87:
24:
125:
219:
Biographies of low-notability subjects, are thus particularly vulnerable to motivated biased editing. Further, if biased edits are apparently sourced, it is more unlikely that they will be identified as problematic on a low-notability biography. At the same time, low-notability biographies are often
263:
In cases where there is a reasonable belief that the article may cause distress to the subject or, due to a lack of interest, there may well be problems in maintaining the article in a fair and accurate state, administrators may wish to require a positive consensus that
Knowledge (XXG) requires to
213:
However, the less notable the article is, the more prone it is to fewer people being interested, and the more chance there is that the few interested parties will be motivated by bias. Further, if the bias is not immediately obvious, there is less chance with a less notable subject of anyone
181:. Whereas unsourced material in other articles may simply be tagged as requiring verification, unsourced material which may cause harm is to be ruthlessly removed. Knowledge (XXG) has a duty to treat biographies of living people with special care to avoid harm to the subject.
259:
Whilst many
Wikipedians do not believe that we should automatically delete an article out of consideration to the views or interests of the subject, administrators may consider that it is irresponsible to simply default to keep in the case of low-notability biographies.
196:
a) Whereas other articles may at times exist in a biased state or include false claims, and "eventually" be fixed. Problematic biographical articles can be doing real and immediate harm to the subject. It isn't acceptable to think in terms of eventualism.
160:
manner, no matter how poor or biased the article currently is, or may be in the future, we retain it in the hope that it will eventually be improved: a bad article is a "work in progress". This is represented by demanding a
292:
208:
in a biased way, there are plenty of people ready to revert or improve – and they won't all despise
Scientology). Knowledgeable people will look at articles, and even non-apparent falsehoods will be spotted.
287:
277:
264:
retain the article. In short, in the absence of consensus to retain, Knowledge (XXG) may be best served by defaulting to delete the article (or relist where participation has been low).
314:
133:
When low-notability biographies of living people are considered for deletion, closing administrators may wish to consider requiring a positive consensus to retain the article
220:
the most damaging, as they may be the only accessible online source of information on the subject, and thus opinion-forming in a way that
Knowledge (XXG)'s entry on
282:
238:
The less alternative and good quality information online. Thus the greater impact of the contentious or poorly sourced wiki-bio the subject's reputation.
304:
241:
The less eyes (watchlists) on the article and the greater chance of bad stuff, contentious information, or defamatory content remaining unspotted.
339:
334:
39:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
40:
309:
329:
244:
The less chance of
Wikipedians knowing enough about the subject to spot less obvious bias, untruths or defamation.
178:
113:
and little or no improvement. Please help by introducing links to this page from other related project pages.
204:
neutrality and accuracy through a process where a wide number of editors work on them. (If someone edits
44:
54:
110:
94:
32:
152:
in its attitude to articles. If a subject is theoretically capable of being written about in a
250:
Once problems are identified, the less chance of anyone caring enough to monitor the article.
162:
157:
106:
98:
185:
174:
221:
153:
323:
145:
47:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
149:
205:
192:
Low notability biographies present
Knowledge (XXG) with a particular problem.
86:
247:
The more chance that a POV pusher or biased editor will be left unchecked.
177:
require special treatment. In these cases an important rule of thumb is
293:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)
119:
81:
18:
288:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Jon Blake (broadcaster)
278:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Seth
Finkelstein (2nd)
188:
before undeleting any article deleted under the BLP policy.
315:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject
Deletion sorting/Living people
69:
62:
165:
that an article requires deletion before removing it.
109:
link to this page. This may result in the page having
200:b) Knowledge (XXG)'s theory is that articles reach
283:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Ginger Jolie
173:Knowledge (XXG) has for some time accepted that
144:Knowledge (XXG) has always been deliberately
8:
305:Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living people
184:We now also require a positive consensus at
41:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
7:
45:thoroughly vetted by the community
14:
340:Knowledge (XXG) essays about BLP
310:User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem
123:
85:
22:
16:Essay on editing Knowledge (XXG)
335:Orphaned Knowledge (XXG) essays
1:
231:The less notable the subject:
175:biographies of living people
169:Biographies of living people
356:
214:knowledgeable spotting it.
52:
255:Closing deletion debates
131:This page in a nutshell:
268:Deletion debates which
140:General deletion policy
330:Knowledge (XXG) essays
43:, as it has not been
224:is unlikely to be.
163:positive consensus
137:
136:
118:
117:
80:
79:
347:
127:
126:
120:
89:
82:
72:
65:
26:
25:
19:
355:
354:
350:
349:
348:
346:
345:
344:
320:
319:
301:
274:
272:show precedents
257:
186:deletion review
171:
142:
124:
114:
76:
75:
68:
61:
57:
49:
48:
23:
17:
12:
11:
5:
353:
351:
343:
342:
337:
332:
322:
321:
318:
317:
312:
307:
300:
297:
296:
295:
290:
285:
280:
273:
266:
256:
253:
252:
251:
248:
245:
242:
239:
235:
234:
233:
232:
226:
225:
222:George W. Bush
216:
215:
170:
167:
141:
138:
135:
134:
128:
116:
115:
111:low readership
104:
103:
90:
78:
77:
74:
73:
66:
58:
53:
50:
38:
37:
29:
27:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
352:
341:
338:
336:
333:
331:
328:
327:
325:
316:
313:
311:
308:
306:
303:
302:
298:
294:
291:
289:
286:
284:
281:
279:
276:
275:
271:
267:
265:
261:
254:
249:
246:
243:
240:
237:
236:
230:
229:
228:
227:
223:
218:
217:
212:
211:
210:
207:
203:
198:
194:
193:
189:
187:
182:
180:
176:
168:
166:
164:
159:
155:
151:
147:
139:
132:
129:
122:
121:
112:
108:
107:project pages
101:
100:
97:is currently
96:
91:
88:
84:
83:
71:
67:
64:
60:
59:
56:
51:
46:
42:
36:
34:
28:
21:
20:
269:
262:
258:
202:and maintain
201:
199:
195:
191:
190:
183:
179:"do no harm"
172:
146:inclusionist
143:
130:
92:
30:
206:Scientology
150:eventualist
31:This is an
324:Categories
154:verifiable
105:Few or no
55:Shortcuts
299:See also
99:orphaned
158:neutral
70:WP:BBLP
63:WP:BBio
270:might
95:essay
93:This
33:essay
148:and
326::
156:,
102:.
35:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
