We have a
policy about not spreading gossip, but I see
little evidence
that
we adhere to it.
Andreas
After such examples are found they still need to be edited.
The editing
community varies in its tolerance, experience, and
compliance. What in
one context might slip though will not in another. BLP is
an area of
focus and for good reason; it is productive of nasty
publicity and
potential liability.
These are not isolated cases. The presence of this type of material is
systemic, arguably within present policy, and, it seems to me, supported by
community consensus.
The Sun is used as a source in several thousand articles on Wikipedia,
including many BLPs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&rediā¦
We might consider generating a list of sources like radaronline and The Sun,
identifying them as unwelcome, and creating a noticeboard where editors can
apply for exceptions in the few cases where a source like that has something
of encyclopedic value to say. I am fairly convinced though that a proposal
like that would result in 2 MB of arguments and in the end come to nothing.
For better or worse, Wikipedia in its present state is more of a news
aggregator than an educational resource, and the reason is that the
community likes it that way.
Andreas