On 2/22/06, Keith Old <keithold(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If he did, well done to him. There is no legitimate
reason for an article on
Mr Peppers other than people on a couple of websites chose to make fun of
his appearance. In the latest AfD, one voter said words to effect of we're
just making fun of his appearance. Surely, Wikipedia should have higher
purposes than mocking the disabled which his article has generally tended to
The article has not tended to do that.
In general, we need to pay much more attention to
people's privacy than we
have. As one of the world's most popular Internet sites, articles on people
generally tend to be high up on the first page of a Google search. If people
do a Google search for a potential employee or date, our articles come up
fairly quickly. If we have an article alleging criminal or other antisocial
behavior, we need to ensure that the case is well-known and highly
verifiable through reliable sources.
[[Brian Peppers]] forfilled both of those depending on your defintion
of well know.
We therefore need to ensure that if we have articles
on people for a
negative reason, our policies on verifiability and reliable sources are
applied vigorously. As well, our editorial red pencils should be vigilant
about negative claims about individuals and if they don't have a reliable
source/s or don't comply with NPOV, they should be taken out.
Um yeah that is kinda what was going on with [[Brain Peppers]].