On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/05/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, Wikipedia is not paper, but if we're going to write readable articles not everything can make the cut. Naturally, it's notable incidents that should get in. Trouble is that not everyone agrees on what is notable and what isn't.
Incidents are one thing - putting articles under a name when the incident is the notable thing is another.
Bingo. I have found zero opposition to edits I have made which retain the information without needlessly attaching it to a name.
Sometimes people ask "why not use the name? it's in the references." It would have been a good question a couple of years ago. Now Wikipedia is one of the primary sources of information on the planet, and a google on a private individual's name should not needlessly associate them with some article on Wikipedia. The references often contain the personal information and often that's a big factor in verifiability, but as long as we cite the references we do not need to give undue prominence to the names.