-----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
On 5/25/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
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
Right. We're evaluating based on overall notability and events, not just the one event. Lewinski and various others parlay their 15 minutes of negative fame into more attention and keep doing some other interesting things. Others seek to avoid further publicity after the initial events, and don't ever do anything else "notable" by our normal standards.
I agree with Jeff that a large grey area exists in the middle, over which much argument will no doubt ensue (it's impossible, or at least impractical, to figure out how to write down a policy that will without exception properly classify future events and decisions). But I think that this is a reasonable and viable underlying policy to work outwards from.
On 25/05/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Jeff that a large grey area exists in the middle, over which much argument will no doubt ensue (it's impossible, or at least impractical, to figure out how to write down a policy that will without exception properly classify future events and decisions). But I think that this is a reasonable and viable underlying policy to work outwards from.
And in practice, this is pretty much how it happens - just without review boards and review board review boards and straw polls and so forth.
Most of our living bio issues are (a) treated as urgent (b) solved without fuss. That a fuss is made in the case of Crystal whatsit *even if she hasn't personally filled out Wikipedia complaint form 17-Q-8-B* is not a reason to throw out or radically revise living bio or content policies because a group of apparently single-issue editors think they can swing a DRV vote. BLP beats DRV unless there's some pretty spectacular reason that has yet to be encountered in practice in the last year and a half.
- d.
On 5/25/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
And in practice, this is pretty much how it happens - just without review boards and review board review boards and straw polls and so forth.
Most of our living bio issues are (a) treated as urgent (b) solved without fuss. That a fuss is made in the case of Crystal whatsit *even if she hasn't personally filled out Wikipedia complaint form 17-Q-8-B* is not a reason to throw out or radically revise living bio or content policies because a group of apparently single-issue editors think they can swing a DRV vote.
False.
BLP beats DRV unless there's some pretty spectacular reason that has yet to be encountered in practice in the last year and a half.
In this case that would be the person claiming BLP issues to be dead wrong.
On Fri, May 25, 2007 11:01 am, David Gerard wrote:
That a fuss is made in the case of Crystal whatsit *even if she hasn't personally filled out Wikipedia complaint form 17-Q-8-B* is not a reason to throw out or radically revise living bio or content policies because a group of apparently single-issue editors think they can swing a DRV vote. BLP beats DRV unless there's some pretty spectacular reason that has yet to be encountered in practice in the last year and a half.
No, the fuss comes from the point that the consensus view has overwhelmingly been to have an article, and that one or two people who allege a BLP issue do not get to proclaim it as such. Especially when there's versions in the history that may be more palatable.
-Jeff
Fred Bauder wrote:
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.
It still all has to be based on a balance of probabilities. Lewinsky clearly tips the balance in favour of inclusion, but she would not be the only one. There is no shortage of unremittingly evil people who can fit those criteria. To be sure the state has often acted in a way that would render BLP moot, but some like Miguel Rivera (aka "Charlie Chopoff) are likely still alive. "The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers", (Diamond Books, 1992) includes a copious supply of eligible subjects; as a secondary source it fulfills our verification requirements.
That said, perhaps it would help to develop a list of criteria, any one of which would not be determinative alone, but which could be used in combination with other criteria to develop an argument for notability.
Ec