On 4/21/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
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.
<snip>
We can think creatively about that, rather than engaging in rhetoric about shutting Wikipedia down. :)
--Jimbo
I think this is positive. Such a shift would effectively over time reduce the number of low-notability and dubious bios we have - allowing us to focus attention on the rest. Low-notability bios are the problem as 1) they are often the only information on the subject 2) they are normally underwatched. 3) not enough people know about the subject to spot problems, imbalances and lies.
At the same time, this solution leaves the community firmly in control and avoids silly decisions that delete things because technically the sourcing doesn't fall into category x. Each article gets discussed on its merits.
Indeed for those who are concerned about community and democracy, this is a shift towards democracy.
I'd word it:
"For articles on the biographies of living people, deletion shall require only the clear balance of the debate in its favour - which shall normally consist of support of at least the majority of users expressing a relevant opinion"
The notion that such a policy would 'break' wikipedia is ridiculous. It would clearly empower the community to solve some of the issues and not the reverse.
And even if this solution doesn't take, it shows that there are rational alternatives to the status-quo. No need to shut the wiki down yet.