I was going to make this point the last time this came up, but I've just been so dang busy lately...
The so-called "notability guidelines" exist because people want in, not out. This is glaringly obvious to anyone with any sense of perspective. Simply put, if Wikipedia didn't have such guidelines, every self-promoting nobody would write an article about himself and post it there, and WP would have several million BLP articles, not just 140,000 or whatever it is.
The notability guidelines were NOT created to keep people in, they were created to keep people out. Their use as a justification for keeping people in like Mr. Murphy here is a novel (and total) misinterpretation, which started with Daniel Brandt and has been misused that way ever since.
If Wikipedia were not run by petty revenge-fantasists, they would naturally have a different set of criteria for keeping people in. Why do they need articles about these people? Why? There's absolutely no reason whatsoever, other than the site's usefulness as a cheap revenge platform, and the fact that an opt-out policy would curtail that particular form of usage, if not eliminate it entirely. Ooh, heaven forbid!
Now, it may well be that in any given case involving a person who wants out, there may not be anyone actively using Wikipedia to get revenge against that particular person. But why should that even matter? If they can't accept the fact that anonymous public editability changes everything with respect to their responsibility to their article subjects, then why should anyone even pretend to respect their anonymity, their privacy, or their intelligence? At all?
|