Todd, I don't personally see that sort of thing happen often. Geni and I, among others, have been dealing for quite some time with one particular article where it has been happening for awhile, but it seems like the exception rather than the rule. Most editors understand that the NPOV and undue weight requirements for BLPs don't bar all negative information. We're on our way into mediation on the article we're dealing with, yet it seems like the view that BLPs can't have any negative information is pretty fringe.
Nathan
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
It's certainly disillusioned me with it after my recent experiences. BLP is important, but it's equally important to keep it in tight rein to only unsourced or poorly sourced information. I'm certainly not too happy with the whole idea of it right now, it should be an extension of NPOV and V (information should be properly weighted and properly sourced, and we should give especial urgency to this requirement on a BLP), not some type of "I personally don't think this should go in an article on this person, so even though our sources do I'm going to cry BLP and remove it."
In this case, it doesn't look like we reported false information, so what's the problem? What is with those who think BLP means "We can't report negative or controversial information even if it -is- well-sourced"?
-- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l