--- Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I would say that most of the very basic data persondata is concerned with is
> largely correct. I have found that simple things like birth and death dates
> are usually correct. However, since this tool is human mediated, it may be a
> good opportunity to verify basic information provided by many of our
> biographies.
Agreed.
Sydney
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 7/17/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I disagree - I think the WP community should keep the press
>> accountable on how Wikipedia is reported. However, I do agree that
>> critcism should be constructive, and not snarky and obnoxious, as
>> comments on this list tend to be.
>
> IMHO, snarky and obnoxious is fine for this list - even if it's
> publicly readable, it's essentially an internal, private mailing list.
> That is, statements on it should not be taken to reflect any broader
> "on record" sentiment. The Wikipedia Signpost is a different matter.
The Wikipedia Signpost has been known to quote from this list, however.
Essentially internal, perhaps, but given a particular set of
circumstances comments can be picked up and spread, and snarky and
obnoxious sometimes has greater news appeal.
--Michael Snow
---- Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
>
> On Jul 14, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> > imagine if
> > someone were to write a Wikipedia article using precisely the
> > (daft, if
> > you ask me) arguments that Anthony DiPierro has been using. It is a
> > confirmable story, we do know a number of fairly trivial facts about
> > her, and... we might imagine... this *could* become an idiotic short
> > lived meme
>
> The worst aspect of this is that there is no way to flesh out the
> woman's humanity. It is doubtful any other published information exists.
>
> Fred
Fred,
That is exactly the point that I try to get across when we deal with people that are notable for one small area of there life. WP:BLP trys to deal with this idea of different levels of notability.
Angela, for example, is known for a small area of her life if we go by verifiable, reliable sources. For that reason the information is best covered in another article.
Of course for dignity reasons, it is worse when the only thing that someone is famous for may be one small stupid mistake.
Sydney
>>> The reason to write an article on [[Brian Peppers]] is
>>> that there are an enormous number of people looking for
>>> information on
>>> him.
>>
>> Really? How many? Within ten percent or so.
>>
>> Guy (JzG)
>
> About the same as Gandi:
>
> http://www.google.com/trends?q=brian+peppers%2C
> +gandi&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all
> --
> geni
You don't, by any chance, mean Mahatma _Gandhi_?
http://www.google.com/trends?q=brian+peppers%2C
+gandhi&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all
On Jul 16, 2006, at 1:42 PM, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:15:25 +0100
> From: Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <q0tkb21rukdmdep48cko5popk9j2n3if5d(a)4ax.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:01:34 +0100, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Really? How many? Within ten percent or so.
>> About the same as Gandi:
>> http://www.google.com/trends?q=brian+peppers%2C
>> +gandi&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all
>
> Trend seems downward. Let's see where that is in a year...
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
---- Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> On 7/14/06, Sydney aka FloNight <poore5(a)adelphia.net> wrote:
> > Angela, for example, is known for a small area of her life if we go by verifiable, reliable sources. For that reason the information is best covered in another article.
> >
> The thing is, Angela has gotten involved with a number of different
> things: Wikipedia/Wikimedia, Wikia, and Ourmedia (two non-profits and
> a for-profit, all of which are relatively well-known, and all of which
> have their own Wikipedia articles). I really don't think it makes
> sense to mention this in every single one of those articles - what
> makes sense is to have a single article which links to each.
>
> > Of course for dignity reasons, it is worse when the only thing that someone is famous for may be one small stupid mistake.
> >
> I think human dignity is certainly a factor, though I'd probably
> phrase it as right to privacy. In fact, the first time one particular
> article went up for deletion (I think it was Jimbo, but it might have
> been Angela), I voted to delete it out of respect for their wishes.
> Wikipedia/Wikimedia has gotten a lot bigger since then (I'm not even
> sure if the latter existed at the time), as has Wikia, and at this
> point I think the public right to know outweighs the individual right
> to privacy, at least so long as the article is kept narrow.
>
> Anthony
Anthony,
Angela is mentioned in these articles even though she has an article.
Are you saying that we should take her information out of these articles?
Sydney
Andrew Lih wrote:
> On 7/15/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/15/06, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Wikipedia should avoid gratuitous self-reference, but the blocking of
>> > Wikipedia by China is itself newsworthy/articleworthy, IMO. We have a
>> > [[Wikipedia]] article, after all - not all self-reference is
>> > forbidden.
>>
>> I think that's a good assessment, and good criteria to use. The blocks
>> have been covered in the major media, and the articles ties in with
>> other articles about PRC internet censorship, particularly [[Baidu
>> Baike]].
>
> Well as someone living on the front lines of Wikipedia access in
> China, I do think moving the article to Wikipedia: namespace is the
> correct thing to do. It's not really appropriate for the main
> namespace. It wouldn't be appropriate for any of these either:
>
> [[Blocking_of_BBC_in_mainland_China]]
> [[Blocking_of_Blogger_in_mainland_China]]
> [[Blocking_of_HRIC_in_mainland_China]]
Why wouldn't they be appropriate? The subject, including the treatment
of Wikipedia, the BBC, and various bloggers and blogging services, has
been of great interest to some people and has received considerable
mainstream media coverage.
It's certainly possible that the article incorporates material that is
either not neutral or not verifiable. That should be handled by pruning
it, and if the pruning is drastic enough the article might warrant
merging. Perhaps to [[Internet censorship in mainland China]]
(neutrality check: would [[Internet filtering in mainland China]] be a
better title?). But moving to the Wikipedia namespace is not the
solution to these problems any more than deleting the article would be.
--Michael Snow
It seems that [[Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China]] was just
moved to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_of_Wikipedia_in_mainland_Ch…
The reason given was the [[Wikipedia:Avoid self-references]] rule.
The article is still linked by six mainspace articles. Should we merge
the information and remove the links or just move it back?
On 14 Jul 2006 at 20:31, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
> Perhaps an article like [[Stupid things which people have done]] would
> satisfy the cravings of those readers.
That would be quite a lengthy article... :-)
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Fred Bauder writes:
>I think you might start with an inquiry regarding what makes Gregory
>Lauder-Frost notable. Is it is political views and activities or is
>it his personal life?
This issue has actually been raised on the talk page. It is generally
accepted that it is Gregory Lauder-Frost's political activities
prior to 1992 which make him notable. Some argue that his activities
as a genealogist are also sufficient to make him notable. A small group
believes he may also be notable for the child custody dispute in which
he was involved (which was contended by his counsel to be connected to
his conviction).
However, that question surely does not help resolve the issue of
whether it is reasonable to mention his conviction. In my view the
principle is clear: if a person meets notability for a biographical
article, then the whole of their life is notable even if on its own
it would not qualify them. For example, Bill Clinton is not a notable
saxophone player - he would not qualify for an article based on
having played the saxophone - but it is reasonable to mention this
fact in his article because it is a significant part of how he was
perceived.
To take another example, how about politicians whose careers have
been terminated by external scandals? One could not plausibly argue
in the case of [[Peter Baker (UK politician)]] that because the
financial scandal that caused his expulsion from the House of Commons
was unrelated to his political career, it ought not to be mentioned.
The legal issues relating to Gregory Lauder-Frost have all been
considered and there is nothing which would prevent a suitable,
balanced, neutral, sourced and factual article being written. In
order to be fully comprehensive, it would have to mention, in its
proper context, the fact of his 1992 conviction.
--
David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
david(a)election.demon.co.uk (home)
dboothroyd(a)westminster.gov.uk (council)