[WikiEN-l] "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement"

[Fred Bauder]

The problem arises in the cases of articles which are libelous,
malicious, or manifestly unfair. Other instances, other than people who
are clearly notable, are not relevant; it doesn't matter whether we have
articles or not, promotional or critical, so it doesn't matter if the
subject has the power to delete. I realize that sentence is hard to
understand. Basically it means that except for the famous or maligned, it
doesn't matter whether there is an article or not or what its content is.

Fred

> If we let people delete articles on themselves, they will delete
> those articles not   closely conforming to their own idea of
> themselves, and this gives them a veto power over content. No BLP will
> then be other than promotional.  In my experience the problem with
> most little-watched articles, bio or otherwise, is much more likely to
> be promotionalism than abuse.
>
> It would be better to have a rule to never take the views of the
> subject in consideration about whether we should have an article,
> unless an exception can be made according to other Wikipedia rules, in
> particular, Do No Harm.  People have the right to a fair article, but
> not to a favorable one.
>
> I agree that the ratio of editors to articles is much too low. What we
> need is not fewer bios, but more editors. Encouraging new people to
> work on BLPs is the solution.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rande_Gerber&diff=416351133&oldid=393382165
>
>
>
> --
> David Goodman
>
> DGG at the enWP
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>