On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:16 PM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12 December 2013 12:25, Mark <[email protected]> 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? > > And how would you have any confidence in the results being representative? A sample that relies on some set of tags and categories to identify articles is going to miss those without those indicators, which could theoretically be a pretty large portion... And it's that group where you'll likely find the highest proportion of shit content, the result of obscurity. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
