The Rachel
Marsden article is good example of this problem. The article as now constituted
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&oldid=132306894
is a product of long debate regarding such issues. There was great deal of press coverage
regarding an incident early in her life, but the coverage of her current situation was
rather thin. A long article about her which focused on the earlier situation was a rather
nasty piece of work and did not present of fair picture of this person who had moved on
long ago from the earlier troubles. I also think some editors were sticking their oar in
because they did not like her politics.
There was an arbitration:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden
Here is the basic principle applied: 'Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires
that information which concerns living subjects be verifiable and that biographies
"should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic
tone."'
This seems like support for activist judges. I didn't recognize the name
until I went to the article. The Fox Channel is generally not available
in the Vancuver area where I live. The incident that led to her criminal
conviction is certainly well-remembered even if I could not have
remembered the names of the parties involved. If you want to suggest
that her opponents were commenting because of her politics, you need to
admit that her supporters were doing exactly the same thing.
I did not participate in the debate when it happened, and don't
particularly want to get involved now. I don't see the benefit of
raising this matter when it would only stir up old wounds.
Ec
There is that danger, but the point is that we have thought deeply about these matters
previously and come to certain conclusions.
Fred