Anecdotally: I was down the pub tonight talking to regular humans who aren't Wikipedians about the vexed minor living bio issue. Like, they use it and know what it is and how it works and that it's written by nerds with too much time and so forth, but aren't regulars in any way.
And I think our hardline policy on BLPs is absolutely what the world would want. The incidents themselves have to be *notable*, not just verifiable. A carefully researched piece of footnoted crusading journalism may be noble, but it's NOT Wikipedia. Having an article in someone's name is a curse, because our page rank puts it straight at the top of Google. Etc.
They all got this, immediately. In just the way the people on wiki being querulous about BLPs don't.
I mean, I don't know if we can give Doc glasgow a medal for dealing with this rubbish so well on a continuing basis, but we should see if there's a way to.
- d.
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Anecdotally: I was down the pub tonight talking to regular humans who aren't Wikipedians about the vexed minor living bio issue. Like, they use it and know what it is and how it works and that it's written by nerds with too much time and so forth, but aren't regulars in any way.
And I think our hardline policy on BLPs is absolutely what the world would want. The incidents themselves have to be *notable*, not just verifiable. A carefully researched piece of footnoted crusading journalism may be noble, but it's NOT Wikipedia. Having an article in someone's name is a curse, because our page rank puts it straight at the top of Google. Etc.
They all got this, immediately. In just the way the people on wiki being querulous about BLPs don't.
I mean, I don't know if we can give Doc glasgow a medal for dealing with this rubbish so well on a continuing basis, but we should see if there's a way to.
- d.
Yes, Wikipedia is not paper, but if we're going to write readable articles not everything can make the cut. Naturally, it's notable incidents that should get in. Trouble is that not everyone agrees on what is notable and what isn't.
On 28/05/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, Wikipedia is not paper, but if we're going to write readable articles not everything can make the cut. Naturally, it's notable incidents that should get in. Trouble is that not everyone agrees on what is notable and what isn't.
Incidents are one thing - putting articles under a name when the incident is the notable thing is another.
- d.
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/05/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, Wikipedia is not paper, but if we're going to write readable articles not everything can make the cut. Naturally, it's notable incidents that should get in. Trouble is that not everyone agrees on what is notable and what isn't.
Incidents are one thing - putting articles under a name when the incident is the notable thing is another.
Bingo. I have found zero opposition to edits I have made which retain the information without needlessly attaching it to a name.
Sometimes people ask "why not use the name? it's in the references." It would have been a good question a couple of years ago. Now Wikipedia is one of the primary sources of information on the planet, and a google on a private individual's name should not needlessly associate them with some article on Wikipedia. The references often contain the personal information and often that's a big factor in verifiability, but as long as we cite the references we do not need to give undue prominence to the names.
David Gerard wrote:
On 28/05/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, Wikipedia is not paper, but if we're going to write readable articles not everything can make the cut. Naturally, it's notable incidents that should get in. Trouble is that not everyone agrees on what is notable and what isn't.
Incidents are one thing - putting articles under a name when the incident is the notable thing is another.
I think many (most?) people agree with this in principle, but there's wide disagreement over the threshold for when someone's role in an incident is sufficient to make *them* notable. Serial killers on the FBI's "10 most wanted" list clearly meet the threshold; some lower-level executive embroiled in the Enron scandal clearly doesn't; but there's plenty in between.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 28/05/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, Wikipedia is not paper, but if we're going to write readable articles not everything can make the cut. Naturally, it's notable incidents that should get in. Trouble is that not everyone agrees on what is notable and what isn't.
Incidents are one thing - putting articles under a name when the incident is the notable thing is another.
I think many (most?) people agree with this in principle, but there's wide disagreement over the threshold for when someone's role in an incident is sufficient to make *them* notable. Serial killers on the FBI's "10 most wanted" list clearly meet the threshold; some lower-level executive embroiled in the Enron scandal clearly doesn't; but there's plenty in between.
What those who appear to be taking a hard-line about deleting these BLPs for non-notable people should be taking note of is that the argument is not about any specific person's notability. It is about how we determine that they do not warrant an article. When you say that any admin can delete these articles on the basis of his own opinion you run into the fact that many of these admins have not established themselves as having trustworthy judgement. There has been a suggestion that admins who abuse the BLP excuse would be swiftly disciplined, but there is no confidence that this will indeed happen as quickly as the excuses are used.
Ec
David Gerard wrote:
They all got this, immediately. In just the way the people on wiki being querulous about BLPs don't.
Oh, no, we get it. We simply disagree with the means and tactics.
-Jeff
On 28/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
They all got this, immediately. In just the way the people on wiki being querulous about BLPs don't.
Oh, no, we get it. We simply disagree with the means and tactics.
I have seen no sign whatsoever from you of understanding that Wikipedia can be damaging to undeserving victims, and considerable sign of lack of understanding.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
I have seen no sign whatsoever from you of understanding that Wikipedia can be damaging to undeserving victims, and considerable sign of lack of understanding.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
-Jeff
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I have seen no sign whatsoever from you of understanding that Wikipedia can be damaging to undeserving victims,
"undeserving"
A problimatic aproach. Where do we draw the line on that one? Mass murder deserving. Tax fraud undeserving?
On 5/28/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I have seen no sign whatsoever from you of understanding that Wikipedia can be damaging to undeserving victims,
"undeserving"
A problimatic aproach. Where do we draw the line on that one? Mass murder deserving. Tax fraud undeserving?
Those are hard questions to answer. That doesn't mean we get to dodge them.
On 5/28/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
They all got this, immediately. In just the way the people on wiki being querulous about BLPs don't.
Oh, no, we get it. We simply disagree with the means and tactics.
Oh I wonder. Let's see what makes it into the final cut.
On 5/27/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Anecdotally: I was down the pub tonight talking to regular humans who aren't Wikipedians about the vexed minor living bio issue ...
And I think our hardline policy on BLPs is absolutely what the world would want. The incidents themselves have to be *notable*, not just verifiable. A carefully researched piece of footnoted crusading journalism may be noble, but it's NOT Wikipedia. Having an article in someone's name is a curse, because our page rank puts it straight at the top of Google. Etc.
They all got this, immediately. In just the way the people on wiki being querulous about BLPs don't.
I mean, I don't know if we can give Doc glasgow a medal for dealing with this rubbish so well on a continuing basis, but we should see if there's a way to.
I suspect even the querulous ones would get it if they became the subject of a negative WP bio because of one stupid incident.
I second the medal for Doc; some kind of statue would not go amiss, in fact. A giant Doc Glasgow cradling a sobbing BLP victim, waving a sword with the image of ... a badly drawn person on it. :-)