You have done a good job stating the position that I support.
It is of note that we are not really writing *full* biographies on most of these people. And many of these blp that we do have something approaching a full biography will quickly because outdated. We have little chance of obtaining the updated information on these folks. Yet a number of users supported the arguement that once notable always notable.
Take care, Sydney
---- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
My response below appeared very belated as I realised after sending it that it woudl go to moderation as I had changed my e-mail address. It is of course now old news as the AfD on Angela's article has been closed as no consensus - keep.
This debate had lead me to reconsider my position. I really do not see why we should not delete articles on living persons if they request it and if they have not put themself firmly into the public domain, such as standing for office. Starting a company is not putting yourself into the public domain. It is the company that may deserve an article and the people who founded it should be mentioned. But that does not imply that we should breach their privacy by a full article on the founders. Getting elected to the Royal Society or similar is not pushing yourself into the public domain. Such a person might be mentioned on an article that explained the advance that lead to their election to the RS, but if they do not want a full bio, we should not write one. Privacy is very important.
We are not writing an encyclopedia overnight. If a person is really notable, an article can be added later, possibly after their death, if they persit in requesting that there be no article in their lifetime.
I do not think this course of action is out of line. For example, I think "Who's Who" does not force an entry on someone who does not want one. They do not argue that someone is notable and people have a right to find out about them whether the person wants this or not. I think there is a terrible arrogance about forcing a WP article on someone who does not want their privacy breached in this way.
I understand that my approach is very close to the Japan WP approach that I asked about at the end. I think it should be followed up and implemented in the en WP.
Apologies for top posting. I do not normally top post, but I am not specifically addressing the issues in the post below, just following up rather late.
Brian.
On 7/19/06, Sydney aka FloNight poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
You have done a good job stating the position that I support.
It is of note that we are not really writing *full* biographies on most of these people. And many of these blp that we do have something approaching a full biography will quickly because outdated. We have little chance of obtaining the updated information on these folks. Yet a number of users supported the arguement that once notable always notable.
Take care, Sydney
---- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
My response below appeared very belated as I realised after sending it that it woudl go to moderation as I had changed my e-mail address. It is of course now old news as the AfD on Angela's article has been closed as no consensus - keep.
This debate had lead me to reconsider my position. I really do not see why we should not delete articles on living persons if they request it and if they have not put themself firmly into the public domain, such as standing for office. Starting a company is not putting yourself into the public domain. It is the company that may deserve an article and the people who founded it should be mentioned. But that does not imply that we should breach their privacy by a full article on the founders. Getting elected to the Royal Society or similar is not pushing yourself into the public domain. Such a person might be mentioned on an article that explained the advance that lead to their election to the RS, but if they do not want a full bio, we should not write one. Privacy is very important.
We are not writing an encyclopedia overnight. If a person is really notable, an article can be added later, possibly after their death, if they persit in requesting that there be no article in their lifetime.
I do not think this course of action is out of line. For example, I think "Who's Who" does not force an entry on someone who does not want one. They do not argue that someone is notable and people have a right to find out about them whether the person wants this or not. I think there is a terrible arrogance about forcing a WP article on someone who does not want their privacy breached in this way.
I understand that my approach is very close to the Japan WP approach that I asked about at the end. I think it should be followed up and implemented in the en WP.
Apologies for top posting. I do not normally top post, but I am not specifically addressing the issues in the post below, just following up rather late.
Brian.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Brian and Sydney,
Thank you for your views.
However, I think that your positions are too restrictive for mine.
Our main task is to put together an encyclopedia. As such, we need to include significant figures such as leading business people such as founders of companies and eminent scientists such as fellows of the Royal Society and we should not wait until their deaths.
Privacy and their wishes should be a consideration in cases where there is not enough verifiable material available to publish a full biography. There is no good reason for a biography of Brian Peppers for example given that there is so little material available from reliable sources. Similarly, I supported the deletion of the article on Angela Beesley on the grounds that there was little verifiable material from Third Party sources available about her and notability outside Wikipedia. If it was a board member of Microsoft, I would have taken a diifferent view.
