I cannot see that the Japanese rule is different to ours in type, it is different in degree. I would disagree with the rule simply because we have the ability to store far more information on far more people of notability (Wikipedia is not paper). Yes, the occasional person of lesser notability will be vandalised, but this would occur wherever you draw the line.
"Notability" has been too heavily relied upon thus far, it is entirely unquantifiable and shouldn't be used as a measure of worthiness for inclusion. I say we adopt a far more liberal approach and delete only those articles which are clear vanity/defamation.
Of course, I don't provide a solution for protection of these lesser known articles against vandalism. Perhaps VandalBot should be provided with a watchlist of vulnerable words which tend to be used in both pro and contra vandalism, but that's for somewhere else.
On 13/07/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/12/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Basically, if you're not a "public figure" (which seems to be defined quite narrowly - perhaps in a similar way to the Western defamation definition?), *you don't get named* at all, much less have an article on you. I'm not a public figure. Angela's not a public figure. Daniel Brandt's not a public figure. You probably are, and so's Xeni, but there's the cutoff, I guess.
"Probably"? If you make the Time 100 anything, you're a public figure. There's no gray area.
Brandt is a public figure because, among other reasons, he's been interviewed by or featured in The New York Times about a half dozen times, and he's not only done this willingly (as opposed to being sucked into a news controversy like Brian Chase), he's courted it through press releases and other means. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l