On 7/17/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
For me, the amusement at the cute story (woman calls 911 to ask for a date) was seriously impaired by my distaste for the fact that this poor woman's name was being brought into the matter globally and on the Internet and against her will, in a way that makes it somewhat likely that future googling on her name for the next 30 years will bring this incident, and only this incident, to the forefront.
You know, when you put it that way, maybe it would be better if this woman had a Wikipedia article. At least then Wikipedia could do a better job than the average newspaper story.
[snip to another email]
I think taking into account human dignity as one factor among many in our editorial judgments can go either way depending on the specific case. In the case of Brian Peppers, there is certainly a good argument to be made that having a thoughtful, NPOV article about him, including as much verifiable information as possible, can be a healthy antidote to the juvenile mocking we have seen in this meme.
Absolutely. Of course that can't happen as long as the system continues to be overriden by your edict. And no, don't bring up that there was already an AfD - that AfD was on completely different content from the new article.
In other cases, I think that human dignity points us in the other direction. The fellow in the Seigenthaler incident does not deserve to have a standalone article about him with this one tiny fact of what is likely an otherwise exemplary life turned into the #1 google hit for the rest of all time. (I think the current solution is fine, by the way: the article about him is redirected into the Seigenthaler incident article, therefore reporting the context.)
Chase is a much better example than the other two. But you know what, the current solution is terrible when it comes to what you're calling "human dignity". If it wasn't for Wikipedia mentioning his name and making that redirect, the guy wouldn't have *any* hits on Google.
Frankly, his name is irrelevant, even if you do think that [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]] is a valid encyclopedia topic.
If we want to be decent, and respect the guy's privacy, let's take his name out of Wikipedia completely. The one line description of him that's currently on his article (a disambig page) literally *is* one tiny fact out of his life. Sure, someone doing more research would still be able to find out the name, but it won't be in the top google hit.
Anthony