On 7/13/06, David Boothroyd david@election.demon.co.uk wrote:
In my view the principle is clear: if a person meets notability for a biographical article, then the whole of their life is notable even if on its own it would not qualify them. For example, Bill Clinton is not a notable saxophone player - he would not qualify for an article based on having played the saxophone - but it is reasonable to mention this fact in his article because it is a significant part of how he was perceived.
The difference between Clinton's saxaphone playing and this situation is that the mention of the former is not harmful to Clinton; and the difference between a politician whose career is ruined by a scandal is that it'll have attached itself to his name, whereas in GLF's case, that appears not to be the case.
Wikipedia doesn't benefit from including the information about GLF, but he will be harmed if we do. Therefore, we ought not to. Fairness is as important as accuracy when writing about living people, if not more so.
Sarah
Sarah wrote:
On 7/13/06, David Boothroyd david@election.demon.co.uk wrote:
In my view the principle is clear: if a person meets notability for a biographical article, then the whole of their life is notable even if on its own it would not qualify them. For example, Bill Clinton is not a notable saxophone player - he would not qualify for an article based on having played the saxophone - but it is reasonable to mention this fact in his article because it is a significant part of how he was perceived.
The difference between Clinton's saxaphone playing and this situation is that the mention of the former is not harmful to Clinton; and the difference between a politician whose career is ruined by a scandal is that it'll have attached itself to his name, whereas in GLF's case, that appears not to be the case.
Wikipedia doesn't benefit from including the information about GLF, but he will be harmed if we do. Therefore, we ought not to. Fairness is as important as accuracy when writing about living people, if not more so.
How does Wikipedia not benefit from including the information? If Wikipedia biographies are to be accurate articles, they should not selectively exclude facts deemed inconvenient. When I buy a biography written by a reputable historian, if it has a section on a politian's life after office, I expect that section to be accurate and reasonably complete. For example, if 10 years from now Clinton gets arrested for drunk driving, I would expect a biography written after that to mention this fact. I would expect no less of Wikipedia articles.
-Mark
On 7/13/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
How does Wikipedia not benefit from including the information? If Wikipedia biographies are to be accurate articles, they should not selectively exclude facts deemed inconvenient.
We don't benefit because he's a very minor figure, arguably not someone who should have an article in the first place, and it wasn't a good article anyway. So for the sake of upholding some unwritten principle of completeness (i.e. for the sake of ideology), we're prepared to harm an individual's real life, someone who has done nothing to any of us, to ensure that this incident will continue to haunt him, whereas he thought he had put it behind him.
My argument is that it's neither fair nor rational to do that, and we ought always to be both fair and rational when dealing with people who are, in a very real sense, at Wikipedia's mercy.
Sarah
On 7/14/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/13/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
How does Wikipedia not benefit from including the information? If Wikipedia biographies are to be accurate articles, they should not selectively exclude facts deemed inconvenient.
We don't benefit because he's a very minor figure, arguably not someone who should have an article in the first place, and it wasn't a good article anyway. So for the sake of upholding some unwritten principle of completeness (i.e. for the sake of ideology), we're prepared to harm an individual's real life, someone who has done nothing to any of us, to ensure that this incident will continue to haunt him, whereas he thought he had put it behind him.
My argument is that it's neither fair nor rational to do that, and we ought always to be both fair and rational when dealing with people who are, in a very real sense, at Wikipedia's mercy.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
We should always give due consideration to the impact on someone's private life versus the competing consideration of having a balanced article on the person. In this particular case, there are arguments running both ways.
On a higher level, we need to make sure that our policies on sourcing are particularly rigorous when it comes to biographies especially of living people.
Our article on the late Red Buttons (as of today) contained a claim that his third wife had had an affair. There was no source provided for the claim. I have removed it with a note on the talk page not to restore it unless we have information from a reliable source confirming it.
Wikipedia is arguably the leading source of biographical information available over the Internet. That gives us an extra responsibility to make sure we get it right.
Regards
Keith Old
On 7/13/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
We don't benefit because he's a very minor figure, arguably not someone who should have an article in the first place, and it wasn't a good article anyway. So for the sake of upholding some unwritten principle of completeness (i.e. for the sake of ideology), we're prepared to harm an individual's real life, someone who has done nothing to any of us, to ensure that this incident will continue to haunt him, whereas he thought he had put it behind him.
Technicaly an untrue claim (wikipedians include UK tax payers)
I we are to right about someone it should be as complete as posible. Lord Levy would not be complete without mentioning in connection to the "cash for peerages" inquiry by the Metropolitan Police. It would also be imcomplete if we failed to mention his charity fundraising
My argument is that it's neither fair nor rational to do that, and we ought always to be both fair and rational when dealing with people who are, in a very real sense, at Wikipedia's mercy.
Sarah
Fair means we include both the good and the bad. Exclude either and we are both unfair to the subject and unfair to our readers.
Sarah wrote:
On 7/13/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
How does Wikipedia not benefit from including the information? If Wikipedia biographies are to be accurate articles, they should not selectively exclude facts deemed inconvenient.
We don't benefit because he's a very minor figure, arguably not someone who should have an article in the first place, and it wasn't a good article anyway. So for the sake of upholding some unwritten principle of completeness (i.e. for the sake of ideology), we're prepared to harm an individual's real life, someone who has done nothing to any of us, to ensure that this incident will continue to haunt him, whereas he thought he had put it behind him.
My argument is that it's neither fair nor rational to do that, and we ought always to be both fair and rational when dealing with people who are, in a very real sense, at Wikipedia's mercy.
We don't invent the facts in a person's life; they lived them themselves. I don't think that ideology is a factor. This person happens to be on the right end of the spectrum, but I'm sure that we have enough "right"-minded editors to make sure that no criminal activity is "left" behind.
The most disturbing part of these comments is to measure the inclusion of these facts by reference to criteria such as, "We don't benefit," or "has done nothing to any of us." Such personalizing of the criteria to Wikipedia could too easily erode objectivity.
Ec
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:25:38 -0500, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The difference between Clinton's saxaphone playing and this situation is that the mention of the former is not harmful to Clinton; and the difference between a politician whose career is ruined by a scandal is that it'll have attached itself to his name, whereas in GLF's case, that appears not to be the case.
Wikipedia doesn't benefit from including the information about GLF, but he will be harmed if we do. Therefore, we ought not to. Fairness is as important as accuracy when writing about living people, if not more so.
He left the Monday Club after being convicted of theft from a health authority. Without that information his leaving makes no sense.
Not only that, precedent for mentioning the case is already there - GLF's fan club included it, albeit with a lie about his having been cleared on appeal.
Guy (JzG)