On 12 December 2013 12:25, Mark delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Undue or unsourced negative information about living people is one aspect of that, and what most of the formal BLP-related policy, and the process around things like OTRS, is intended to address. The flipside is undue or unsourced *positive* information about living people: in comparison to biographies about non-living people, BLPs draw a huge proportion of puffed-up, COI, and sometimes outright paid editing.
Yes, I think hagiography is a problem on en:wp.
Between tendentious negative information and self-promoting positive information, I worry that the overall quality level of our biographies of living people ends up poor in a great many cases, especially cases outside the top tier of biographies visible enough to draw significant third-party editors (Barack Obama, Fidel Castro, that kind of thing). But it would be better to understand the problem, if it is one, in more detail.
I don't think this is, though - when people are this unambiguously famous, I think our biographies hold up in terms of content, even when the prose flows badly.
How would we measure this?
- d.