I've written an essay incorporating some of the ideas expressed here by
David, Carcharoth, Charles and myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ADAM
I've also posted a link to the essay on WT:BLP, and suggested that it might
be helpful to get the no eventualism principle anchored more
I've been skimming the arguments on this matter and I'm trying to get
a handle on it. One thing I don't understand is why Mr. Hawkins feels
so aggrieved. Everyone is talking in abstract principles but I
haven't seen where someone details what specific wrongs have been done
to Mr. Hawkins. Not
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 6:00 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 March 2012 17:20, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
So you have been arguing that without the BLP policy, and without the
noticeboard set up to help compliance with the policy, just the same
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
No eventualism is one principle that I would like to see spelled out in
BLP policy, in the Writing style section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Writing_style
People do tend to
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
Reading what you have written above, and then
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Chris
Butler_(private investigator)
and other serious discussions on that page, I'm unconvinced that you
actually have a
On 27 March 2012 15:52, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
Reading what you have written above, and then
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Wikipedia:Biographies_of_**
On 27 March 2012 17:20, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
So you have been arguing that without the BLP policy, and without the
noticeboard set up to help compliance with the policy, just the same close
investigations of the actual reliability of sources that nominally
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, David Gerard wrote:
The key point to remember about BLPs is: no eventualism. If an article
about someone dead 200 years says something nasty and wrong, that's
not great, but it's not urgent. If an article about a living person
says something nasty and wrong, that is urgent,
On 27 March 2012 18:05, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Anything which is *different* between BLP and policies for other articles,
such as a no-eventualism policy, could conceivably be a benefit.
My complaint is about BLP rules that do not do this.
No sloppiness applied with rigour is
On 27 March 2012 18:05, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, David Gerard wrote:
The key point to remember about BLPs is: no eventualism. If an article
about someone dead 200 years says something nasty and wrong, that's
not great, but it's not urgent. If an article
If we have this in place, cool to have a link...
My thinking is that a constructive and asymptotically approaching perfection
(hopefully as rapidly as humanly possible) way of doing a good bit of easing
of some of the tensions, would be to start compiling a list of criterions which
make someone
On 27 March 2012 21:39, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
My thinking is that a constructive and asymptotically approaching perfection
(hopefully as rapidly as humanly possible) way of doing a good bit of easing
of some of the tensions, would be to start compiling a list of
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
My thinking is that a constructive and asymptotically approaching perfection
(hopefully as rapidly as humanly possible) way of doing a good bit of easing
of some of the tensions, would be to start compiling a
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
In almost all cases, a stub with the basic information is better than
a loose aggregation of factoids. The problem is that well-meaning
people (and sometime less well-meaning people) come along later and
try and 'expand' what is there. I'd be in favour
On 26 March 2012 16:17, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
In almost all cases, a stub with the basic information is better than
a loose aggregation of factoids. The problem is that well-meaning
people (and sometime less well-meaning people) come
On 26 March 2012 16:17, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
For some reason a lot of BLP policy is like that: here we have the same
policy we use for everything else, but we really mean it this time. This
never works, of course.
I think that's an overstatement - it sometimes doesn't
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, David Gerard wrote:
For some reason a lot of BLP policy is like that: here we have the same
policy we use for everything else, but we really mean it this time. This
never works, of course.
I think that's an overstatement - it sometimes doesn't work, which is
quite distinct
On 26 March 2012 19:11, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
The policy doesn't work doesn't mean that all BLPs are bad, it just means
that they are *as* bad as they would have been without the policy. The
cases you refer to as it working are cases where other policies work and
these
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, David Gerard wrote:
The policy doesn't work doesn't mean that all BLPs are bad, it just means
that they are *as* bad as they would have been without the policy. The
cases you refer to as it working are cases where other policies work and
these polices provide no extra
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@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
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:48 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 March 2012 14:04, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jim_Hawkins_%28radio_presenter%29
This is a rather broad and (as I've noted) hideously
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
ii) Be respectful of the article subject and be prepared to work with
them if they raise concerns, and don't needlessly antagonise them.
I wrote a couple of essays about this a while ago.
I would second this. In addition, I believe we should allow
borderline-notable people to opt out of having a biography, to prevent the
sort of drama we are currently having with the Hawkins biography.
Otherwise, we are digging our own graves. As we all know, editor numbers
are stagnating, or
On 23 March 2012 15:06, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
- We need fewer biographies.
- We need to give borderline-notable people (people like Hawkins; not MPs)
an easy opt-out.
- We could probably benefit from making real-life name registration
mandatory for BLP editing, and
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
*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
On 24 March 2012 11:25, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
*We are currently lousy at judging ephemeral notability, and issues
around it seem to be classic time-sinks. There is a bigger picture
On 24 March 2012 11:37, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 March 2012 11:25, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
The point about Wikipedia (for BLPs) being ahead of the proper sources
to use is another excellent one. There is a natural progression to
biographical sources
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:37 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Zee problem with this standard is that it would preclude having an
article on the person currently running mali (admittedly the article
isn't up to much but I think it could be argued that we should at
least try).
