On 3/27/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com>
wrote:
Nick Wilkins wrote:
On 3/26/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com>
wrote:
> I don't see any particular problem with that. The Admins know what
>
they
are
doing.
... woah.
That's quite the statement. We've apparently come quite far from the
idea
that adminship is no big deal. Not that I have a
problem with that, per
se,
but telling non-admins to trust "the
Admins" with policy decisions is
something that seems a major departure from previous practice here.
We are talking about very rare cases. The particular case in question
is quite remarkable.
We have a choice: WP:OFFICE where actions are carried out by single
staff members or by me personally (which does not scale, and carries
with it enormous risks of bias), or relaxing just a little bit and
trusting the community of admins to oversee each other.
What is NOT a choice is keeping vicious crap up on the site while people
discuss it. There's no point to that.
--Jimbo
In all of this, no one even addressed what was the BLP violation and which
sources are lacking.
Deleting something without doing the legwork is a case of bias. I'd rather
have actions be taken by people who have all the facts than people who claim
there is a BLP violation without clarifying the issue.
Keeping "vicious crap" is an option. Only a handful of admins can now see
it, of which only a handful have the knowledge to determine the reliability
of the sources. If this history remains hidden, I doubt any more than 10
knowledgeable people can see it. I'm all for open discussion, but deletions
should depend on people who have done the research, not on personal opinions
after a cursory glance.
Mgm
Blog entries are bad sources and BLP violations. They should never be
used as source material in a biography. They are not news. A great
portion of this article was derived and sourced from blog entries. The
history was restored and has been available again for some hours.
Cary
---
~bastique