On 12 December 2013 12:25, Mark <delir...@hackish.org> wrote: > Undue or unsourced negative information about living people is one aspect of > that, and what most of the formal BLP-related policy, and the process around > things like OTRS, is intended to address. The flipside is undue or unsourced > *positive* information about living people: in comparison to biographies > about non-living people, BLPs draw a huge proportion of puffed-up, COI, and > sometimes outright paid editing.
Yes, I think hagiography is a problem on en:wp. > Between tendentious negative information and self-promoting positive > information, I worry that the overall quality level of our biographies of > living people ends up poor in a great many cases, especially cases outside > the top tier of biographies visible enough to draw significant third-party > editors (Barack Obama, Fidel Castro, that kind of thing). But it would be > better to understand the problem, if it is one, in more detail. I don't think this is, though - when people are this unambiguously famous, I think our biographies hold up in terms of content, even when the prose flows badly. How would we measure this? - d. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>