Andrew Gray wrote:
a) Should we start considering whether or not the
subject is a public
figure in deciding whether or not the article is appropriate? There
is, of course, no clear bright line...
b) If not, why not? (Bonus points for giving an ethical argument)
Because the line between "public" and "private" in non-legal purposes
no
longer exists. In the specific situation of Stokke, one could argue,
for our purposes, that she's not a "private" person due to her competing
in public events. Qian Zhijun was, by many probable definitions, a
"private" person to begin with, but ceased becoming one as he took his
notoriety in his own hands. Hell, even Brian Peppers stopped being a
"private" individual when he was convicted.
You don't get to choose whether you're public or private is the greater
point. It's sort of like "marginal" or "minimal" or
"slightly"
notability, or being "a little bit pregnant." You may not *want* to be
noteworthy or public or known or pregnant, or want others to be, but it
happens and that's that.
If we want to write a general interest encyclopedia, we need to be able
to disconnect from our personal perspectives and situations and instead
look at these issues dispassionately. I mean, the Elephant Man was a
sideshow act who got some sympathy from royal nobility - should we cease
to have an article on him even though his story isn't really all that
different from what we're quibbling with?
We're losing focus.
-Jeff
--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW:
http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly
because you kind of get the impression she
sang every song either about or to her cats.
They seem to be the driving force in most of
her creative process." - Chuck Klosterman