I like the "raise the notability bar" idea that Doc has, and perhaps Slim
Virgin's threshhold might be the right course. I recently stumbled into a
biography stub on a person I would certainly have thought was not
particularly notable. The article required about five minutes of work to
clean up - and thought that would be the end of it. As it turns out, it was
loaded with commercial links and open proxy editors (some of whom were
apparently being paid to add the commercial links). So what started out to
be a five minute project took several hours of work. I am sure there are
thousands of articles like this, and it is demotivating to editors to have
to work this hard to clean up an article that is of questionable value in
the first place.
Risker
On 3/29/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 3/29/07, Fred Bauder
<fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
> It needs to be clear up and down the line that the arbitration
committee will
support people who remove unsourced information, as long as
they are nice about it. But these things should never come to us, people who
resist removal of unsourced information should be clued in long before it
comes to that.
The other solution is to stop publishing biographies of living
persons, or at least to offer subjects deletion on request.
By hosting living bios, and by inviting anyone in the world to edit
them, we're encouraging bad editing in a quantity we have no hope of
controlling.
Wouldn't really work though, because people would just add the
problematic material in other articles. I don't have any bios on my
watchlist these days, but still see additions of hearsay about celebs
visiting cities and national parks, music video shoots in the desert,
and the like.
Stan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l