On 4/5/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
I'm curious about this too for future reference. Whats a good typical benchmark for when the absurd or salacious does in fact become notable for inclusion? A good rule of thumb, lets say.
For what its worth, also the Village Voice is a good resource. They're cited in quite a few articles...
Personally, that's my question as well. BLP started off as 'we should be strict about having good sources for negative stuff'. But that doesn't get rid of all negative stuff, as is the case here. We have a rather negative and salacious story that comes from a legitimate print newspaper source.
The argument then turns to NPOV and its 'undue weight' proscriptions. I argue that that one doesn't work when the negative story is in fact the best known thing about the person! When a quick Google for the person's name gives the negative story as the first six results I have my doubts that 'undue weight' applies.
The person in question here is extremely wealthy, which definitely means that they have the means to pursue those who've printed these stories if they are libellous. They have not, it seems.
I have no issue with the BLP effort where it says, "We will take especial care that Wikipedia's policies are followed scrupulously for articles on living persons". I start to have issues with it where it is being pushed beyond Wikipedia's existing policies to remove content that is sourced well and where the negative information in question already is widespread and well-published.
-Matt