QUOTE(radek @ Wed 10th August 2011, 12:55am)
Based on something or a joke I'm not getting? (I ask because I'm surprised)
Surprised about which thing - the small amount of biased/negative, or the large amount of biased/positive? (Or both, I suppose...)
This is sort of what I would have expected, and I'd like to thank Mr. Barbour here for coming up with this pie chart (though I suppose we'll want to see his raw data at some point or other). Unfortunately, the relatively small amount of biased/negative info only makes it more damaging when it does happen, because the larger amount of "neutral" and biased/positive content gives people a false sense of Wikipedia's general decency and fairness.
Likewise, it shows that there really is no reason to fear an opt-out policy, and there probably never was - given these results, most people would actually be foolish to want articles about themselves deleted, unless they had a very good reason (particularly one that involves disputes with Wikipedians themselves). The really despicable thing about Wikipedia(ns) and BLPs isn't that those latter-case scenarios exist, but rather that they refuse to admit it, and because of that they refuse to do the right thing to deal with it - even though the effect it would have on their website would be minimal at worst.