Call from a local paper, the Tameside Reporter, about edits to an article about a local council member and about a motorway bypass:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Oldham http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longdendale_Bypass
The article about the councillor has been locked (by Doc glasgow) since late April. The bypass article is being heavily edited.
Key soundbites:
* It's an encyclopedia, not investigative journalism. * With biographies of living people, we have to really consider what's important to put in them. We don't want a hatchet job or just praise. If they died tomorrow, what would be important enough to put in their biography? That sort of thing. * Living biographies are about 90% of our biographies, which are 35% of the one and a half milliion articles." (Numbers from a quick count by Danny a while ago; may be completely wrong now.) * Contentious current issues are difficult. We don't want to be an activist platform or an anti-activist platform. * It's a live working draft of an encyclopedia, not so much a finished product. Always check the history tab when looking at an article.
So if we ever see the article, I've given him lots to go on :-)
Does anyone on this list live in the area, and would you be able to get hold of a copy? Should be appearing soonish.
- d.
On 06/06/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
- With biographies of living people, we have to really consider what's
important to put in them. We don't want a hatchet job or just praise. If they died tomorrow, what would be important enough to put in their biography? That sort of thing.
I like to think that what we aim for *is* an obituary, basically. If they fell under a bus tomorrow, we'd have to add a quick paragraph, change it into the past tense, and otherwise it's done.
That perspective, in turn, informs what you're aiming to put in.
- Living biographies are about 90% of our biographies, which are 35%
of the one and a half milliion articles." (Numbers from a quick count by Danny a while ago; may be completely wrong now.)
I got just shy of 400,000 biogs the other day - even allowing for a lot of undercounting, it's still probably under half a million. Don't have a "living" proportion...
One point eight mil articles, now.
On 06/06/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I like to think that what we aim for *is* an obituary, basically. If they fell under a bus tomorrow, we'd have to add a quick paragraph, change it into the past tense, and otherwise it's done. That perspective, in turn, informs what you're aiming to put in.
Of course, there are cases where this may be problematic. e.g. Peter Carter-Ruck, whose obituaries were largely the press being able to finally say what they actually thought of him.
But it's a good *general* editorial rule of thumb!
I got just shy of 400,000 biogs the other day - even allowing for a lot of undercounting, it's still probably under half a million. Don't have a "living" proportion...
How many members in [[Category:Living people]]?
- d.
On 6/6/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Call from a local paper, the Tameside Reporter, about edits to an article about a local council member and about a motorway bypass:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Oldham http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longdendale_Bypass
The article about the councillor has been locked (by Doc glasgow) since late April. The bypass article is being heavily edited.
Key soundbites:
- It's an encyclopedia, not investigative journalism.
- With biographies of living people, we have to really consider what's
important to put in them. We don't want a hatchet job or just praise. If they died tomorrow, what would be important enough to put in their biography? That sort of thing.
- Living biographies are about 90% of our biographies, which are 35%
of the one and a half milliion articles." (Numbers from a quick count by Danny a while ago; may be completely wrong now.)
- Contentious current issues are difficult. We don't want to be an
activist platform or an anti-activist platform.
- It's a live working draft of an encyclopedia, not so much a finished
product. Always check the history tab when looking at an article.
So if we ever see the article, I've given him lots to go on :-)
You didn't ask for a free pic?
On 06/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You didn't ask for a free pic?
This was a newspaper, not the council!
- d.
On 6/6/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You didn't ask for a free pic?
This was a newspaper, not the council!
Newspapers have pics no? Or ask them to ask their readers? Or if you are feeling nasty ask for a pic of their editor.
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org