On 09/09/06, Amgine <amgine(a)saewyc.net> wrote: And, of course, [[WP:LIVING]] has pretty much from its creation said what you're asking for here: facts in the article need to be relevant to the subject's notability. (removed developers from the cc:, as I can't see them caring about an editorial policy issue) - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 09/09/06, Amgine <amgine(a)saewyc.net> wrote: And, of course, [[WP:LIVING]] has pretty much from its creation said what you're asking for here: facts in the article need to be relevant to the subject's notability. (removed developers from the cc:, as I can't see them caring about an editorial policy issue) - d.

>> For these and other reasons, en.wp should develop policy limiting >> living persons articles to primary career facts and academic >> achievements, current positions held or endeavors, and minimal >> personal facts. By presenting a minimal set of biographic facts the >> community can circumvent a large number of internal and external >> conflicts, whilst avoiding maintenance issues and keeping the >> articles relevant until such time as the subjects may be viewed in >> historical context.

On 10/09/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: Yes. One bad example is not a reason to adopt a policy with the specific goal of making living bio articles as useless as possible. I wonder what the readers want from Wikipedia bio articles.

On 9/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hard to say, but... * Legally, can't be libelous/defaming. * Probably don't want to read like a tabloid journal * Probably don't want to be like a book biography... "Mr X took a number 2 on Nov 5th, 1985 in the 2nd floor bathroom...he usually goes to the 3rd floor bathroom." Compared to a who's who or book biography. * Shouldn't be completely Positive smiley happy happy - all negatives scrubbed. * Should touch on recent events/litigation - up to date as of now. * Learn something interesting or unknown - trivia. * Make the person look human - care.

> And, of course, [[WP:LIVING]] has pretty much from its creation said > what you're asking for here: facts in the article need to be relevant > to the subject's notability.

No, actually. To give an example of what I mean: [[Tom DeLay]]

On 8-Sep-06, at 9:34 AM, David Gerard wrote: I agree, this is a major problem when working with press and also constitutes a large percentage of large-issue communications with the Foundation Office and with OTRS. The [[WP:BLPP]] addresses many of the concerns, and is a great idea. However, this treats the symptoms of two fundamental issue which en.wp is not addressing: Who is noteworthy enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and what/how much should be said regarding living persons. These two issues cannot be resolved by a technical solution. The Patrol is a reasonable stop-gap measure which will address the problems we have now, but it is unlikely to scale well, nor is it a solution for all wikipedias. I would encourage the en.wp community to create a few objective measures akin to the USA State of Florida judicial "Public Persons" test. It seems to me that any encyclopedic living persons biography must be about a person who is, at the very least, a public person (that is, someone reasonably well-known or in a position where they are likely to be addressing a general public audience, such as politicians for public office, newspaper editors, actors, radio announcers, clergy members, corporate spokespersons, &c.) It is not reasonable to have large, in-depth biographies about living persons. Too much information makes is included, often with such detail that make an en.wp article a considerable risk to the subject's privacy and security (such as identity theft, among other things.) Deep articles are prone to bias, either showing the subject unfavourably or too favourably, and often give undue weight to some minor element of their life to push a point of view (a classic example are US Congressional members, whose articles almost universally contain extensive coverage of the most recent few years of public service - particularly perceived scandals - and may completely lack any mention of previous public positions or private careers.) Subjects can and do dramatically alter their lives and goals, and en.wp articles are not able to be relevant to these changes. For these and other reasons, en.wp should develop policy limiting living persons articles to primary career facts and academic achievements, current positions held or endeavors, and minimal personal facts. By presenting a minimal set of biographic facts the community can circumvent a large number of internal and external conflicts, whilst avoiding maintenance issues and keeping the articles relevant until such time as the subjects may be viewed in historical context. </rant> Amgine _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l