Jon wrote:
David's got it spot on when he says the most
important thing is to
reference everything - and with impeccable sources at that (though
David obviously phrases it in his slight more to-the-point style).
His suggested new name for the page is much better than its current
location too.
The other thing I didn't like about the old one was it was mostly "don't
do this" - the /temp version aims to be "do this, do this."
The thing about guidelines is that only editors of good will will read
them, and only editors of good will and *clue* will take them in.
There's no point addressing editors of bad will, and editors who think
J. Random Blog is a solid reference (as opposed to a high-quality blog,
e.g. [[Groklaw]]) will need the gentle guidance of more clueful editors.
The other key thing is: Try really hard not to write anything that will
be wielded by idiots as a bludgeon. This is a lot of work and requires
experience of Wikipedia foolishness ...
There is one other point in the project page which is
important, I
think. We have many articles on living persons who have chosen to put
themselves in the public domain. This would include politicians,
celebrities, pop stars and widely published authors. We also have
articles on living persons who are notable, but who have not chosen
to put their lives in the public domain. We really should be careful
about what private information we publish about the latter. Some
background information (eg where a subject was born, was educated,
whether the subject is married and to whom) may be appropriate, but
it's just not fair to publish more salacious details, even if true
(eg affairs, spent convictions). I don't see this as encouraging SPOV
over NPOV - private details that would show a subject in a positive
light, but are really entirely irrelevant to the subject's notability
should likewise be omitted. (At present we have no guideline that I'm
awareness on relevance - NPOV, V and N OR will cover the rest.)
I'm not sure we need or want ABG (another bloody guideline) - we have
far too many as is - because no guideline can ever substitute for actual
editorial judgement.
In the case of the people you describe, we don't actually need to
consider fairness to the people - fairness to the article will do. If
it's relevant to why they have an article, or it's a notable incident in
itself, mention it; if not, it probably doesn't belong in the article.
- d.