On 9/9/06, Amgine <amgine(a)saewyc.net> wrote:
It is not reasonable to have large, in-depth
biographies about living
persons. Too much information makes is included, often with such
detail that make an en.wp article a considerable risk to the
subject's privacy and security (such as identity theft, among other
things.) Deep articles are prone to bias, either showing the subject
unfavourably or too favourably, and often give undue weight to some
minor element of their life to push a point of view (a classic
example are US Congressional members, whose articles almost
universally contain extensive coverage of the most recent few years
of public service - particularly perceived scandals - and may
completely lack any mention of previous public positions or private
careers.) Subjects can and do dramatically alter their lives and
goals, and en.wp articles are not able to be relevant to these changes.
Was this intended as satire? I am reminded of "A modest proposal" by
Swift. Of course Wikipedia must and will include relevant information
about living people when it is well-sourced. Balance is desirable, but
lack thereof should rarely be a criterion for "resetting" an article
-- more for restructuring it and adding missing pieces.
The well-intended and necessary efforts to fight against libel and POV
must not turn into hysteria and paranoia.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik