On 4/4/07, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
wrote:
This is the one case in which we actually want people to make drive-by
deletions, and ask questions afterwards. That's one issue. A second is that
creating a template that says 'potential libel here, come look' could have a
downside.
Charles
I thought about the potential of the attracting unneeded attention... but
the people who are likely to edit with a mind to enforce BLP are likely to
just nuke the outright offensive material. But not everyone is also an
admin. Non-admins can't do that, and there might be an article that *should*
exist for whatever reason--notable subject, say--but the current article is
a complete mess that the person maybe feels they don't have the time or
ability to clean themselves. A well sourced article but an attack
themselves--where perhaps POV pushers are fighting back...? Doc Glasgow on
WP:AN made a great example of this better than I did at first
On 4/4/07, Doc Glasgow wrote on WP:AN:
There IS merit in this. Unsourced negative material must simply be
removed, period. We don't need to draw attention to such cases, just
ruthlessly clean them out. However, often an article may have well-sourced
information but be written entirely one-sidedly. We increasingly get
complaints about hatchet jobs. OTRS ops have not the time to re-write
articles and look for sources giving the other side of the story. In such
cases, what is needed is precisely to draw the article to the attention of
the wider community and ask people to do that as a priority. It will also
often involve battling with some POV pusher who is jumping up and down when
the well-cited but partially chosen material is removed by an angry subject.
Perhaps we need a more specific category here: {{POV bio}}? - and give
barnstars to people willing to take them quickly in
hand.--Doc<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_glasgow>
g
--
- Denny