Development of a good encyclopedia should be our first priority, however.
Regards
Keith Old
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 05:05:18AM +1000, Keith Old wrote:
On 7/19/06, Sydney aka FloNight poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
You have done a good job stating the position that I support.
It is of note that we are not really writing *full* biographies on most of these people. And many of these blp that we do have something approaching a full biography will quickly because outdated. We have little chance of obtaining the updated information on these folks. Yet a number of users supported the arguement that once notable always notable.
Take care, Sydney
---- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
My response below appeared very belated as I realised after sending it that it woudl go to moderation as I had changed my e-mail address. It is of course now old news as the AfD on Angela's article has been closed as no consensus - keep.
This debate had lead me to reconsider my position. I really do not see why we should not delete articles on living persons if they request it and if they have not put themself firmly into the public domain, such as standing for office. Starting a company is not putting yourself into the public domain. It is the company that may deserve an article and the people who founded it should be mentioned. But that does not imply that we should breach their privacy by a full article on the founders. Getting elected to the Royal Society or similar is not pushing yourself into the public domain. Such a person might be mentioned on an article that explained the advance that lead to their election to the RS, but if they do not want a full bio, we should not write one. Privacy is very important.
We are not writing an encyclopedia overnight. If a person is really notable, an article can be added later, possibly after their death, if they persit in requesting that there be no article in their lifetime.
I do not think this course of action is out of line. For example, I think "Who's Who" does not force an entry on someone who does not want one. They do not argue that someone is notable and people have a right to find out about them whether the person wants this or not. I think there is a terrible arrogance about forcing a WP article on someone who does not want their privacy breached in this way.
I understand that my approach is very close to the Japan WP approach that I asked about at the end. I think it should be followed up and implemented in the en WP.
Apologies for top posting. I do not normally top post, but I am not specifically addressing the issues in the post below, just following up rather late.
Brian.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Brian and Sydney,
Thank you for your views.
However, I think that your positions are too restrictive for mine.
Our main task is to put together an encyclopedia. As such, we need to include significant figures such as leading business people such as founders of companies and eminent scientists such as fellows of the Royal Society and we should not wait until their deaths.
Privacy and their wishes should be a consideration in cases where there is not enough verifiable material available to publish a full biography. There is no good reason for a biography of Brian Peppers for example given that there is so little material available from reliable sources. Similarly, I supported the deletion of the article on Angela Beesley on the grounds that there was little verifiable material from Third Party sources available about her and notability outside Wikipedia. If it was a board member of Microsoft, I would have taken a diifferent view.
Development of a good encyclopedia should be our first priority, however.
It is a question of recognising that not everybody shares our priority and that individuals have their own priorities. If a person does not want an article in WP then it is an invasion of their privacy. The question is whether under all circumstances they have to put up with that. If they stand for elected office, yes, they do. I am not convinced in other cases.
The way other encyclopedias handle this would be interesting. "Who's Who" is a kind of encyclopedia restricted to bios. I think they allow people to opt out, but I'm not certain. Does Britannia insist on publishing an entry on a living person if that person states clearly that they do not want it to do so. What about other encyclopedias? What about other wikipedias? We have already heard about a different policy on the Japanese WP. Is anybody in a position to give some of this information?
Brian.
Regards
Keith Old
On 7/18/06, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
There is no good reason for a biography of Brian Peppers for example given that there is so little material available from reliable sources. Similarly,
There's no good reason for a real biography - it's quite unlikely that anyone really wants to know anything about his life, and if they do, there would be no shame in Wikipedia not having that information. The only real interest in BP is the internet meme, like the numa numa guy, etc. A short article detailing when the meme took off, when it died, some sources examining why he became famous, and maybe a sentence or two on "the man behind the photo" would be appropriate.
Sorry if we're still beating this dead horse, but the BP article is quite a good example of someone being "famous in spite of themselves".
Steve