Yes, I get that part.  I'm actually rather surprised by that, but then
again I don't know Sarah well enough to understand her perspective.

Risker/Anne

On 21 January 2013 21:42, Katherine Casey <[email protected]>wrote:

> While I mostly agree with your take about the judgment being shown around
> this article, Risker, it bears noting that Sarah seems more than happy to
> have the article - indeed, she's contributing sources to it to make sure it
> stays kept.
>
> -Fluff
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Risker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I find my thoughts about this heading in so many different directions,
>> I'm not really sure where to start.
>>
>> Of all the people on Wikipedia, I would have thought that people on this
>> list would be intensely aware of the hazards of having a biographical
>> article about oneself on Wikipedia, particularly one that will likely be
>> little-watched, and for whom huge numbers of editors will have significant
>> conflicts of interest in editing. This is particularly true of articles
>> about women, it seems, and especially women of borderline notability. This
>> is a target painted on Sarah's back.  She may not realise it yet, but
>> having spent a good chunk of the last several years dealing with "vandals
>> and trolls", she's a really juicy target.
>>
>> Indeed, one could easily say that the creator of this article had a
>> significant conflict of interest in writing an article about someone who is
>> an advisor to the author's non-profit, AND who has made significant edits
>> to the author's article. Imagine if Jimmy Wales went around writing
>> biographical articles about the WMF Board's advisory council members - we
>> all know what digestive products would hit the oscillating ventilator. (Of
>> course, the major variable is the quality of writing - I am happy to grant
>> that it's well written.) Conflict of interest is already a very major
>> battleground on the project, although we've not really discussed it much on
>> this list.
>>
>> I'm sorry but I think this was a bad idea. It seriously increases the
>> risk that other wikimedians will find themselves with an unwanted biography
>> that will be pretty well impossible to remove from the project.  That might
>> be fine for some, but it's a significant concern for a lot of others, and I
>> know of several wikimedians who are similarly borderline notable but who go
>> out of their way to avoid media or turn down speaking engagements because
>> they do not want a Wikipedia article about them.  I'm afraid this low bar
>> to notability is so unhealthy that it's had an effect on our own
>> community.
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Reply via email to