Individuals who "make bad judgment calls" involving soundly-based accusations of fraud with respect to management positions with major public media are worthy of coverage, and if a senior editor of the Brittanica can been caught with false credentials, it would have been in the papers also, and certainly in Wikipedia.
As for the removal from the article, please note the proposed policy at WP:PSEUDO calling for the removal of even soundly sourced negative material from bio articles if the person is not thought important enough.
We have gone way too far in the direction of permitting subjects to whitewash their articles, and the sympathy of WP editors for a particular person is worthy of the same opinion we would have to antipathy. Both are COI, and both should be fought against, not pandered to. ~~~~
On 7/11/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/11/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
Why should we constantly harp about upholding notability guidelines when it does more harm than good to borderline notable subjects?
Because Wicca is not the official religion of wikipedia.
You may have missed principle 3 in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff]].
-- Jonel _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l