You have done a good job stating the position that I support.
It is of note that we are not really writing *full* biographies on most of these people. And many of these blp that we do have something approaching a full biography will quickly because outdated. We have little chance of obtaining the updated information on these folks. Yet a number of users supported the arguement that once notable always notable.
Take care,
Sydney
---- Brian Salter-Duke <b_duke(a)bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> My response below appeared very belated as I realised after sending it
> that it woudl go to moderation as I had changed my e-mail address. It is
> of course now old news as the AfD on Angela's article has been closed as
> no consensus - keep.
>
> This debate had lead me to reconsider my position. I really do not see
> why we should not delete articles on living persons if they request it
> and if they have not put themself firmly into the public domain, such as
> standing for office. Starting a company is not putting yourself into the
> public domain. It is the company that may deserve an article and the
> people who founded it should be mentioned. But that does not imply that
> we should breach their privacy by a full article on the founders.
> Getting elected to the Royal Society or similar is not pushing yourself
> into the public domain. Such a person might be mentioned on an article
> that explained the advance that lead to their election to the RS, but
> if they do not want a full bio, we should not write one. Privacy is very
> important.
>
> We are not writing an encyclopedia overnight. If a person is really
> notable, an article can be added later, possibly after their death, if
> they persit in requesting that there be no article in their lifetime.
>
> I do not think this course of action is out of line. For example, I
> think "Who's Who" does not force an entry on someone who does not want
> one. They do not argue that someone is notable and people have a right
> to find out about them whether the person wants this or not. I think
> there is a terrible arrogance about forcing a WP article on someone who
> does not want their privacy breached in this way.
>
> I understand that my approach is very close to the Japan WP approach
> that I asked about at the end. I think it should be followed up and
> implemented in the en WP.
>
> Apologies for top posting. I do not normally top post, but I am not
> specifically addressing the issues in the post below, just following up
> rather late.
>
> Brian.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke
I removed the jokes. Mikka reverted. My reasoning:
* no reliable sources for these being considered representative of the
classes of joke discussed
* this is about the concept of the joke, it is not [[List of jokes]]
(and most especially not [[List of randomly selected and generally
abysmal jokes]])
* several are gratuitously offensive. It should be possible to read
the article on joke, be told that racist jokes exist, but not be
subjected to them unless you visit a separate article
* WP:NOT a joke book
* cruft, cruft, cruft and more cruft. Most are drive-bys.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
---- ScottL <scott(a)mu.org> wrote:
>
>
> Oldak Quill wrote:
> > Could you give me a definition of "notability" that is not entirely
> > centred around the culture and experience of the person who uses it?
> > I'm yet to hear one. IMO, we should completely abandon, or redefine,
> > "notability" for something more tangible, measurable and worthy of our
> > efforts.
>
>
> I don't know the "I know it when I see it and I'll vote that way"
> approach does not seem to me to be the biggest problem we have. I think
> a bigger problem is focusing on notability too much to the exclusion of
> such questions as: "Is there enough verifiable information on this topic
> for an encyclopedic article?", "Is this topic fit or appropriate for an
> encyclopedia?", "If this topic were covered completely and throughly
> would it be worth reading?". In the case of people article I would also
> say "Is a single transitory cultural event that the person was involved
> in the only reason for the article to exist?" There are other questions
> things to consider other than if the topic or person meets some
> arbitrary bar of notability and I suspect that putting much effort into
> rigidly defining notability would exacerbate the tendency to ignore
> other considerations (like human dignity).
>
> Dalf
Dalf,
Agree that more thought needs to go into these decisions.
Sydney
It's back again, after being deleted by Danny and protected by me
(ZOMG! Wheel war!). Having seen Ombudsman among the list of
contributors (actually restarted it after the last deletion) does not
fill me with confidence...
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>From an email I just got:
Herringdoppler <frustrated_wiki_user(a)yahoo.com> to me 1:33 pm(12 minutes ago)
RasputinAXP
I have figured out a way to make profit on wikpda with only a one-time
time investment of about 10 minutes. If you are interested, please
respond with a blank email message to frustrated_wiki_user(a)yahoo.com
Perhaps we could buy you a new laptop.
