On 7/14/07, Anirudh <anirudhsbh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/5/07, Anirudh <anirudhsbh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Wikipedia IS the world's largest website;
Myspace would probably beg to differ.
Erm, alrighty, but you get the point, don't you?
Not really. The amount of content on a site is not that relevant to
Laws, schmlaws, I am referring to ethics.
Humans have come up with everything from super restrictive to "Do what
thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"
As I have already stated, his life is getting affected
by the negative
publicity. The article does nothing but make a mockery of that individual.
We are an encyclopedia and not a web-based newspaper which publishes each
and every thing that happens on the planet. I am not against inclusionism,
but some articles are better left outside, and for good reasons.
So your argument is noteability based?
They are not being denied information in any manner,
but the point of him
having an article featuring himself makes the situation even more enormous.
If they are not being denied information in any manner then the
article will make no difference.
No, it's about the systematic biases that plague Wiccapedia.
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]]