-----Original Message----- From: Fred Bauder [mailto:fredbaud@waterwiki.info] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:28 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
-----Original Message----- From: Marc Riddell [mailto:michaeldavid86@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:26 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
on 5/25/07 12:22 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
if the only things which are verifyably known about someone are in the context of a notable event which included them, perhaps as a rule the person is not themselves notable, and should only be covered in the article about the event.
George,
I believe this is an excellent idea.
Marc Riddell
The exception would be someone like Monica Lewinsky who successfully parlays their 15 minutes of negative fame into a more well rounded notability.
Fred
The Rachel Marsden article is good example of this problem. The article as now constituted
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&oldid=132306894
is a product of long debate regarding such issues. There was great deal of press coverage regarding an incident early in her life, but the coverage of her current situation was rather thin. A long article about her which focused on the earlier situation was a rather nasty piece of work and did not present of fair picture of this person who had moved on long ago from the earlier troubles. I also think some editors were sticking their oar in because they did not like her politics.
There was an arbitration:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden
Here is the basic principle applied: 'Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that information which concerns living subjects be verifiable and that biographies "should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."'
Fred
on 5/25/07 12:55 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Fred Bauder [mailto:fredbaud@waterwiki.info] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:28 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
-----Original Message----- From: Marc Riddell [mailto:michaeldavid86@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:26 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
on 5/25/07 12:22 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
if the only things which are verifyably known about someone are in the context of a notable event which included them, perhaps as a rule the person is not themselves notable, and should only be covered in the article about the event.
George,
I believe this is an excellent idea.
Marc Riddell
The exception would be someone like Monica Lewinsky who successfully parlays their 15 minutes of negative fame into a more well rounded notability.
Fred
The Rachel Marsden article is good example of this problem. The article as now constituted
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&oldid=132306894
is a product of long debate regarding such issues. There was great deal of press coverage regarding an incident early in her life, but the coverage of her current situation was rather thin. A long article about her which focused on the earlier situation was a rather nasty piece of work and did not present of fair picture of this person who had moved on long ago from the earlier troubles. I also think some editors were sticking their oar in because they did not like her politics.
There was an arbitration:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden
Here is the basic principle applied: 'Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that information which concerns living subjects be verifiable and that biographies "should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."'
Fred
Thank you for all of this, Fred. I agree with your sentiment here. Too often a person is so focused on expounding their own views about something, that they forget they are doing so at the expense of another. Or, perhaps, they don't really care. To me, this defines fanaticism; and has no place in an encyclopedia.
Marc
On 25/05/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Thank you for all of this, Fred. I agree with your sentiment here. Too often a person is so focused on expounding their own views about something, that they forget they are doing so at the expense of another. Or, perhaps, they don't really care. To me, this defines fanaticism; and has no place in an encyclopedia.
I wouldn't go as far as calling it fanaticism. I would say it's easy to get carried away and edit like the article has to be RIGHT, right NOW.
Particularly when one fails to quite realise one has ended up writing a sterling piece of investigative journalism rather than an encyclopedia article. Those can go up on private webspace quite easily, you know - I don't see why we must put them on Wikipedia, where the article will promptly become the first hit on the person's name.
- d.
On 25/05/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Thank you for all of this, Fred. I agree with your sentiment here. Too often a person is so focused on expounding their own views about something, that they forget they are doing so at the expense of another. Or, perhaps, they don't really care. To me, this defines fanaticism; and has no place in an encyclopedia.
on 5/25/07 1:57 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't go as far as calling it fanaticism.
Keep in mind what good old Mr. Churchill said: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
I would say it's easy to get carried away and edit like the article has to be RIGHT, right NOW.
This has little or nothing to do with being right. It is more important to some people to be heard than to be right.
Marc
on 5/25/07 12:55 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Fred Bauder [mailto:fredbaud@waterwiki.info] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:28 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
-----Original Message----- From: Marc Riddell [mailto:michaeldavid86@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:26 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
on 5/25/07 12:22 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
if the only things which are verifyably known about someone are in the context of a notable event which included them, perhaps as a rule the person is not themselves notable, and should only be covered in the article about the event.
George,
I believe this is an excellent idea.
Marc Riddell
The exception would be someone like Monica Lewinsky who successfully parlays their 15 minutes of negative fame into a more well rounded notability.
Fred
The Rachel Marsden article is good example of this problem. The article as now constituted
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&oldid=132306894
is a product of long debate regarding such issues. There was great deal of press coverage regarding an incident early in her life, but the coverage of her current situation was rather thin. A long article about her which focused on the earlier situation was a rather nasty piece of work and did not present of fair picture of this person who had moved on long ago from the earlier troubles. I also think some editors were sticking their oar in because they did not like her politics.
There was an arbitration:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden
Here is the basic principle applied: 'Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that information which concerns living subjects be verifiable and that biographies "should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."'
Fred
Thank you for all of this, Fred. I agree with your sentiment here. Too often a person is so focused on expounding their own views about something, that they forget they are doing so at the expense of another. Or, perhaps, they don't really care. To me, this defines fanaticism; and has no place in an encyclopedia.
Marc
Fred Bauder wrote:
From: Fred Bauder [mailto:fredbaud@waterwiki.info]
From: Marc Riddell [mailto:michaeldavid86@comcast.net]
on 5/25/07 12:22 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Šif the only things which are verifyably known about someone are in the context of a notable event which included them, perhaps as a rule the person is not themselves notable, and should only be covered in the article about the event.
George,
I believe this is an excellent idea.
Marc Riddell
The exception would be someone like Monica Lewinsky who successfully parlays their 15 minutes of negative fame into a more well rounded notability.
Fred
The Rachel Marsden article is good example of this problem. The article as now constituted
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&oldid=132306894
is a product of long debate regarding such issues. There was great deal of press coverage regarding an incident early in her life, but the coverage of her current situation was rather thin. A long article about her which focused on the earlier situation was a rather nasty piece of work and did not present of fair picture of this person who had moved on long ago from the earlier troubles. I also think some editors were sticking their oar in because they did not like her politics.
There was an arbitration:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden
Here is the basic principle applied: 'Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that information which concerns living subjects be verifiable and that biographies "should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."'
This seems like support for activist judges. I didn't recognize the name until I went to the article. The Fox Channel is generally not available in the Vancuver area where I live. The incident that led to her criminal conviction is certainly well-remembered even if I could not have remembered the names of the parties involved. If you want to suggest that her opponents were commenting because of her politics, you need to admit that her supporters were doing exactly the same thing.
I did not participate in the debate when it happened, and don't particularly want to get involved now. I don't see the benefit of raising this matter when it would only stir up old wounds.
Ec