Originally Posted by canopener
I find your involvement in this saga quite remarkable to say the least,you appear to be someone of a legal persuasion given the content of your posts?Are you a self appointed busy body or do you represent "wiki" in some official capacity?
You are dismissive of the tabloid press reports and remove any reference to them but are more than happy to allow the severely embellished,factually incorrect self promotion of TCT to remain.You also question the integrity of the source "controversy over flights",you seem to operate under a set of double standards Jethro.
tl;dr: Self-appointed busybody.
I'm not happy about the self-promotional aspect of this. I've said that the article should be deleted as she's not really notable.
I am interested in the underlying structural problems of wikipedia, especially those that make abusing people so easy. Without wishing to go too far off-topic, biographies are an absolute nightmare and the WMF (who run the site) don't really give a ****.
Biographies are a magnet for libelous or harmful material, and relatively unknown people are most at risk. Naturally, one should take wikipedia with a pinch of salt, but many see it as authoratative. A few editors (and I mean a few) try to stem the tide, but there are around
800,000 bios of living people.
Back to TCT... the promotional fluff and other errors aren't really hurting anyone, they should go of course, but it takes time to research and will likely lead to interminable discussions and meta-discussions -- deleting the whole article, even more so. Cutting contentious material from iffy publictaions is a blunt tool, but it's quick and easy and policy-based.
I haven't read all 70-odd pages of this thread, but mike hallam's summation seems plausible to me. Similarly, I have seen nice fluffy self-created bios decay before their subject's eyes into a litany of controversies, tittle-tattle and smears, forever enshrined on the pages of the one of the world's largest websites. Perhaps that's a fitting punishment for hubris or peacockery, maybe it would be kinder to delete the article?
Over and Out.