-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 09:15 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Analysis of BLP issues (Jimmy Wales shouldreconsider)
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.
We are a compendium of existing knowledge. The body of existing knowledge suffers from grave defects.
Fred
on 4/22/07 12:28 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
We are a compendium of existing knowledge. The body of existing knowledge suffers from grave defects.
Great point! Another way to put it: "Don't blame me, I just report it." or "I don't make this stuff up ya know."
Marc
On 4/22/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/22/07 12:28 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
We are a compendium of existing knowledge. The body of existing
knowledge
suffers from grave defects.
Great point! Another way to put it: "Don't blame me, I just report it." or "I don't make this stuff up ya know."
Marc
I think his point was that removing content in general based on an altered notability definition would hurt more than it would help. Instead of lessening coverage, the solution should focus on solving the problem quickly and effectively instead of preventing a problem that might never arise.