On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman <dggenwp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for picking the topic up again, David.
It would be better to have a rule to never take the views of the
subject in consideration about whether we should have
unless an exception can be made according to other Wikipedia rules, in
particular, Do No Harm. People have the right to a fair article, but
not to a favorable one.
I wish Do no harm were a Wikipedia rule. But the only essay I am aware of
that formalises it has it marked as a rejected principle in its
Under the present system, we do need to have some provision for the type of
exception you mention. It's really firefighting though, rather than
addressing the underlying cause.
I agree that the ratio of editors to articles is much too low. What we
need is not fewer bios, but more editors. Encouraging new people to
work on BLPs is the solution.
The problem is not the ratio between editors and biographies, but the ratio
of editors editing within policy vs editors who come only to write a
hatchet job or an infomercial. This is something that can be addressed by
Let all those who only edit an article to defame or advertise, to write
hatchet jobs or infomercials, make their suggestions.
And let an editor who understands what a coatrack is, and who is committed
to core policy, decide what the public should see when they navigate to the
The right to edit BLPs, and approve pending changes, should be a
distinction that people are proud of, just like they are proud of rollback
or adminship. And like rollback, it should be a privilege they will lose if
they abuse it.
The really hard calls on how much negative material to include in a BLP
should be made by teams with a diverse composition. A whole new culture
needs to be built around BLP editing.