On 19/08/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> I agree with your basic point, but what would you
do in the case of a
> mathematician of whom we have 200 words on his career and
> publications, and 200 words on him getting sacked for molesting a
> student? We might easily find 30 news stories on the latter, and very
> few news stories on the rest of his career. Applying our basic "if
> it's verifiable, it's includable" guideline might distort the overall
> impression we give...
It comes down to a question of balance. See above.
More than that - and this is an important point that tends to sail
over the heads of those didactic about guidelines - it's a question of
*editorial judgement*. All these rules of thumb are only useful
exactly as far as they are applied with a clue.
I do so wish people would stop trying to legislate cluefulness. Read
[[m:Instruction creep]] until you understand why.
- d.