[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

[Ken Arromdee]

On Thu, 26 May 2011, George Herbert wrote:
> In this particular, I am vexed and confused.  If the longer article
> makes him look better, why in the flying spaghetti monster's name are
> those advocating human dignity here asking to shorten it?

The main negative effect of the article on Santorum is not that it makes
negative factual claims, it's that associating him with shit is inherently
negative.  Shortening the article (and especially, shortening it in ways
which mitigate the Googlebombing effect) helps against this negative effect.

I'm sure an article about the Richard Gere gerbil rumor which devoted an
extra page to explaining why the rumor is false would make him "look better"--
if by "look better" you mean "prevent negative factual inferences".  But
that's not the only way in which an article can make someone look more or
less better.  We don't have such an article no matter how many reliable
sources describe the rumor, because merely having the article is bad for
him.