On 29/04/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
That's not a bad biography, it's childish vandalism that happened to be missed. Stable versions should help with that in the not too distant future. I don't really see how such articles harm the subject
- they're obviously vandalised and any reasonable reader will
disregard them (perhaps we should try and cater to unreasonable readers, but I'm not sure we realistically can).
No, it's a bad biography. It's exactly the type of biography we don't need. This guy is president of a single local of a union. That is the only thing that makes him the least bit notable; and his name is only in the news right now because his local is in labour negotiations. This time next month, nobody will be interested in him -except of course for the same people who have been trashing him thus far.
These biographies of people with very marginal notability are magnets for vandalism. It's a waste of good editor time to expect people to monitor them and clean up vandalism in them; yet, failing to actively monitor them (or messing up when we actually do look at them) leads to the article Jimmy mentions at the beginning.
Risker