On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 14 November 2012 12:23, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 14 November 2012 12:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
As I said in that discussion, the underlying problem seems to be that
we
have a certain number of low-notability articles that are only (or mainly) edited by the subjects themselves, and the people who hate them.
Since the worst BLP I know about falls in that class, I'd have to agree with the statement, to the extent that there is a problem. On the other hand the PR issue is more about high-notability articles. No deletionist approach is a remedy to the Usmanov scenario, is it?
No; but there are articles in the PR "weight class" that can be just as problematic. The article on Vodacom for example was attacked by a white supremacist, who posted about his exploits here:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t809859-9/#post10057604
His stuff stayed in there for months. There is no evidence that Vodacom
have
ever taken an interest in their article; but I am sure they have a PR
agent.
We are simply spread too thin to prevent this sort of thing, and often
it's
only the subjects themselves, or their PR agents, who try to fix the article.
With respect, that does seem to be an entirely different issue. The "too thin" phenomenon is the result of growth (a problem of success) and can be addressed in other ways. And has been, in 2012.
Charles
Sorry, I am not following you. How has it been addressed in 2012?
Andreas