The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

> Private person vs. Public person, How to fix BLP: Notability for"facts"
Rootology
post Thu 7th June 2007, 3:45pm
Post #1


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,489
Joined: Fri 26th Jan 2007, 11:11pm
Member No.: 877



This is central to the idea of BLP opt-outs. I think we have three telling examples. I'm curious what everyone thinks of these three scenarios. I'll put my own answers, feel free to quote/answer yourself. Quote me directly so your answer has the question, for clarity:

Alison Stoke.
1a. Was Allison Stoke a private person before she was e-plastered all over the Internets?
Answer: Yes.
1b. Was Allison Stoke a private person after she was e-plastered all over the Internets?
Answer: Yes.
1c. Is Allison Stoke a private person after going on national television, to talk about what happened to her?
Answer: Yes, she is a private person, and not yet notable--but maybe will be, come college sports, if she keeps it up. She is not *not* a private person for the matter of the e-plastering, and basic info on who she was at the time. It's a national news story, now. The article on Wikipedia ironically should be "Allison Stoke photo incident," or something similar.

Daniel Brandt. (Be honest, here!)
2a. Was Daniel Brandt a private person before his work took a more public turn in the late 1990s/2000s?
Answer: Yes.
2b. Is Daniel Brandt a private person before his work took a more public turn in the late 1990s/2000s?
Answer: Yes and no. The man, Daniel Brandt, is not notable. He and his work are. I would say that, given--yes, to be honest--the large number of sources that cover and relate to his *work*, Daniel is notable for that, and public for that aspect of who and what he is. If he wasn't, why would the media and press go to him so often, and he willingly speak with them? Slippery slope, innit?

Richard Dean Anderson. (Yes, that MacGyver and General Jack O'Neil. With one "L".)
2a. Was Richard Dean Anderson a private person before he took off on soap operas, and later, MacGyver, TV movies, and Stargate?
Answer: Duh, obviously.
2b. Is Richard Dean Anderson a private person after looking over the body of his public work?
Answer: Yes and no, again. The man quietly but fiercely guards his privacy. What he does outside of his job--acting--isn't inherently notable unless the press and society (not Wikipedia) makes it so.

Summary: It's the threshold of coverage by society that makes you or your actions notable. Being notable in and of yourself doesn't make all you do notable. If George Bush or the Pope trip and fall, and throw up in their mouth a little from hitting their chin on the pavement, that's not notable--unless they get a ton of coverage on that fact. Conversely, and obviously, the more notable you are in general, the moreso your acts will be. If Allison Stoke's situation were being covered by CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and various international newspapers non-stop, it would be a crime to not have reporting on it in Wikipedia. Ditto, for Daniel, if he somehow got notability up to that standard--if he had books written on him, for example, in the way that ex and sitting Presidents have had, he would as a 'person', rather than for his work, pass the bar. Richard Dean Anderson, and in fact any celebrity, is inherently notable, but not every last detail of their lives is.

Keys to fixing BLP based on this:

* Negative or contentious facts should be in a BLP unless more than one unrelated source covers it. That would keep the one-note negative crap right out. Apply notability standards to *facts*, not just topics. Ben Affleck had a nasty divorce from Jennifer Lopez: Notable, lots of sources. Keep. Ben Affleck did x, y, or z illegal thing to J-Lo, reported by one otherwise "good" or acceptable source. No other independent coverage. Exclude.

So what is the threshold between a public, and private person, then? Thoughts?

This post has been edited by Rootology: Thu 7th June 2007, 3:46pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 6th 12 14, 9:37pm