Doc Glasgow came up with this, and I said I'd post it here for feedback... Basically, we have an issue with the biographies of living people where - by the simple act of repeating published and verifiable information - we can give a vastly misleading impression about them; we report their drunk-driving conviction at 19 in the same tone and length as we report their Nobel prize. Oh, it's verifiable and true... but should we be publishing it? Editorial common sense says, perhaps, no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Anyway, a thought experiment. I would be very interested to know where people think we a) should be drawing the line; and b) *are currently* drawing the line... ---- Let's take Professor John P. Smith, the ninth-most leading Australian contributor to the field of marine bioscience. He's written a few books, say, and he's notable (if barely) for it and his impact on the field. 1) Now, he gets divorced in messy circumstances - his wife accuses him of sleeping with her sister or something. it is all there is the on-line court reports. Do we include it? No - and perhaps court reports should not count for BLP sourcing - if it isn't in the mainstream media ignore it. 2) OK, now, although Dr Smith isn't that notable to a world-wide encyclopedia, he is fairly notable in Smalltown NSW, where he once served as an alderman. So the Smalltown Gazette runs the divorce story. Now, do we include it? If we do, we are responsible for taking a local story to global level - we are essentially promoting it. Usually, if Dr Smith moves to NZ, people will only know of his shining academic career - not his divorce. But if it makes Wikipedia - it will follow him about. Perhaps we should exclude information based only on local press from BLP sourcing. 3) OK, now supposing the Sydney Herald is running a story on 'sex and stress in academia', and they use the story for the Smalltown Gazette to illustrate it? Do we allow it now? It is still the same crappy story. 4) And what if the Sydney Herald get the story wrong, and claim he DID sleep with HIS sister - and he sues them. Do we report the libel case in his biography? How do we write policies that deal with this? (Disclaimer: Real people were not harmed in the making of this case study. Any resemblance to actual events or persons (or their sisters) living or dead is purely coincidental) Doc ---- Thoughts appreciated. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

2) OK, now, although Dr Smith isn't that notable to a world-wide encyclopedia, he is fairly notable in Smalltown NSW, where he once served as an alderman. So the Smalltown Gazette runs the divorce story. Now, do we include it? If we do, we are responsible for taking a local story to global level - we are essentially promoting it. Usually, if Dr Smith moves to NZ, people will only know of his shining academic career - not his divorce. But if it makes Wikipedia - it will follow him about. Perhaps we should exclude information based only on local press from BLP sourcing.

Basically, we have an issue with the biographies of living people where - by the simple act of repeating published and verifiable information - we can give a vastly misleading impression about them; we report their drunk-driving conviction at 19 in the same tone and length as we report their Nobel prize. Oh, it's verifiable and true... but should we be publishing it? Editorial common sense says, perhaps, no.

How do we write policies that deal with this?