[WikiEN-l] Bans and online/offline reputation (was Re: Follow-up on my Ban from Wikipedia (part 3))

[Delirium]

Ken Arromdee wrote:
> The argument is that it's okay to let an administrative action taken against
> a user to come up as the #1 Google hit for the guy on the grounds that
> Wikipedia is a reliable source for information about itself.
>
> It's a reliable source for the claim that the action happened, but not a
> reliable source for the truth of any of the allegations made during that
> action.  And it's *definitely* not a reliable source for the allegations'
> *notability*.  There's already a BLP problem on Wikipedia where someone
> finds a minor celebrity, digs up an article where they got drunk and went
> naked in public 20 years ago, and adds it to Wikipedia.  We take that out
> because of BLP considerations, *even if it really did happen*.  Not because
> it's not true, but because it's not notable.  An ultimately minor incident
> 20 years ago shouldn't be posted so prominently on the Internet that the
> first Google hit for that person shows it.  Being sanctioned on Wikipedia
> is no more notable than streaking in public, and no more worthy of being
> the #1 Google hit for that person.
>   

This seems like mainly a problem with Google and use of the internet, 
really, rather than anything Wikipedia-specific, though I don't oppose 
relatively unintrusive changes to mitigate it. But this is just how the 
internet works in the modern era. The top hits for my real name include 
some pretty irrelevant administrative stuff that happens to be posted on 
.edu sites that Google likes. I don't think they would take it down just 
because I complained that they were coming up too high in a Google 
search for my name, even if the info were negative (at the moment it's 
just non-notable, not particularly negative).

-Mark