Jeff Raymond wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
a) Should we start considering whether or not the
subject is a public
figure in deciding whether or not the article is appropriate? There
is, of course, no clear bright line...
b) If not, why not? (Bonus points for giving an ethical argument)
Because the line
between "public" and "private" in non-legal purposes
no longer exists.
Thinking of it as a line of demarcation, instead of a continuum,
is part
of the difficulty people have in dealing with this.
You don't get to choose whether you're public
or private is the
greater point. It's sort of like "marginal" or "minimal" or
"slightly" notability, or being "a little bit pregnant." You may not
*want* to be noteworthy or public or known or pregnant, or want others
to be, but it happens and that's that.
Whether someone is a public figure is
only the binary question you
present it as in the most superficial sense. Many people are
limited-purpose public figures. Some, though not all, are involuntarily
so. But it's not just about their choice, and it's overly simplistic to
elevate the denial that their choice matters into the determining issue.
Chosen or not, their limited status as a public figure in one context
does not mean that you can choose for them, and make them a public
figure for additional contexts. People trying to connect additional dots
and effectively doing original research and analysis is a serious
concern here.
The status of limited-purpose public figures will depend on such issues
as the significance of the issue in which they were involved, the extent
of coverage, the prominence of their role and whether they sought it
out, and their ability to make their personal viewpoints heard. All of
this goes into where they figure in the continuum from private to public.
Inherent in someone's status as a limited-purpose public figure are
limitations in how we can appropriately cover them. Sometimes it will be
fundamentally impossible to cover these people neutrally in a
stand-alone biographical article. Where to discuss their particular
situation, whether to name them in that discussion, and whether to have
their name be a redirect to that destination, are all legitimate
editorial issues.
If we want to write a general interest encyclopedia,
we need to be
able to disconnect from our personal perspectives and situations and
instead look at these issues dispassionately.
Indeed. But looking at issues
dispassionately is not the same as
slavishly bowing to prerogative or process, either.
--Michael Snow