-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 04:21 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
On 23/05/07, Trebor Rowntree trebor.rowntree@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, repeating myself here. The lesson from Siegenthaler was to source source source, and delete anything which wasn't. It didn't (and BLP doesn't) say anything about deletion of articles about individuals famous for negative reasons.
The point is that isn't particularly fame. The incident is famous, the person's pretty much only famous in association with the incident. For a local example, there's an article at [[Essjay controversy]] but only a pointer at [[Ryan Jordan]] (which is a disambig).
The Crystal whatsit article is now a redirect to the incident of fame (and I'm fine with that; I zapped it because the single-purpose editors were so rabid about it). But her *grade point averages* sure as hell don't belong in the article. That's what I mean by immaculately sourced attack article. Her GPAs? What on earth?
- d.
That is an appropriate resolution. Rather than an article about a not notable person involved in a notable incident we have an article about the incident. What else is there to say about this person that is not malicious?
Fred
On 5/23/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
That is an appropriate resolution. Rather than an article about a not notable person involved >in a notable incident we have an article about the incident. What else is there to say about >this person that is not malicious?
Are you suggesting that the official report by North Carolina's Attorney General is malicious?
Fred Bauder wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 04:21 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
On 23/05/07, Trebor Rowntree trebor.rowntree@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, repeating myself here. The lesson from Siegenthaler was to source source source, and delete anything which wasn't. It didn't (and BLP doesn't) say anything about deletion of articles about individuals famous for negative reasons.
The point is that isn't particularly fame. The incident is famous, the person's pretty much only famous in association with the incident. For a local example, there's an article at [[Essjay controversy]] but only a pointer at [[Ryan Jordan]] (which is a disambig).
The Crystal whatsit article is now a redirect to the incident of fame (and I'm fine with that; I zapped it because the single-purpose editors were so rabid about it). But her *grade point averages* sure as hell don't belong in the article. That's what I mean by immaculately sourced attack article. Her GPAs? What on earth?
- d.
That is an appropriate resolution. Rather than an article about a not notable person involved in a notable incident we have an article about the incident. What else is there to say about this person that is not malicious?
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred, I think you're confusing "real, verifiable, widely-reported, true but negative information" with "malice". Slander or libel is reporting -untrue- information, not -true- information. Especially when that information is already widely published in reliable sources (and it should be, we're never a first publisher), we're not harming someone by reporting on what the reports said.
If I go put into a person's article "X murdered someone a year ago! I know it!" with nothing to back it up, I'm acting out of malice. On the other hand, if someone is a convicted murderer, I'm not acting out of malice by putting that sourced information into their article-even if it's really all they're noted for. (We have an article on Jeffrey Dahmer, and though he's not alive, he's certainly only notable for his murders. Same with John Lee Malvo, and he is alive.)
We don't have a ton of negative information in the article about Mother Teresa, because, well, she's mainly notable for doing positive things! That's not a violation of undue weight, it's an accurate reflection of the information and sources available.But by the same token, it is -not- a violation of undue weight to have mainly negative things in an article about someone who's mainly notable for doing negative things.
On 5/24/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
We don't have a ton of negative information in the article about Mother Teresa, because, well, she's mainly notable for doing positive things! That's not a violation of undue weight, it's an accurate reflection of the information and sources available.But by the same token, it is -not- a violation of undue weight to have mainly negative things in an article about someone who's mainly notable for doing negative things.
This is just too delicious to let pass without comment. If this is meant as a sublime form of irony, well done Sir, my hat is off to you, and I bow deep before you, with flourishes.
Now on the off chance you are being in earnest, I have to assume you have not read the talk page archives of that article ([[Mother Teresa]]) to any remarkable depth.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
On 5/24/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
We don't have a ton of negative information in the article about Mother Teresa, because, well, she's mainly notable for doing positive things! That's not a violation of undue weight, it's an accurate reflection of the information and sources available.But by the same token, it is -not- a violation of undue weight to have mainly negative things in an article about someone who's mainly notable for doing negative things.
This is just too delicious to let pass without comment. If this is meant as a sublime form of irony, well done Sir, my hat is off to you, and I bow deep before you, with flourishes.
Now on the off chance you are being in earnest, I have to assume you have not read the talk page archives of that article ([[Mother Teresa]]) to any remarkable depth.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I confess I haven't read the archives, but the article as it currently stands sure doesn't seem to have too much negative to it.