There is
I should add that on re-reading, I see the irony in suggesting working
with the article subject when that person is someone who has just
taken over a country. Handling stuff like that is more difficult, I
admit. And some people are famous enough that the question of working
'with them' is silly
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
The famous people have lots of other stuff out there about them, so
are not that worried about their Wikipedia article. The borderline
notable people, though, have their Wikipedia article as they number
one
The problem's with biographical information range from undue weight to
the accumulation of dirt from the tabloids. But some of the solutions
offered would fix the wrong problem and possibly make things worse.
Generally in my experience the bios of sportspeople rarely get hostile
edits, at least
I think it is important to remember why we're doing this. Our purpose
isn't the judge people's notability. Our purpose is to provide useful
information to people. It is clear from the page views they get that
BLPs are useful to people. As long as there are sufficient reliable
sources to write more
On 24 March 2012 16:23, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I do think we have a problem with writing about things too soon, but
it isn't so extreme that we should wait until people are retired or
dead to write about them. I did have a policy proposal prepared a few
years ago that I
On 24 March 2012 17:51, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
You're not going to get that through for general events (natural
disasters or revolutions), because they've long been heralded as one
of en:wp's great strengths.
But they *should* be one of Wikinews' greatest strengths, not
On 24 March 2012 18:13, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 March 2012 17:51, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
You're not going to get that through for general events (natural
disasters or revolutions), because they've long been heralded as one
of en:wp's great strengths.
On 24 March 2012 18:18, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikinews suffers sufficient gatekeepers that it doesn't attract a
froth of contributors the way Wikipedia does. It could do with some
statistical and experimental loving from the Foundation, if anyone
feels up to putting a proposal
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is important to remember why we're doing this. Our purpose
isn't the judge people's notability. Our purpose is to provide useful
information to people. It is clear from the page views they get that
BLPs
On 24 March 2012 19:42, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think it is important to remember why we're doing this. Our purpose
isn't the judge people's notability. Our purpose is to provide useful
On 24 March 2012 16:23, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is important to remember why we're doing this. Our purpose
isn't the judge people's notability. Our purpose is to provide useful
information to people. It is clear from the page views they get that
BLPs are useful
I'm posting here an argument I made in a recent AfD, explaining why I
think more stringent notability requirements are needed for
biographical articles:
The right point to assess someone's notability and write a definitive
article about them is at that point (or sometimes when they retire).
On 23 March 2012 14:04, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
It has been said before, but that is why specialist biographical
dictionaries often have as one of their inclusion criteria that
someone has to be dead before having an article. I'm not saying we
should go that far, but
n Fri, 23 Mar 2012, Carcharoth wrote:
[Some say] Notability, once attained, does not diminish.
Unfortunately, WP:N says that too. What you're saying makes sense, but it is
contradicted by our policies. If someone can meet the requirements for
notability at one moment in time, they are
n Fri, 23 Mar 2012, Carcharoth wrote:
[Some say] Notability, once attained, does not diminish.
Unfortunately, WP:N says that too. What you're saying makes sense, but
it is
contradicted by our policies. If someone can meet the requirements for
notability at one moment in time, they are
On 23 March 2012 14:04, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm posting here an argument I made in a recent AfD, explaining why I
think more stringent notability requirements are needed for
biographical articles:
And I see that the specific example you're talking about is:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:48 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 March 2012 14:04, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm posting here an argument I made in a recent AfD, explaining why I
think more stringent notability requirements are needed for
biographical articles:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 2:18 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 March 2012 14:04, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
It has been said before, but that is why specialist biographical
dictionaries often have as one of their inclusion criteria that
someone has to be dead
On 23 March 2012 17:10, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
For Leon Mestel, the qualifying sources would be his entry in Who's
Who and in Debrett's People of Today. Those are UK-specific sources.
What would the equivalent be in the USA?
Who's Who might say this guy is notable, but
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:16 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 March 2012 17:10, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
For Leon Mestel, the qualifying sources would be his entry in Who's
Who and in Debrett's People of Today. Those are UK-specific sources.
What would the
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
What I would say is that Wikipedia biographies should have at least one
source that
I knew I should have finished the draft before posting it... That
sentence was meant to say something like should have at least
On 23 March 2012 17:20, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:16 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Who's Who might say this guy is notable, but the actual content is
completely self-sourced. It's effectively a sponsored blog entry.
You miss my point.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:25 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 March 2012 17:20, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:16 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Who's Who might say this guy is notable, but the actual content is
completely
On 2.3 March 2012 18:45, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
No, I'm not asking why those with Who's Who entries that lack
Wikipedia articles lack Wikipedia articles. I'm asking why those who
chose to opt out of Who's Who (by not sending in an entry) are not
allowed to opt out of
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012, David Gerard wrote:
This is a rather broad and (as I've noted) hideously vague proposed
solution to a very specific problem, viz. someone who is apparently
well within notability guidelines wanting an article deleted because
he doesn't have control of it, and is abusive
53 matches
Mail list logo
