On 29/04/2008, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)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