On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Fred Bauder <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28 March 2011 16:00, geni <[email protected]> wrote: >> You see the problem? > > Do I ever.
Fred, a couple of points: 1) You missed out the attribution to geni when you reposted what he said (you made it look like David Gerard said what geni said, which would be wise to avoid here, and I agree with David that specific cases should be avoided here). 2) It is not clear whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with geni. The general discussion would probably best be focused on whether encyclopedia articles should be written using statements from the Crown Prosecution Service. It goes to the heart of whether you have up-to-the-minute reports on the "news", or whether you wait for things to settle down, for cases to be decided, and only then report on the bits that allow for encyclopedic coverage. I've argued before that the minimum standard for any biographical article should be a published biography of some sort, that at minimum includes birth year (or some details on why the birth year is not known). These can range from self-published on an official website, to short bios in conference proceedings, to an actual published book-length biography. What shouldn't be done is piecing together bits from newspaper articles and primary sources - that is what official and unofficial biographers do, and we shouldn't be doing it in their stead. Carcharoth _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
