[WikiEN-l] Getting hammered in a tv interview is not fun

[Ray Saintonge]

Travis Mason-Bushman wrote:

>On 3/30/07 1:13 AM, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Offering subjects to delete on request is a bad idea IMO. If they can't
>>handle sourced criticism, we can't possibly have neutral articles on anyone.
>>    
>>
>The problem often is not that "they can't handle sourced criticism." The
>problem is that an article about a borderline-notable person consists of a
>stub written by a detractor, which contains nothing but negative minor
>minutia about their marriage or the one time they had a DUI, rather than
>what the person's actually done to be encyclopedic.
>
Simple deletion on request is not the way to go because it leaves the 
impression that such a request will work whenever the subject doesn't 
like the article.  This has nothing to do with whether the article is 
good or bad, however those terms are defined.  We delete articles 
because they are bad, not because the subject asked.

>Adding positive sources does nothing to fix the problem - the problem is
>that their marriage or their DUI has absolutely nothing whatsoever with why
>they're encyclopedic. Biographies of living persons should not be scandal
>sheets. 
>
Yes.

>The details of personal lives - who they had an affair with, why
>they got fired from a job, etc. - are generally irrelevant and should not be
>on Wikipedia unless there is a compelling reason which makes those details
>encyclopedic.
>
More or less yes.

>We have too many people who spend too much time hunting down negative stuff
>to write about people who have Wikipedia articles, so that their articles
>can be "balanced." That is not balance - that is sensationalism. If
>someone's article reads like vanity, tone it down and clean it up - don't go
>Lexis-Nexis-searching for that one time he wound up in the local paper when
>he injured someone in a car wreck 20 years ago. That doesn't help the
>encyclopedia.
>
What you describe is an eccentric view of NPOV: that an article which 
does not mention criticisms somehow fails the NPOV criterion.  In 
reality people can still be encyclopedic without ever having done 
anything wrong.

Ec