On 12/07/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
This is a slightly hyperbolic paraphrase, but a true one. People get insanely twitchy if they think something is removed by request; they *asked* us to remove it? that means they don't want people to know it! it must be important! we must fight to keep it!
Exactly. I am generally reluctant to tell people exactly what the complainer has said, because there is a tiny minority who seems to think that this is some kind of censorship by me or the Wikimedia Foundation and/or a call to arms.
My usual policy is to say "we've had someone write to us and say this article is crap, can we do something about it" - it's perfectly true, but it's far more effective than saying "we've had the subject..."
Of course, my hacking an article down is less likely to cause a riot than you doing so!
There are times that I think adopting the rule jp.wiki has on biographies would be a damn good idea...
AH!!!!! Please tell us! I love cross-cultural wikipedia differences.
[[en:Japanese Wikipedia]]
Basically, if you're not a "public figure" (which seems to be defined quite narrowly - perhaps in a similar way to the Western defamation definition?), *you don't get named* at all, much less have an article on you. I'm not a public figure. Angela's not a public figure. Daniel Brandt's not a public figure. You probably are, and so's Xeni, but there's the cutoff, I guess.
Incidentally, we have something passably similar discouraging borderline notables. Our *example* for "Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles" is [[Ronald Gay]], and look where he appears...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_gays%2C_lesbians%2C_bisexuals%...
he's the *only* person in that screenful of text to not be linked. I think the hint may not have taken very well.