http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Living_peo...
This won't catch edits which remove the category, and it won't catch
the 5-10% of BLPs which aren't in the category to start with, but it's otherwise mostly what you want, I think.
Well done Andrew, that looks exactly the sort of thing Casy needs to know about for the Task Force.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:38 AM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
The language of the board resolution doesn't come down hard enough on the side of verifiable information. That is, if something is verifiable, even a direct quote from the subject themself, then that information should be allowed to be included, and should not be forcibly stopped from inclusion by aggressive article patrollers-with-tools. It seems to me that the way the language is worded, the board is going to continue to allow harassment of those editors conscientious to the evidence, at the expense of verifiable evidence already broadcast widely across the net.
Can you give us a real world example? I use an editing tool but where a citation is provided I would always check it before removing 'dubious' material.
If I gave a published interview ten years ago where I admitted that I was once a male hooker, well that's the bed I made I made and now I have to sleep in it.
Well, to a degree. But what if they later say, in an equally verifiable source, that that was a joke? Or if a verifiable source says it isn't true? But yes, I wouldn't object to seeing that in an article provided policy is adhered to.
Our job should not be to suppress what's already been published, and the board should make a strong statement that any tool-user who acts to suppress published information should be de-sysopped, so the playing field can be levelled. It's hard enough to fight a billy club using only a bullhorn.
I agree suppression is bad. Again, I'm interested to know of an article where info has been removed even though it meets 'verifiability' and 'reliable sources'.