| Not sure if this has changed, but I wish there was a way to kind of dull the downside-edge of this kind of outcome. For example maybe there's another place the person's info can go that's not so obviously a trash can, and ideally even still a useful or interesting place. It ought to be possible, IMO. And I'll add that noteworthiness is a real cringe of a model in a lot of ways. Personally I saw the downsides of this first hand back in the early 2000s, when I created a page for a software developer. It didn't seem right to put their information, much of which was interesting and relevant, but which wasn't related to the software, on the software's page. So anyway, their page was deleted with the note that his info should probably just go on that one app's page. A really shallow/easy suggestion especially given that it had already been considered and didn't make sense in various ways. And then I realized: This whole thing has created extra pain for someone, who for years had a Wikipedia page, and who now has had it deleted. None of which was their choice, but all of which started with intentions to inform and build on a useful corpus of knowledge. So, is that pain-side really, really necessary? I think such a process can be done better. |
It would be interesting if the database of facts driving Wikipedia were available to all, and Wikipedia is recognized as providing one of potentially many ways to organize/publish that database for human reading. In other words, if I want to add information about a composer and her composition to the database I can do so, and if Wikipedia chooses only to publish the composition but not the composer, that is entirely their decision.