On 4/21/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
Arguments that suggest that any change is
equivalent to "might as well
shut Wikipedia down" are useless and will of course be sensibly ignored
by the community.
"Delete any bio if the subject objects" is pretty clearly too simplistic
a policy.
But I think it is entirely possible to strengthen our policies in a way
that is consistent with our values and traditions, and broadly
acceptable within the community.
One possibility that someone mentioned the other day would be to have a
shift in policy that looks something like this:
Whenever the subject of a biography objects on the grounds of being
non-notable, the subsequent AFD has a shifted "default"... instead of
needing a "consensus to delete" we would have a "consensus to keep".
Another version would say this for ALL bios of living people:
For biographies of living persons, there must be a "consensus to keep"
rather than a "consensus to delete".
Another version would say this for ALL bios of living people:
For biographies of living persons, a "majority to delete (taking into
account sock puppets, and taking into account the number of edits of
those participating in the discussion" shall be sufficient to delete.
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.
I don't think a neutral bio can be written by Brandt himself either, so him
claiming it's defaming him, is probably a worse case of WP:COI.
Mgm