A wrote:
1. Is a "____sucks.com" blog a notable or
reliable source?
Usually not. In a case like this, some mention would seem to be in
order since the site was mentioned in the New York Times, but the actual
reference in this case is the New York Times itself, not the blog.
Merely being mentioned in the New York Times does not license them to
insert whatever random lunacy they may choose to print in their blog,
into wikipedia as "critics say..."
2. If an editor is engaging in vicious personal
attacks offsite, then
coming here and demanding civility, is that a violation of the letter
and/or spirit of the project?
Absolutely. The distinction between on-wiki and off-wiki (or on-project
and off-project) behavior is one we should be careful about, but in
general, the standard is not some rationalistic nonsense but rather
simple good judgment about when someone is behaving badly and disrupting
our work or not.
3. Are "criticism" sections valid in
general, or do they just become a
repository for quibbles and an amplifier of relatively insignificant
hatecruft about a person?
Often they are necessary and important, I think. But they are also a
magnet for trolls.
4. If they are valid, do blogs count as notable or
reliable sources?
What if they are anonymous? Are there criteria in place for
determining this?
Tough call, but editorial judgment of good editors should prevail. What
I mean is: just because some troll tries to reinsert hate speech over
and over again, citing some blog as an excuse, well, not good enough.
5. Should we formulate a guideline regarding living
persons and this
kind of criticism in their biographies?
WP:LIVING is a decent start, although it needs some attention I think so
that we can bring it up to the standard of a full policy.
--
#######################################################################
# Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge #
#
http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world #
#######################################################################