On 21-Apr-07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There isn't going to be a firm line, but a good
rule of thumb would be
that the greater the role of Wikipedia in increasing the subject's
notability, the more we should incline toward deleting the article on
request.
There's much to be said for that. Ideally, Wikipedia should be like
the [[Watcher (comics)]] in the Marvel universe, observing and
chronicling what goes on in the real world but not intervening in it;
it's not our job to make somebody more or less notable, but merely to
report on their notability as it exists independently of us.
However, if any of you are Marvel Comics fans, you know that [[Uatu]]
the Watcher has violated this principle on many occasions,
intervening in the development of the universe despite his oath not
to. Merely providing some of his gathered information to others who
are partisans in various battles amounts to intervening just as much
as going into the fray himself. A principle of staying apart from
the "real world" and not intervening to affect its development is
something that only works as an abstract principle, not in practice;
in reality, saying or doing anything at all has the potential to
affect how things come out even if you're trying hard to stay apart
from things. The experimenter's actions influence the behavior of
the subjects he's trying to study.
So, given that we are a part of the world, and are big and
influential enough that despite it being contrary to our principles
to assist in making somebody notable it has sometimes happened
nevertheless, the problem then is whether we are subsequently bound
by our principles to accurately reflect the notability of somebody
who has become notable primarily because of past actions of ours that
perhaps broke our principles. It can be a tough dilemma.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site:
http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips:
http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site:
http://domains.dan.info/