We should take it as seriously as we would any other statement from someone with Conflict of interest--seriously, but with great caution. It does not have the usual presumption of encyclopedic purpose.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Sue Gardner <sgard...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > 2009/3/8 Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com>: >> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Sue Gardner <sgard...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> 1) There is a big unresolved question around whether, if >>> marginally-notable people ask to have their articles deleted, that >>> request should be granted. My sense -both from the discussion here >>> and other discussions elsewhere- is that many Wikipedians are very >>> strongly protective of their general right to retain even very >>> marginal BLPs. Presumably this is because notability is hard to >>> define, and they are worried about stupid across-the-board >>> interpretations that will result in massive deletionism. However, >>> other people strongly feel that the current quantity of BLPs about >>> less-notable people diminish the overall quality of the encyclopedia, >>> reduce our credibility, and run the risk of hurting real people. >>> There seems to be little consensus here. Roughly: some people seem >>> to strongly feel the bar for notability should be set higher, and >>> deletion requests generally granted: others seem to strongly feel the >>> current state is preferable. I would welcome discussion about how to >>> achieve better consensus on this issue. >>> >>> >> I would quibble with this statement a little bit. There is a difference in >> my mind between raising the notability bar and granting weight to subject >> requests for deletion. There seems to be a growing agreement that marginally >> notable subjects make for bad biographies and greater risk; there is very >> little appetite for beginning deletion discussions or deleting articles upon >> subject request. >> >> So these two issues need to be separated, because indeed they are quite >> separate. > > Totally agreed, yes - thanks Nathan. In future I will separate these > two points. > > One asks whether the subject of an article (be it a person, >> corporation, or any other entity with living representatives) should be >> afforded some control over encyclopedia content, even as little as the >> ability to request a deletion nomination; most Wikipedians would be against >> this, I believe. > > Hm. That's interesting. > > As a basic principle, that makes sense to me - that article subjects > shouldn't have control over the content of the encyclopedia. But > -perhaps this is a little bit of hair-splitting- OTOH I don't think we > should take deletion requests any _less_ seriously than complaints > from disinterested observers. In other words - someone saying "the > article about me is awful and shouldn't be in an encyclopedia" should > be taken equally as seriously as someone saying "that article about X > is awful and doesn't deserve to be in an encyclopedia." In both > instances, the article needs be assessed on its own merits. > > I say this because sometimes I think people may be tempted to refuse > deletion requests _because_ they come from the article subject. If > that indeed happens, I believe it's a mistake. > >> The other issue, of marginal notability and the risk it poses to Wikipedia, >> is much more relevant for this discussion. > > Yes. I would love to see it discussed more here :-) > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
