There's an interesting exchange going on, over on the talk page for the Brandt article
right about now. Essentially, User:WAS_4.250
is trying to convince the WP anti-privacy zealots that a reasonable standard that WP might use in a limited opt-out policy is, essentially, "no first biography" - in other words, Wikipedia articles should not be the primary or only web-based source of information about a living person, if the person objects to it.
This exchange has convinced me (as if I needed convincing) that Josh "User:JoshuaZ
" Zelinsky is not a human being at all, but rather some sort of cold, emotionless AI construct, probably programmed by the Yale CS department as some sort of bizarre social experiment. (This would, of course, indicate that the Hivemind entry on Josh is probably incorrect, and that "Zelinsky" is just a cover story of some kind.)
Here's what WAS says:
QUOTE(WAS 4.250 @ 05:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC))
Consult with Jimbo Wales (or read his comments) about his multitude of concerns about the wikipedia article on him. We don't create biographies as a rule and the people forced to have the primary web source about them so far from any kind of actual realistic balanced account of their lives is deeply disturbing to them. Have a heart.
...And here's Josh's reaction:
QUOTE(JoshuaZ @ 07:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC))
I don't follow what you are saying. This seems to be blunt like a bit of rhetoric with no policy or logical reason behind it and seems completely irrelevant to your earlier comment about the defintion of biography.
So not only does "Zelinsky" have no heart, soul, human emotions, or spell-checker, his program isn't even coded to recognize the existence of the concepts involved.
If it doesn't relate to some sort of "policy" or (Wikipedian) "logic," it simply doesn't compute!
Since he's one of the leading voices in the invidious "Keep Brandt" campaign these days, I guess we won't have much chance of seeing this whole business end until the Yale CS department releases JoshuaZ 2.0, and even then there's no guarantee that they'll have added a properly-working "human-like emotion" subroutine by then.
So hard to find good programmers these days... Meanwhile, it's been fairly obvious in the past that WAS 4.250 doesn't like us much here at WR, but at least he/she is up to version 4 with a couple of service packs. Must be from Harvard, then?