-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 08:45 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Analysis of BLP issues (Jimmy Wales should reconsider)
OK. What seems a practical first move?
Deleting all living bios is not going to fly. It just won't be accepted.
The layer of barely-notable bios could be vanquished with little trouble. The tricky part is "what is notable?" It's not going to be possible to come up with a hardline definition that doesn't result in gross systemic bias, editors deleting like deranged robots or both.
Is a new deletion rule on living bios worth trying? It's the most politically viable idea I've heard so far.
- d.
If no one else has ever published an article which is about the person, as opposed to mentioning them in some regard, that should be a clue.
Fred
If no one else has ever published an article which is about the person, as opposed to mentioning them in some regard, that should be a clue.
Fred
That would be another way to go. Unless there is a published biography on the individual, our default is deletion. Again there will be exceptions - but we could let afd sort that out. We just change the default - you need a consensus for inclusion if there is no other biography in publication.
Doc
On 22/04/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
If no one else has ever published an article which is about the person, as opposed to mentioning them in some regard, that should be a clue.
Fred
That would be another way to go. Unless there is a published biography on the individual, our default is deletion. Again there will be exceptions - but we could let afd sort that out. We just change the default - you need a consensus for inclusion if there is no other biography in publication.
That seems like a sensible criterion - and there might be potential to extend that to classes of articles other than BLP.
On 22/04/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/04/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
If no one else has ever published an article which is about the person, as opposed to mentioning them in some regard, that should be a clue. Fred
That would be another way to go. Unless there is a published biography on the individual, our default is deletion. Again there will be exceptions - but we could let afd sort that out. We just change the default - you need a consensus for inclusion if there is no other biography in publication.
That seems like a sensible criterion - and there might be potential to extend that to classes of articles other than BLP.
The objection to this one is entrenching systemic bias.
- d.
James Farrar wrote:
That would be another way to go. Unless there is a published biography on the individual, our default is deletion. Again there will be exceptions - but we could let afd sort that out. We just change the default - you need a consensus for inclusion if there is no other biography in publication.
That seems like a sensible criterion - and there might be potential to extend that to classes of articles other than BLP.
I've always seen this as a rather horrid criterion. So what does this mean? Most sportsmen, most television stars, most musicians, many politicians - gone. And let's not even get started at the systematic bias issues inherent in this, especially in third world countries or nations with government-controlled media where the "biographies" we require simply wouldn't exist for reasons outside of our happy Western control.
-Jeff
On 22/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
That would be another way to go. Unless there is a published biography on the individual, our default is deletion. Again there will be exceptions - but we could let afd sort that out. We just change the default - you need a consensus for inclusion if there is no other biography in publication.
That seems like a sensible criterion - and there might be potential to extend that to classes of articles other than BLP.
I've always seen this as a rather horrid criterion. So what does this mean? Most sportsmen, most television stars, most musicians, many politicians - gone. And let's not even get started at the systematic bias issues inherent in this, especially in third world countries or nations with government-controlled media where the "biographies" we require simply wouldn't exist for reasons outside of our happy Western control.
Indeed. Our systemic bias is bad enough now without entrenching it in this manner.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 22/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Unless there is a published biography on the individual, our default is deletion.
That seems like a sensible criterion - and there might be potential to extend that to classes of articles other than BLP.
I've always seen this as a rather horrid criterion. So what does this mean? Most sportsmen, most television stars, most musicians, many politicians - gone. And let's not even get started at the systematic bias issues inherent in this...
Indeed. Our systemic bias is bad enough now without entrenching it in this manner.
Wait, wait, wait. A little while back, the notion was that biographies would be deleted *if the subject requested it* and there were no other published biography. If the "if the subject requested it" clause were reinstated, would the notion be so destabilizing?
On 4/22/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 22/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Unless there is a published biography on the individual, our default is deletion.
That seems like a sensible criterion - and there might be potential to extend that to classes of articles other than BLP.
I've always seen this as a rather horrid criterion. So what does this mean? Most sportsmen, most television stars, most musicians, many politicians - gone. And let's not even get started at the systematic bias issues inherent in this...
Indeed. Our systemic bias is bad enough now without entrenching it in this manner.
Wait, wait, wait. A little while back, the notion was that biographies would be deleted *if the subject requested it* and there were no other published biography. If the "if the subject requested it" clause were reinstated, would the notion be so destabilizing?
That is a very good idea. ~~~~
On 4/22/07, gjzilla@gmail.com gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
That is a very good idea. ~~~~
Not really. A subject objecting to the inclusion of an article should not have any impact on their encyclopedic qualities.
On 22/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
That would be another way to go. Unless there is a published biography on the individual, our default is deletion. Again there will be exceptions - but we could let afd sort that out. We just change the default - you need a consensus for inclusion if there is no other biography in publication.
That seems like a sensible criterion - and there might be potential to extend that to classes of articles other than BLP.
I've always seen this as a rather horrid criterion. So what does this mean? Most sportsmen, most television stars, most musicians, many politicians - gone.
I don't think so, given there is already a consensus on notability for all of those - see [[WP:BIO]].
James Farrar wrote:
On 22/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
That would be another way to go. Unless there is a published biography on the individual, our default is deletion. Again there will be exceptions - but we could let afd sort that out. We just change the default - you need a consensus for inclusion if there is no other biography in publication.
That seems like a sensible criterion - and there might be potential to extend that to classes of articles other than BLP.
I've always seen this as a rather horrid criterion. So what does this mean? Most sportsmen, most television stars, most musicians, many politicians - gone.
I don't think so, given there is already a consensus on notability for all of those - see [[WP:BIO]].
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Remember we are not talking about speedy deletion here - but changing the default after a debate to 'consenus to keep' or ever 'rough balance of the argument'. That allows the case to be made - 'hey there's no bio here but the sources are actually good, and a balanced article can be written'.
Nothing would be deleted without debate, and nothing without the community having the final say.
On 22/04/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
If no one else has ever published an article which is about the person, as opposed to mentioning them in some regard, that should be a clue.
That would be another way to go. Unless there is a published biography on the individual, our default is deletion. Again there will be exceptions - but we could let afd sort that out. We just change the default - you need a consensus for inclusion if there is no other biography in publication.
As long as we don't go down the tempting but misleading path of construing "biography" as "a published monograph" rather than "a reasonably lengthy article which treats them biographically as opposed to a news subject", then this sounds a good first cut.
On 4/22/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/04/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
If no one else has ever published an article which is about the
person, as opposed to mentioning them in some regard, that should be a clue.
That would be another way to go. Unless there is a published biography on the individual, our default is deletion. Again there will be exceptions - but we could let afd sort that out. We just change the default - you need a consensus for inclusion if there is no other biography in publication.
As long as we don't go down the tempting but misleading path of construing "biography" as "a published monograph" rather than "a reasonably lengthy article which treats them biographically as opposed to a news subject", then this sounds a good first cut.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Even when you take Andrew's point into account it's going to cause bias. Children are often treated as news subjects even when their achievements are noteworthy. Their articles (at least the ones I check) are rarely subject to BLP issues. So it would cut articles that aren't causing a problem in the first place.
Mgm