>
> 5. _Wikipedia does not have firm rules_. Good ol' IAR, here, boys. Much
> as Certain People may complain about it, it's one of the pillars on
> which rests our hopes and our success so far.
>
> Now, '4' and '5' can be regarded as peculiar to the English Wikipedia.
French Wikipedia AfD for IAR:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Pages_à_supprimer/Wikipédia:Ignorez_…
I'm not sure what you would all have made of this if I just left it without
comment.
Instead I will mention that a translation of an old version of the english IAR
was already (and still is) written right into the main rules page.
I can easily see us getting entirely the wrong impression from the Russian
Verifiability thing.
Dan
Greetings fellow Wikipedians,
Has anyone else noticed the lack of clarity on the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point
of view]] relative to images?
I realize it may seem like common sense but certain editors don't seem to
understand the NPOV equally applies to images.
Due to this fact I've begun work on an addition to NPOV policy and I was
wondering what others thought of it.
Please have a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Netscott/NPOV_image_policy
Thanks.
-Scott
On 8/29/06, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:
> I have found two articles that needed attention within the past few
> days. I probably came to Wikipedia via a Google.com search. In other
> words, I did not start in Wikipedia.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but the discussion was
primarily about creating *new* articles - it looks like you have
*rewritten* two articles (a very welcome move indeed!)
> When I started being editing, and I am a late comer (January 2004),
> there was no clear policy (or I was unaware of it).
The living persons policy is quite new (late 2005 or early 2006).
Steve
---- Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
=============
On 8/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Our pop culture articles are rubbish, and they definitely need no more
> encouragement toward a hagiographic point of view.
Very much agreed. I am very against any suggestion that strongly
sourced, accurate negative information that is relevant to the
person's notability/notoriety should be removed from articles for
'sensitivity'.
I am in favor of being very tough about the 'well sourced' part,
though, and about the notability of life details. Not everything
about their private lives that has been e.g. dragged out in divorce
court is really notable.
-Matt
=====================================================
Matt and David,
Matt's comment is the intent of the BLP policy with the inclution of sensitivity theme.
IO, being sensitive to the fact that details about a living person's life can cause harm, editors need to be very sure that the information is notable, relevant, and verifiable.
When in doubt error on the side of do no harm. This in no way says that all criticism or negative should be removed from articles.
Sydney aka FloNight
---- David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
=============
See WT:LIVING, discussion at end. The "nutshell" has been
instruction-crept by the well-meaning and is an obfuscated mess.
Key problem: the innovation of "sensitivity" which was introduced as a
fresh new thing in this guideline. While it seems the proper and human
thing to be sensitive to living persons, the use of the term in that
form does pretty much subvert the NPOV "hard policy" in the wording of
a secondary guideline<->policy.
I appreciate the need, but there's gotta be a way to word it that
doesn't seem like an end-run around NPOV.
Idea: the thing already in about notability of life details. That
would seem to me to cover it.
Any more ideas?
- d.
David,
IMO, BLP articles need to be treated differently. See policy talk page for my complete reply. Several other editors responded also.
Can you give me examples of how being sensitive has made the situation worse?
None of us that support that wording think that NPOV, NOR, or V is overwritten by BLP policy. If anything, we say that the BLP policy causes our core policies to be applied more aggressively.
Sydney aka FloNight
See WT:LIVING, discussion at end. The "nutshell" has been
instruction-crept by the well-meaning and is an obfuscated mess.
Key problem: the innovation of "sensitivity" which was introduced as a
fresh new thing in this guideline. While it seems the proper and human
thing to be sensitive to living persons, the use of the term in that
form does pretty much subvert the NPOV "hard policy" in the wording of
a secondary guideline<->policy.
I appreciate the need, but there's gotta be a way to word it that
doesn't seem like an end-run around NPOV.
Idea: the thing already in about notability of life details. That
would seem to me to cover it.
Any more ideas?
- d.
Hi all,
Just removed another tripling elephant population reference at
[[Queenie (elephant)]], which had apparently been there for 2 weeks. I
wonder how many more of these there are.
Even more alarmingly,
http://www.google.com/search?hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=elephant%20populatio…
shows quite a few of these joke references have made their way into
Google's cache.
Ok, the current example is trivial, but maybe we need some sort of
organised response to these kind of attacks, which will presumably
become more common. What if an organised group starting planting
"George Bush is dead" all over the place or something...
Steve
Sorry to post such an incredibly lame off topic. Over the last week,
the amount of spam getting through gmail's filters has gone up hugely
for me. It's coming in through the 5 or so email addresses I have that
forward to the same account in equal measure, so I can't blame one
email address suddenly getting extra exposure. Has anyone else
experienced like this? I was previously getting around 1 spam a day
making it through the filter, but now it's like 10 or even more per
day. Lots of it is a weird, right-justified format, all nonsense text
(jumbled quotations from something or other) whose purpose I can't
divine...
Thanks anyone for any observations, comments etc.
Steve
Or popular with the readers, at least.
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?ns=articles&limi…
Interesting to-do list task: see what subjects or subject areas are in
demand from that list, and make a list of related subjects in the area
that aren't covered or could do with serious work.
- d.