On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:18 PM, David Goodman <dggenwp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It would be better to have a rule to never take the
views of the
subject in consideration about whether we should have an article,
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.
David, a major problem with BLPs is that marginally notable people
sometimes find it quite creepy to be at the centre of apparently
obsessive attention from people they don't know, who in addition may
be editing anonymously (and therefore may be people they *do* know!).
A lot of people who commented on the recent case of the radio
presenter missed this point. They focused on whether the article was
in good shape, and that the presenter wouldn't explain exactly what
was wrong with it.
But what was wrong with it was its existence *and* its continued
editing. If a journalist writes about you, you're going to have that
person in your life for a few hours or days (unless you're involved in
something protracted or high-profile). But on Wikipedia, there could
be obsessive tweaking for years, accompanied by talk-page discussion
about "should we, shouldn't we, add a date of birth," and "are we sure
the date is correct," and "maybe we could try to obtain it through the
Freedom of Information Act." It's especially odd to continue to do
this once the subject has asked you to stop.
I can understand that it would feel creepy to be exposed to this year
after year, if you're not used to it, especially when there's no
editor-in-chief or publisher you can appeal to. Some people won't
mind, and some will hate it. It's unkind of us to point to one of
those emotional reactions and say "that's an irrational response, so
we're going to ignore you."