* Comment Questionable notability might be an issue, but why should whether or not the person wants an article play into it at all? Rray (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

* Because no one is more deeply affected by the existence of a Wikipedia biography than its living subject. Also because - as the long Daniel Brandt debacle showed - it's a waste of everyone's time to stand on rigid principle in these borderline cases. Wikipedia and the public haven't lost much by making Seth Finkelstein a redlink, Seth's happier, and site volunteers have more time on their hands for other productive endeavors. I think the question should be, why should we not delete or merge/redirect if Ms. Beesley wants it? Any encyclopedic content could go into other articles. DurovaCharge! 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

* We should not delete the article just because Ms. Beesley wants it unless we're willing to delete any article whose subject requests deletion. I gave your "dead trees" guideline idea some thought before expressing an opinion here. But I think it's too subjective, and it seems like a rationale for helping someone out with a preference, which IMO is a weak rationale. We would presumably refuse to delete the Warren Buffett or Stephen King articles if they requested it. So we shouldn't delete any article just because the subject requests it. The Wikipedia already has a lower standard of notability than a paper encyclopedia. I might favor an increase in the notability standard, but just deleting an article because the subject requests it just seems silly. And I don't see how having an article written about you is going to "deeply affect" you. Even if it does, what if it "deeply affects" Bill Clinton? The rationale should be applied to everyone if it's applied at all. Rray (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

* I put some very hard thought into the matter before deciding on the "dead trees standard" for precisely the reasons you articulate. It would be hard to write an encyclopedia of horror literature without an entry for Stephen King, for example. At some point of notability people are actual public figures who have press agents of their own to handle potential problems. Roughly that corresponds to where a specialty encyclopedia of XYZ starts to cover them. At any rate, it's the kind of standard that people could actually go to a library and check and cite to settle a debate. If you have a better idea then by all means present it. This was the best I could do. DurovaCharge! 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

* I know you did put hard thought into it, and I mean no disrespect by disagreeing with you. I think a better idea is if they meet our notability criteria, then we don't delete their article based on their request. If that's not acceptable, we should revise our notability criteria. Having two notability criteria so that we can justify deleting articles as a courtesy to their subject seems unfair to the people who meet the proposed dead trees criteria. Rray (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

* Would you rather restore Daniel Brandt's biography, with all the conflict that carried? If we follow your reasoning then we'd have to to the same thing for everybody, not just people with Foundation ties. DurovaCharge! 00:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

* I'm not that familiar with the debate there, but I think he's certainly notable enough to warrant his own article here. Was there something different about his situation? (Besides him not being associated with the Foundation?) Rray (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

* I clicked on the link for Brandt's AfD discussion, but it looks like the actual discussion has been blanked. Based on the reasons cited, then yeah, I would say restore his article. Rray (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

* Courtesy blanked but not deleted.[18] See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war. I believe there was an earlier arbitration also, but I really wasn't involved in any of the first 13 deletion nominations or the surrounding drama. DurovaCharge! 00:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the "because Wikipedia says you're notable" argument that scares me.Who the HELL is "Wikipedia" -- whoever it is at any given moment -- to make that decision?

This is where they need functioning adult supervision -- non-volunteer -- to make editorial decisions based on published and clearly-understandable criteria. Not "hell, it'd be fun to write that biography".

There's something to be said for a standard of inclusion that is independent of the subject's wishes. But such a standard cannot coexist with other standards that provide no obligation to determine if things are true.

There's something to be said for a standard of inclusion that is independent of the subject's wishes. But such a standard cannot coexist with other standards that provide no obligation to determine if things are true. It probably shouldn't coexist with a horribly low bar for inclusion, but that's more debatable.

Hey, I like Rray

I can see that them keeping the Brandt article for so long was mainly down to vindictiveness. But I don't think most subjects should be able to remove articles about themselves unless they are not very notable at all. Because any of the press is allowed to write articles about people.

As to accountability there is the OTRS, also they do try to remove anything derogatory about people that isn't sourced (unless it's about their enemies, perhaps). I really think that they are emphasising the BLP policy more, and more nasty comments are being removed. (maybe they are getting more paranoid/aware of thheir legal position.)

At the end of the day it's a large site. I've not looked at the wikipedia disclaimer, but on sites such as proboards it usually says something like 'we will try and take anything that is false, defamatory etc down as soon as possible' .

No-one's omniscient, except maybe Jimbo

Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself on these issues? They've been covered exhaustively on this Board, as well as on Wikipedia-Watch, for well over a year now. Like I said, there is zero net learning curve on these issues because there's no leadership at the top. In order for the situation to improve, we need some firm decrees from the Foundation as to what is and is not acceptable. They won't do this because they're afraid it will weaken their presumed immunity.

As to accountability there is the OTRS, also they do try to remove anything derogatory about people that isn't sourced (unless it's about their enemies, perhaps).

No-one's omniscient, except maybe Jimbo

I've had to adopt my "reverse-psychology" angle again. I would like to see the Beesley article blanked and salted.

This will have much more impact when pointing out to the press and on the lecture circuit that "Even one of the earliest Board members of Wikipedia and the co-founder of Wikia, Inc. is so terrified of what can happen to a person immortalized on Wikipedia, that she repeatedly demanded her own article be taken down until it finally was."

You can't BUY bad PR like that, folks.

Greg

There's a zero net learning curve at Wikipedia.

The truth standard is fundamental in U.S. libel law. It's not defamatory if it's true. But beyond that we have a distinction between public persons and private persons in U.S. law. If your target is a public person and you publish a false statement, your actions have to be malicious. If your target is a private person and you publish a false statement, you are liable even if it was inadvertent.

Beyond this, there are also invasion of privacy statutes in many states, including Florida where the Wikipedia servers are located. Especially if you are a private person, if something true about you is published that is not particularly important to the public's right to know, then even though it was true it could still be actionable.

The question of damages gets interesting once Wikipedia is found liable. When you come up number one in a Google search for your name, thanks to all that internal linking by Wikipedia that is designed to juice up its search-engine rankings, it's roughly a thousand times worse than appearing on a back page in the New York Times. You could prove this quite easily to a jury, just by throwing statistics at them. Many job applicants are getting googled before getting called for an interview, for example. In Finland it is illegal for a prospective employer to google an applicant, but it's not illegal anywhere else in the world, as far as I know.