wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > That is why we really have to allow the community to decide what *it* > finds interesting, important, salient and not try to impose too much > from the top down. The community should be creating from the > bottom-up and our "rules" should merely reflect what the community is > doing in this type of case. > > If many members of the community want to know the names of Brad Pitt's > children, then we should allow that, if they can be sourced. Names do > not invade privacy when they have already been widely disseminated. I > can find the information in about two seconds. Reflection of what is > reality is not an "invasion" of privacy. > > Now, as our policy already states, if the only way to find a piece of > information is with a primary source, and if the door to that > information has not been already opened by a mention of some sort in a > secondary source, than we should not include it either. However many > sources mention that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have children, and > so we should as well. Some sources mention their names as well, and > so we should as well. > What is true is that reasonable people can disagree, in the abstract, on where "salience" begins or ends. I think it tends to be clearer in front of a concrete case, at least if the article is properly organised into sections. The point I was making is that our biographies amount to about 1% of the content of a book biography.
I don't think we get far with the general case by taking Brangelina as an example: it is an obvious "outlier" for BLP discussions. Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
