On 4/1/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Maybe that is just what wikipedia is. We have a great system that can produce great articles in fairly uncontroversial subjects, or at its best controversial ones where there is a large group of people with a cross-section of views interested. But we are crap at low-notability controversial subjects, and particularly bios. Maybe trying to change policies to correct that systemic fact is misguided.
However, the conclusion to that may well be to say that *if open, inclusive, wikis can't do this type of thing, then we should stop trying*......Maybe we need a different type of project to do low-notability bios, one that is willing to say - *where we can't have a decent fair bio, we should have no bio at all*.
Should we stop trying to be anything other than a wiki - but now accept the limits of that method.
Doc
Notability is fairly objective, but the degree of notability is as subjective as it gets. Determining what is low-notability is not feasible. Also, this plan would mean you're giving in to vandals and POV pushers. Just because people are causing problems, doesn't mean we should get rid (delete) or shun such articles to the side. We should somehow handle the people causing the problems. There's plenty of bios you would consider low-notability that aren't causing any problems and they would be collateral victims if they were treated as problem material.
Mgm