[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium
I, personally, believe correct, verifiable information on a
subject someone might be looking for is nearly always a net
positive, and that withholding such information is almost
always a net negative.
Publicly-available information is a cat that can't be put
back into a bag, and refusing to provide it in a neutral,
verifiable manner does nothing but: 1) increase the
prominence of misinformation from alternative sources; and 2)
increase inequality in access to information.
Some public information, such as contained in registers of sex offenders or
sale prices on house transfers, is generally relatively difficult to find
and search. Sure, it's public info, but it's not readily available.
Having a Wikipedia article - a notorious Wikipedia article - is a different
thing. For one thing, it will tend to rank high on a Google search, whereas
that Ohio register doesn't seem to be at all prominent. For another, the
mere fact that there *is* an article when so many more notorious sex
offenders go unmentioned here sends a message, and not one that I think
Wikipedia should be sending.
The reason the subject of the article was in WP is not because of his
crime(s), but because of his appearance. To my mind, by including the
article, we are not presenting a professional face to the world.
And saying that the subject is now notorious and therefore notable is a