On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Rob wrote:
Part of it is that we're talking about different types of things. The Kerry controversy is ultimately about factual claims, and therefore whether our article harms John Kerry depends on whether we give undue weight to those claims. This one isn't about factual claims; it's about creating an unpleasant association, so avoiding undue weight isn't enough to keep it from doing harm.
I don't understand this kind of hairsplitting. Documenting fabrications is acceptable, but only the right kind of fabrications? Aren't, say, the "factual claims" of Birthers about creating "unpleasant associations" with Obama? The last thing we need in Wikipedia is more systemic bias, and this is what that hairsplitting would lead to.
"Person X is like shit" is unpleasant in a very different way from "person X is a liar". The latter creates an unpleasant association with that person only to the degree that that person is believed to have committed unpleasant activities. The former creates an unpleasant association on an emotional level.
You can write a balanced article that reports the claim that Obama is a liar without making the audience think Obama is a liar. You cannot do this when the article is about comparing a person to shit.