JodyB wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
The problem is that Bios of Living Persons policy is too draconian -- there's no flexibility in it as stated. As stated it's a pretty good standard for new additions, but it encourages people to lazily delete massive amounts of content from existing articles long after material was added.
I'm not sure it's too draconian especially when the issue is "contentious" material. While I agree that we should encourage all people to help with sourcing, the onus is still on the author to get it right and get sourced right too. Unfortunately, there is no way to codify and encouragement. There's also no way I can think of that would "grandfather" in contentious material dating from before BLP was implemented.
I don't think that any realistic editor expects a soft ride for contentious or derogatory material. There will always be need to be unrelenting about that. Determining whether something is contentious or derogatory should always be the question that a reviewer asks himself about a libing person article.
If the answer is "No," a more relaxed approach can be taken. Sure the onus ultimately falls on the cotributing author to establish sources for information, but using that as the only excuse for removing information is just being a dick, or trying to make a Point.
Ec