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