On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for bringing this to our (well, mine, anyway)
attention. It
was troubling when it first showed up on BLPN in May and it's still
troubling that so many (all male, looks like) editors are missing the
point of BLP and UNDUE and are so dismissive of the career
accomplishments of the subject of the article, despite ample evidence
of them in that article. We obsessively document career details of
every minor voice actor and porn star, but dismiss career
documentation from gold standard sources like The New Yorker and The
New York Times when it comes to interior design. (This isn't a
strictly gender issue, I've had the same argument with editors over
literary theorists and fields like that outside of the tech/media
orbit.) I doubt this would happen with the article of, say, a
wrestler, where a bunch of male editors would insist that the sports
career is utterly meaningless in the face of something like a brief
cameo appearance in a Lars von Trier film.
Well, let's be fair - there are men on both sides, and as most
Wikipedia editors are male I don't think any conclusions can be drawn
from the gender of the editors :-P
But I agree. It seems strange that an administrator and would-be
arbitrator would argue that a 17 year old photo shoot should dictate
the layout and content of an article, when the person has had many
other notable and high profile accomplishments and coverage. But I've
never really been able to get a good bead on Kww's thinking, so oh
well.