Fri 20th July 2007, 4:36pm
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 20th July 2007, 12:03am)
So as I understand it, the parents of this little girl want the article kept, because it helps them generate publicity, which in turn helps them raise money for medical expenses? And the consensus so far is to keep the article, presumably on that basis...?
Sounds like there are more proxies involved here than we realize.
This is interesting. This would seem to test some of the the underlying assumptions of semi-notable opt-out. I don't have a problem with parents speaking on behalf of very young children. That is appropriate. But the article does highlight how outside factors, other than notability and privacy, can distort the nature of the decision to opt-out or opt-in.
I believe a better approach is to place the determination of notability, weighed against the intrusion into the subject's lives, into the hands of a committee of non-Wikipedians. The "BLP Review Committee" members would have backgrounds that make them trustworthy for this determination (journalist, historians, ethicists.) The expressed desire of the subject (or parent/guardian) would be one consideration. Initial review could be based on the face of the article, with further review available if the article subject wishes. Such a panel should be able to address a fairly large number of BLP articles in a short period of time.
This process is likely to be unappealing to Wikipedians for a number of reasons. It undermines the hegemony of the "community" in editorial decisions. It engaged people with real expertise. It cannot be implemented without some expense.
From the view of the wider community it is very attractive. It provides protection without the need to engage in WP processes. It provides protection to those unaware of the article's existence. It assures a decision made by trustworthy people. Most importantly it makes sure that the interests of stakeholders wholly absent from WP "community" processes are respected.