On 22/04/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
doc wrote:
Most of the real BLP issues group round biographies of little known people. Bios that be nature can only ever have information about the bit part they played in some small-town scandal, and thus can never be a balanced 'biography' of the person's life. Bios that highlight news that otherwise would be forgotten. Bios that are damaging because they may are the only public biography of the person in existence. Bios that by nature are under-watched. Bios where few will know enough to spot spin and hatchet jobs.
Actually, when I was browsing through that list of {{unreferenced}} biographies last night I didn't come across a single one of these. The only person I found whose notoriety was due to a "scandal" actually looked pretty significant (not just some small-town thing) and had a lot of information about him out on the web. The vast majority of the little-known people with biographies were minor sports figures, singers, actors, models, race car drivers, etc. whose articles were completely non-controversial and didn't mention any scandalous events.
Yes.
The problem is that doing lots of OTRS leaves one with a ridiculously distorted view of the content of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is HUGE.
And it's not run for the benefit of OTRS. I recall Submarine posting to foundation-l that the Foundation should unilaterally delete all school articles from en:wp because they caused lots of OTRS complaints. He did not bother saying one word on en:wp itself or on this list, and did not answer when asked why he had not.
OTRS, it twists the mind.
- d.