"Dead wood" has been suggested, but I strongly disagree with it. While there are issues and it needs careful work (nobody's denying that) I'm not seeing hard evidence that so many BLPs - even minor BLPs - are the train wreck that some represent nor as hard to manage as some portray.
What I wouldn't mind seeing is one of three easy ways to improve BLPs: - *Creation limited to editors with some kind of non-trivial track record * (and a suggestion/request mechanism so IP users and newer editors lacking that record can contribute suggestions) - *Creation of BLPs always in some kind of [[Draft:]] namespace or BLP incubator* that's NOINDEXed and not allowed into mainspace until of a reasonable quality of sourcing and balance, with [[Draft:]] articles removed or blanked after 10 or 14 days of inactivity. - *Community support for the principle behind notability*, rather than the lazy version. Too many users still assume that verifiability + coverage = notability. Notability is a *proxy measure* for enduring or lasting significance -- not just brief coverage, promotional coverage, minor or transient coverage, coverage that doesn't speak to lasting human cultural significance. More emphasis on questioning whether a subject really has true historic significance as a reference item, and less reliance on a mention here or there, would probably help. We're in a world of changing data and information. We need to be responsive as well as high quality, and we do that best in the same way that the whole project was created - by innovating ways to achieve it. If BLP's are not satisfactory then we develop and learn how to do BLP's well. Not by merely refusing to host biographies under the same content standards as other content. Not really inclined to endorse defeatism. FT2 On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Sarah <slimvir...@gmail.com> wrote: > We could solve that by hosting only BLPs that have already had > encyclopedic or extensive treatment elsewhere, i.e. have already been > the subject of (a) an encyclopedia article; or (b) a book or book > chapter from a reliable publisher; or (c) a profile or in-depth piece > in a high-quality newspaper (one about the person, not about events > the person was involved in). > > I know this has been suggested before, but it's coming time to > consider it seriously. > > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l