Risker wrote:
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.
Precisely.
The key here is not a single anomalous biography, but a question about
systemic matters. Wiki is not paper, so we do not have the constraints
of disk space. But this does not leave us without constraints.
One of the constraints is precisely the one you point out: maintenance
of biographies over time takes time and attention, and it is "a waste of
good editor time to expect people to monitor them" when they are so
marginal in the first place. And yet, failing to monitor, leads to use
being abused in the service of someone else's cause.
--Jimbo