CZ Talk:Policy on Topic Informants: Difference between revisions
imported>DavidGoodman (wrong name.) |
imported>DavidGoodman (scope) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
This is intended to be just the opposite--an objective analyst. If it is going to be under-cover, don't emphasize in in the name. | This is intended to be just the opposite--an objective analyst. If it is going to be under-cover, don't emphasize in in the name. | ||
==scope== | |||
I agree with almost all of this except "that if you aren't really a public figure, it should be up to you whether we have an article about you | |||
or not." .--unless you mean a public figure as anyone who has been the subject of several newspaper stories, or something similarly broad. I would hope ,for example, that we would have articles about all the members of the National Academy of Sciences. We needn't go into their personalities, but what is an encyclopedia for if not discussing scholarly work--whether or not they approve of the discussion. That is why we have real editors.[[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 00:02, 27 January 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 01:02, 27 January 2007
I cannot think of a worse name. Informant implies un-named and undercover-- a gangster who is in contact with a law enforcement officer, a member of the government who is in contact with a spy, a person leaking information to a reporter.
This is intended to be just the opposite--an objective analyst. If it is going to be under-cover, don't emphasize in in the name.
scope
I agree with almost all of this except "that if you aren't really a public figure, it should be up to you whether we have an article about you or not." .--unless you mean a public figure as anyone who has been the subject of several newspaper stories, or something similarly broad. I would hope ,for example, that we would have articles about all the members of the National Academy of Sciences. We needn't go into their personalities, but what is an encyclopedia for if not discussing scholarly work--whether or not they approve of the discussion. That is why we have real editors.DavidGoodman 00:02, 27 January 2007 (CST)