On 10/03/2011 18:16, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 10 March 2011 13:11, Fred
Bauder<fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
What is
an "airbush"? I think we should be told.
Our article "Airbrush"
does not include information on the use of
"airbrush" as a metaphor
Charles' point was that the article says
"airbush" not "airbrush" in
the headline.
There's a more serious kind of point that goes like this: the
article in
question being a BLP, we should very much judge the content in the light
of BLP policy rather than who inserted it or edited it. What to an
activist intensely interested in the subject of a BLP may seem like a
whitewash may, in the light of the way we handle BLPs, be simply a
scrupulous application of our criteria on referencing, due weight,
salience and so on. In fact if that doesn't happen in such a contested
area as US politics, something is probably wrong: we're writing an
encyclopedia, after all, not operating a political seismograph tracking
every little uptick of comment. That is not to excuse the activities of
those who'd wish to put spin-doctor content onto the site.
In short, the way COI applies to BLPs ought to be even-handed, because
the coverage we want is neutral.
Charles