He’s not a famous figure, he’s a child being exploited by his dad, and even on the page itself there’s nothing actually notable about the kid himself. It’s mostly salacious “controversy” about his gross no-name dad.
And actually encyclopaedias generally and Wikipedia particularly engage in value judgement all the time. Who is or isn’t a notable public figure, what is or isn’t a reliable source, etc.
Nothing about this child merits a Wikipedia entry. Maybe Encyclopedia Dramatica or Kiwi Farms or something else for the bottom feeders, but not a site that’s supposed to be for general human knowledge. GTFO with that.
If this isn’t a sign of the decline in Wikipedia I don’t know what is. Like it’s not even his channel it’s his dad’s.
Why would that be a sign of wikipedia’s decline?
Should they not document a famous figure? It doesn’t matter whether it’s ridiculous or not, value judgement is not an encyclopedia’s place to do
He’s not a famous figure, he’s a child being exploited by his dad, and even on the page itself there’s nothing actually notable about the kid himself. It’s mostly salacious “controversy” about his gross no-name dad.
And actually encyclopaedias generally and Wikipedia particularly engage in value judgement all the time. Who is or isn’t a notable public figure, what is or isn’t a reliable source, etc.
Nothing about this child merits a Wikipedia entry. Maybe Encyclopedia Dramatica or Kiwi Farms or something else for the bottom feeders, but not a site that’s supposed to be for general human knowledge. GTFO with that.