On 8/18/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
In the context of WP:OFFICE, as well as more recently, Jimbo and others have written somethings about "hurt feelings," as if it was a policy ( WP:CODDLE maybe) which could circumvent even important policy ( WP:NPOV maybe). Could you explain this?
No. No no no no no. That is not the aim at all. NPOV can never be compromised. All that is different between a biography of a living person and, for example, an article on the geography of southern Brazil is that it is more likely that the article on the living person will have potentially defamatory information added. This may or may not lead to legal action, but it most certainly is likely to lead to bad press for Wikipedia.
All that is required is a more *rigourous* application of our verifibility policy for these more sensitive articles. That is not a bad thing; indeed it is the real essence of NPOV.
We don't live in some cloud-cuckoo land where our mistakes don't have consequences. They do. The answer is to make sure that our mistakes are quickly corrected and that the damage does not continue.
I agree with the idea of treating bios with care, but that does not necessarily necessitate the use of an entirely different methodology than any other wiki page - including censoring talk pages.
No, an "entirely different methodology" is not needed. All that is needed is a more rigourous application of our current policies. These rely upon (yes, rely upon, not just use as a bonus) the use of common sense. Most unsourced claims do not need to be blitzed into oblivion. Yet some do, and it is this balance that WP:LIVING must attempt to measure. It is better to be cautious in this area, because it is reckless and thoroughly unacceptable to say "Oh, don't blame us that our encylopaedia accuses you of being a repeat sex offender, it just happens because of the wiki process. It's your problem you're getting so upset."