User:Jreferee/Vandalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Below are some of my tenative view on some issues. I am using this page to work out my thoughts on topics and they do not reflect my actual views on topics.
Biographical material on Wikipedia about a living person is an area where Wikipedia is most vulnerable. A simple POV comment in an article can have a significantly negative impact both on the living person who is the subject of that article and on the Wikipedia environment. Extra vigilance is required when patrolling for material that is in violation of WP:BLP.
Actors and others in the entertainment industry largely make income as a result of their image. Time and again on WP:BLPN, Office Actions, WP:ANI and other places , I see requests regarding posts to actor biography articles that potentially disparage an actor which may lessen their ability to make income. The disparagement may be an outright lie, such as the recent situation WIKIPEDIA APOLOGIZES TO SINBAD: Web site bans person who posted fake death notice, or something more subtitle. For example, someone had created an article that named several famous actors and asserted that they were contracted to film a movie later this. The article turned out to be a well-crafted hoax that we got deleted. The damage in this case was that if others in the entertainment industry believe that these actors were obligated to a future project, they would be less likely to approach them with their own project. This, in turn, may diminish the potential for these actors to make income.
There is a significant need for a project that specifically provides WP:BLP oversight and rapid response for people in the entertainment industry. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ recently proposed an Actors and Filmmakers WikiProject which I have endorsed. Please consider providing your support as well.
A Wikipeida notable football player is one for which there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedia article about the topic. Since Wikipeida notability is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance", it is irrelevant that he/she has played in a fully professional league, has competed at the highest level, and/or is a first team squad member who has not made a first team appearance. If he/she (1) has played in a fully professional league, (2) has competed at the highest level, and (3) is a first team squad member who has not made a first team appearance, but there does not exist enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedia article about the topic, how would it possible to include such an article in Wikipedia under Wikipedia's inclusion criteria? If I can put together a verifiable, encyclopedia article on a football player through reliable sources, I'm voting Keep at AfD even if they only played semi-professional football or are amateurs. In particular, the article needs to be encyclopedic by meeting WP:NOT (please click on the encyclopedia link in my post above). The eight examples at WP:NOT are 1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, 2. Travel guides, 3. Memorials, 4. Instruction manuals, 5. Internet guides, 6. Textbooks and annotated texts, 7. Plot summaries, 8. Lyrics databases. I do not see "9. Biography of certain football players" as being part of this WP:NOT list or added to this WP:NOT list of eight anytime soon. I also do not think that Wikipedia:Verifiability football biography articles meeting WP:NOT and composed of WP:RS is 'an indiscriminate list of all football players about whom there is information' merely because their fame or importance does not rise to a certain level. Original research includes editors' personal views of published material that appears to advance a position. Isn't the idea that only football players who have achieved a certain level of importance or fame should be in Wikipedia merely a personal view of published material to advance a keep/delete content position? Using WP:RS in determining what stays and what goes from Wikipedia is an objective approach. Using perceived importance or fame to determine what stays and what goes from Wikipedia is a subjective approach. I do not see a subjective approach as being workable since each Wikipedian has a different, personal view of what is famous or what is important.
I revised WP:CANVAS so that it now asserts that if you contact one Wikipedian to discuss an opinion they already gave in an RfA, it is not canvassing. If multiple Wikipedians are contacted with a neutral message in an effort to form an opinion collation, that is canvassing. RfA's are highly susceptible to canvassing since one oppose vote essentially has the weight of three to four support votes. If one or more Wikipedians are contacted with a neutral message about an upcoming or ongoing RfA, that is unacceptable canvassing (in my opinion). If multiple Wikipedians are contacted with a neutral message about an upcoming or ongoing RfA and there is some reason to believe that the contacted Wikipedians are pre-inclined or pre-disposed to vote one way or another, that's YIKES!!! in my book and requires swift action.
