On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
I think a serious "position paper" on BLP is
possible. There are several
aspects:
* We are currently not very good at recognising when biographical
information is "indiscriminate" (see
[[
WP:INDISCRIMINATE<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE
]]).
We could get better at that, as a way
of addressing what Andreas is calling
ADAM.
*We can certainly look at special notability guidelines for classes of
individuals (e.g. politicians, employees of the media, entertainers,
sportspeople, reality TV stars). Some divide-and-conquer to understand the
more problematic areas in their own terms would be good.
*We are currently lousy at judging "ephemeral notability", and issues
around it seem to be classic time-sinks. There is a bigger picture here,
and digging around in older biographical dictionaries can help to explain
what is going on.
*Certainly extending control of revisions to all BLP pages is an option to
consider; naturally this is a major step requiring wide community support,
and that in turn probably requires a reasonable amount of preparation, not
phrased in too much immoderate language.
There is currently another Pending Changes RfC underway at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_…
Andreas
*Tools and techniques. I'm a fan of the idea of
using "Related changes" on
chunks of BLP, so that patrolling say 1% at a time becomes easier. Hiving
off BLP into its own community isn't a solution that is clearly going to
work, let's say. Technical concentration on the material, on the other
hand, might do quite a lot to highlight the difficult cases.
Charles
_______________________________________________