From: Andre Engels
"The Cunctator" <cunctator(a)kband.com> schrieb:
> I see the inclusion of the type of information you're discussing
being
> something that eventually happens in the lifetime
of Wikipedia, but
not
in
> any serious quantity any time soon; there would need to be
improvements
of
> the backend software, etc. E.g. when the Wikipedia at some point
becomes
self-aware and
starts adding entries on its own.
If that's what you see eventually happen in Wikipedia, let me be on
the
roll for not wanting to see it either now or in the
future.
Well, you're going to have to take that up with the self-aware
Wikipedia.
I doubt that will be an issue for a while.
> For example, one of my relatives is an
influential computer
scientist.
> There's an entry in Wikipedia on him. Nothing
exciting there. The
more
> contentious issue would be that if (when) more
information is added
to
the
> entry, it would indicate that he was strongly influenced and
inspired by
an
older relative who is less famous. A good entry
on that person could
then be
> written, discussing his various accomplishments, etc., using
information
that is freely
available elsewhere.
Could, perhaps. Should, no!
Why not? Wouldn't you want to judge the case on its merits before
averring that it shouldn't be written?
> I understand that because everyone has parents,
it would be
"dangerous"
to
> say that a mention of a person in Wikipedia is sufficient to allow
an
entry.
I'm not advocating that.
No, but if someone does advocate it, you go stand behind him. "Look,
he
created the article. Don't delete it! It's
true! He has really been a
clerk for 40 years and liked to go watch the games of the local
football
club!" The fact of having been written down
doesn't change the fact
that
there was no reason to do so.
Again, a straw man argument. I explicitly said I don't advocate the
position, and you claim that I would if someone else did.
Moreover, "The fact of having been written down doesn't change the fact
that
there was no reason to do so" is a self-contradictory statement. You
mean to say, I believe, "The fact of having been written down doesn't
change the fact that there was no valid reason to do so, by my judgment
of validity."
> I am advocating trusting each other to be
responsible in their
efforts
to
contribute to Wikipedia, rather than try to erase
each other's
contributions
and spin imagined scenarios of the imminent death
of Wikipedia.
The question is not whether Wikipedia will die from keeping or
deleting
articles on people who have done nothing spectacular.
The question is
whether it gets better from it.
Trust is a good thing, but it can never replace judgement.
I'm saying that if A's judgment is to remove information from Wikipedia,
and B's judgment is to include information in Wikipedia, then by and
large A should defer to B.