QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 18th March 2008, 10:53am)
The Wikipedia culture seems to be obsessed with the practice of magnifying the disrepute of otherwise non-notable figures whose only claim to fame is a random note of disrepute.
The notable question is not what is at the heart of the problem. It is the fact that kids can come to an article and change it at will.
Protect artcles and secure them from mindless idiots. That is what a government is for...to serve and protect.
Unfortunately, WP is a hive of flies with no wisdom at the top end. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)
QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Tue 18th March 2008, 11:29am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 18th March 2008, 10:53am)
The Wikipedia culture seems to be obsessed with the practice of magnifying the disrepute of otherwise non-notable figures whose only claim to fame is a random note of disrepute.
The notable question is not what is at the heart of the problem. It is the fact that kids can come to an article and change it at will.
Protect artcles and secure them from mindless idiots. That is what a government is for...to serve and protect.
Unfortunately, WP is a hive of flies with no wisdom at the top end. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)
P.S.
In Re: articles about living people:
Let the living person or their representatives have a hand at trying to make the article real and accurate. Then secure it. Further, let the real person decide if they even want an article. Many people, for many different reasons, do not want the "exposure" that Wikipedia represents.
Wikipedia is not supposed to be a rag. Or is it? (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)