[WikiEN-l] Re: Biographies of living persons - new draft guideline

Tue Dec 20 22:01:26 UTC 2005

It's certainly best to stress positives: "DO this", "DO that", rather than negatives "DON'T DO this", "DON'T DO that" (as many a manager will tell you (and forget to take heed of!)).

  I wasn't proposing another guideline on Relevancy - and I agree there'd be no point in having one. We'd never agree on a definition anyway. Relevancy is an issue, though - what to include and exclude from any given article (call it notability or something else if you wish). 

  Come the end of the day, commonsense, or editorial judgment as David refers to it as, can't be legislated for. But we do need good editors to fight the fight on controversial subjects to make commonsense prevail.

  Jon

David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
  Anthere wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:

>> I've done a rewrite of the proposed guideline at 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/temp
>> It's rewritten very much in the style of a quickly usable
>> guideline - you should be able to get the whole idea from the
>> intro, the rest is details.

> I left some comments on the initial version. One thing I would found
> useful is that a dual document is produced. One to be adressed to the
> editor (the guidelines) and one to be adressed to the one editing his
> biography. Sarah initial version was confusing both public, while
> David's one is now totally oriented toward regular editors.

The one for the public is [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]].

> Now, one thing that is imho, strongly missing in David version is 
> somehow the description of HOW a person might feel when she discovers
> very questionable statements about her all over the web... and has
> very little idea how Wikipedia works. She must really feel like a
> stranger falling in a strange land.
> I think that I can give this perspective, due to the number of times
> I had to answer one of these editors with a biography on OTRS. Some
> pretty cool, some totally abashed, some absolutely furious.
> While it is important to explain editors which guidelines to follow,
> it is also important to explain to them the dismay of those with 
> biographies they perceive wrong (and which are sometimes wrong
> >actually).

Check the history - my first version at /temp included the paragraphs on
this from SlimVirgin's version; Morven changed them to instructions for
those who don't like their biography.

> There are always too sides in a dispute and in this, I believe very
> very much in Sarah empathic approach. And again, I say this from the 
> perspective of one who has precisely to deal with some enraged people
> on OTRS, mishandled by an editor.
> It is important to remember these guys are most of the time acting in
> all good faith.

Indeed. However, SlimVirgin's first version (and its title) leant too
much towards sympathetic point of view IMO. Which is not NPOV, not at all.

> Aside from this, I believe the paragraph about legal threats is 
> problematic. I wish that it is reworked. As a reminder, the

I just cut'n'pasted that from Slim's version; please kill it if we
shouldn't have it, or rework it as is appropriate.

> Thanks a lot in any cases for all those working on these guidelines. 
> Legal issues over biographies, most of you know this, are currently a
> huge issue for the board, we really appreciate your help here to
> deal with this. The Foundation will suffer of any legal action,
> whether if right or wrong.

- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos – NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo.