On 3/31/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote: <snip>
It isn't a panacea, but it is a start - and it begins a process of making inclusion dependent on article quality and not just the notability of the subject. We need a thin end to our wedge here - something workable and broadly acceptable to our more inclusionist elements. Thoughts?
There's a lot of value in this proposal, especially regarding the biographies. I think that we've proven on numerous occassions that, as this point in time, Wikipedia as a whole just simply isn't able to build decent biographies on most living people. There are several exceptions of course, articles that are well sourced and balanced. But the majority? We simply don't seem to have have the right procedures or ways of thinking in place that make *sure* that we don't mess up - and biographies are NOT an area that we should be experimenting in like there are no consequences. I've handled and seen plenty of OTRS tickets that show the effects of where we're failing at the moment - and it isn't pretty.
So, we'd delete an unsourced bio after a week. Where's the harm? If we delete, and kindly explain to the creator of an article like that that we need sources, and why, they shouldn't be too upset. Especially as restoring if someone can provide decent sources for what they wrote can be done with one single click...
We need to re-educate our current and new editors - but we can't be too 'soft' about this any longer - it has real life consequences too often.
Kind regards,
JoanneB