they cooperated with the reporter because they hoped that the Post's story would help put out the word that she objects to the way bloggers are using her image. An appropriately-written Wikipedia article might serve the same purpose and therefore might be something that she would welcome. To determine whether this is the case, of course, someone would need to contact Stokke or her family on behalf of Wikipedia and inquire directly about their wishes, and this sort of inquiry cannot be done by the entire collective. (The last thing she needs is a mob of Wikipedians calling.) Someone would therefore have to serve as a designated agent of Wikipedia in making the inquiry, and I don't think Wikipedia has a structure in place to accomplish this. The question of how Wikipedia should handle this particular situation is less interesting to me than the question of what policies and procedures would help address this CLASS of situations. A number of other cases come to mind such as Richard Jewell or the Star Wars Kid where people have become objects of unwanted and unwarranted public attention. Existing policies such as NOR, Notability or NPOV may not be the right policies with which Wikipedia should address these cases when they arise. -------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/cmd/shop/ custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1107 --------------------------------