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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l