Herringdoppler
-=-=-=-
What in the heck?
-Ras
--
John Lyden - rasputinaxp(a)gmail.com
"The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to
live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same
time..." -Kerouac
Sorry for this totally off topic question about spam, but there seem
to be some pretty cluey people on this list.
In the last couple of months, I've been getting a lot of email replies
to emails I never sent, including a lot of spam challenge-responses
and a few "I'm out of the office" type messages. I have two theories:
* I have some malware on my computer sending out emails.
* Someone is forging mails with my address as the sender.
I should point out that any mail at the stevage.com domain gets to me,
so quite a few messages are addressed to asdfdasd(a)stevage.com etc.
If anyone has any thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them (probably
reply off list...?). Mostly I just want to know if it's something I
should do something about, and whether I should feel responsible for
all this spam that is apparently being sent under my name...
Steve
Apparently, some people don't like the GNU drawing in the GFDL
template and so, for esthetic reasons, a new template was born:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:GFDL-nologo
The reason given, on the edit summary, was:
"some people were annoyed by the cartoon"
Should we have many copyright templates, one to fit everyone's
taste or just one standard, vanilla-flavored template?
On 15 Jul 2006 at 00:34, "Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Along these lines:
> Will anyone care in a year? two years? ten years? one hundred years?
>
> Wikipedia is forever.
This is an interesting line of discussion... Just what does everybody
think is likely to be the future of Wikipedia in ten, one hundred,
one thousand, ... years?
Barring a total catastropic collapse of civilization (and possibly
even then), it's likely that some copy of some portion of some
version of Wikipedia will survive somewhere, given its wide
dissemination. Such a thing will likely be an imporant resource for
future historians / archeologists / anthropologists / etc.
researching human culture of the early 21st century.
However, in such a scenario, the surviving Wikipedia would be merely
a "dead" historical document, albeit a massive one with many
alternative versions.
Or, is it the belief here that a "living" Wikipedia, still being
actively updated and open to such updates from the general public,
will continue to exist for centuries to come?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
---- Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> On 7/17/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/17/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> > > And it's not the way that I went. I don't think any crime is
> > > sufficient to overcome one's right to privacy, at least to some
> > > extent. I do think the crime Peppers is convicted of is sufficient,
> > > though.
> >
> > Huh? Didn't he grope a nurse at his nursing home or something? Talk to
> > someone at works at these places, that's an everyday occurrence.
>
> If it's an everyday occurrence, then do you really think that's what happened?
>
> The person who made up the story about Peppers accidently groping a
> nurse has admitted that it was a hoax.
>
> > Even if he was a rapist or child molester, I don't see why his right to
> > privacy should necessarily be diminished - unless the Wikipedia
> > community takes it upon itself to decide that additional punishment
> > needs to be meted out to such people.
> >
> So why don't we delete [[John Couey]] and all the others in
> [[Category:Convicted child sex offenders]]? Are we punishing them?
>
> In fact, who *can* we have an article about? Only people who give us
> permission? Or are there some people we're allowed to punish?
>
> > > Sure, and I think providing information about Brian Peppers does make
> > > the encyclopedia better. But at the same time I think we have to
> > > consider personal privacy issues. Both have to be present. Articles
> > > have to make the encyclopedia better, but they also have to refrain
> > > from violating the privacy rights of the subject.
> >
> > I don't think that writing "Brian Peppers was an internet meme due to
> > his oversized head" is violating his privacy. Naming the nursing home
> > where he lives or providing details on the offence he committed could
> > be.
> >
> I don't think there's any reason to name which nursing home he lives
> at, of course this information is relatively easy to find anyway.
>
> As for providing details on the offence he committed, I most certainly
> don't think that's a violation of his privacy.
>
> Anthony
Anthony,
According to my interpretation of our guidelines, there should not be any articles on individuals because they are child sex offenders. There needs to be some other reason for their notability. I've not looked at these categories for a few months. When I was regularly checking these categories, our articles followed WP:BLP. Meaning that indiviuals that were notable but non-public figures were not included in the category.
Sydney