[WikiEN-l] Legal threats

[Delirium]

Sarah wrote:

>On 7/13/06, David Boothroyd <david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>  
>
>>In my view the
>>principle is clear: if a person meets notability for a biographical
>>article, then the whole of their life is notable even if on its own
>>it would not qualify them. For example, Bill Clinton is not a notable
>>saxophone player - he would not qualify for an article based on
>>having played the saxophone - but it is reasonable to mention this
>>fact in his article because it is a significant part of how he was
>>perceived.
>>
>>    
>>
>The difference between Clinton's saxaphone playing and this situation
>is that the mention of the former is not harmful to Clinton; and the
>difference between a politician whose career is ruined by a scandal is
>that it'll have attached itself to his name, whereas in GLF's case,
>that appears not to be the case.
>
>Wikipedia doesn't benefit from including the information about GLF,
>but he will be harmed if we do. Therefore, we ought not to. Fairness
>is as important as accuracy when writing about living people, if not
>more so.
>  
>
How does Wikipedia not benefit from including the information?  If 
Wikipedia biographies are to be accurate articles, they should not 
selectively exclude facts deemed inconvenient.  When I buy a biography 
written by a reputable historian, if it has a section on a politian's 
life after office, I expect that section to be accurate and reasonably 
complete.  For example, if 10 years from now Clinton gets arrested for 
drunk driving, I would expect a biography written after that to mention 
this fact.  I would expect no less of Wikipedia articles.

-Mark