[WikiEN-l] BLPs--some ideas

[Michael Snow]

Kat Walsh wrote:

> If there is no information available about a person other than the one
> minor scandal, how notable is s/he really? Going back to Travis's
> [[Tiffany Adler]] example, people commit crimes of similar magnitude
> every day. This one happens to be related to a topic that is of
> political interest that will draw viewers to the news, so the news
> reports on it.
>
> But there's no interest in this woman for who she is and the full
> context of her life; the interest is only in the incident. It's a
> stupid and hateful incident, but it's one incident, and I don't think
> the harshest of us would argue that it should forever be the first hit
> on Google for her name, and have harmful effects on her life. And in
> this type of case, a biographical article is out of place. (I see it
> isn't one anymore; her name redirects to an article on the incident,
> which isn't that much better.)
>
> If I were ruler of the universe, I would maybe give it a brief mention
> as an example of [[gay bashing]], putting it in the larger context of
> this type of occurrence, as one of many examples of the problem and
> how society reacts.
>
> But an individual article? That's what Wikinews is for, giving recent
> happenings prominence because it is of current interest, and writing
> coverage in detail of those individual events. I'd love to see more
> people interested in current events writing for Wikinews, and then
> saving that research to apply to an encyclopedic article as things
> fall into perspective.

Many people who look at our current events coverage wonder what the 
point of Wikinews is, since Wikipedia sometimes seems to occupy the 
field. The biggest difference is that Wikinews is for material of 
transient interest, while as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is for matters 
of lasting interest. We expect that people will still be turning to 
those articles years from now, and we will still be maintaining and 
improving them in that time. (Not that Wikinews should avoid reporting 
current developments of lasting interest, but it's probably better for 
it to focus on the transient material.)

This is part of why I despise the idea that this is a question of 
"notability". First of all, our attempts to define the term have usually 
degenerated into circularity. But more importantly, as Andy Warhol's 
famous quote highlights, notability can be transient or lasting, and the 
transient kind is probably the more common. Whether or not something is 
notable fails to actually address the question of which project it 
belongs on.

I also think the emphasis on multiple sources is of limited usefulness 
in settling the matter. Quite a few sources may surface during the 
figurative 15 minutes. But if sources promptly vanish from the scene, 
the topic is only of transient significance.

The difference between topics of transient and lasting significance is a 
matter of editorial judgment. Reducing it to formulas, or relying on 
"inclusionist" or "deletionist" mantras, removes that judgment. We have 
many people capable of applying formulas and reciting mantras, but fewer 
with skills suited to editorial judgment (and too often, those who have 
those skills fall into the trap of doing the same as those around them).

--Michael Snow