On 29/06/07, Silas Snider swsnider@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Look some of the WP:BLP deletions haven't been fun. I don't
particulary
like every wikilawyer quoting WP:BLP at me either. I can imagine the
horror
of hours of edits going through the mincer and I am not saying that
policy
is always right or admins. But when an article is presented in such a
way
that if lends it weight to shock or ridicule, I can't see how even the
most
"give the benefit of the doubt" editor can say that articles like that
suck
and why didn't it get a spd? I'm not trying to give you the mighty
mighty
tiger argument - "then consider it was you on WP?" I am saying if it
isn't
covered by notable news organisations then neither should we.
I see where you are coming from, but I must disagree. Notable news organizations can be extremely spotty in their coverage.
Also, are you actually asserting that there are some topics, such as Brian Peppers, which otherwise pass our verifiability standards, but about which we could *never* write a NPOV article? Or are you saying that it would be too harmful to the subject of the article to have one? In the latter case, I thought we had mostly agreed on this mailing list that any harm that we do by publishing information that is available elsewhere is minor compared to the harm of censoring topics because it might hurt someone's feelings, especially as it would never stop at the 'obvious' cases. (Sorry, can't find the link at the moment)
Sincerely, Silas Snider
No, the "and it makes baby jesus cry too" sentiment that is passed off as sane "this is an encyclopedia" grate me too. Censorship/WP:OFFICE is not cool. WP exists now and apart from someone bored at work/home who writes a "badness", that makes the project look "bad" WP:OFFICE should only come into play then, when vandalism has gone outta sight. My concerns about Brian Pepper (plz G-d Don't do it again Brian) is that or new episodes of the "internet phenonemn" is that without real coverage in newspapers, we rely on boarderline sources, which may have really only found about something because we discuss them so much. Wikipedia is a great way is becoming infamous - we don't feed trolls but we feed every other nutter who is interested in something unsavoury.
Depending on when something is written, it can be cached or mirrored for days later. You try telling that to a 9th grader. "nah it must be true it was on wikipedia". We have a great duty to tell the truth, in terms of truth there really was nothing we could add - it was as you say already out there - but we added a top post to every single search. Why was Brian Peppers there? Brian Peppers was there because nobody could believe a basket case like him could exist, never mind commit a sex crime. It is offensive those words, people weren't trying to find out what happened but to guess about what he had done.
WP:BLP can't work on every case. Notable newspapers probably do as you suggest have their own agenda when reporting things. Censoring what makes wikipedia bad isn't bad.
Mike Mike33