Individuals who "make bad judgment calls" involving soundly-based
accusations of fraud with respect to management positions with major
public media are worthy of coverage, and if a senior editor of the
Brittanica can been caught with false credentials, it would have been
in the papers also, and certainly in Wikipedia.
As for the removal from the article, please note the proposed policy
at WP:PSEUDO calling for the removal of even soundly sourced negative
material from bio articles if the person is not thought important
We have gone way too far in the direction of permitting subjects to
whitewash their articles, and the sympathy of WP editors for a
particular person is worthy of the same opinion we would have to
antipathy. Both are COI, and both should be fought against, not
pandered to. ~~~~
On 7/11/07, Nick Wilkins <nlwilkins(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/11/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/5/07, Anirudh <anirudhsbh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Why should we
constantly harp about upholding notability guidelines when it does
more harm than good to borderline notable subjects?
Because Wicca is not the official religion of wikipedia.
You may have missed principle 3 in [[Wikipedia:Requests for
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.