On 8/19/06, jahiegel jahiegel@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Consider a situation in which unsourced criticism appears in a biography. Assume arguendo that we can be certain that the subject will not essay a legal claim against the Foundation and that we can be relatively certain that bad press will not entail (an issue that, for the purposes of this discussion, we set aside in any case). Should, then, we treat that unsourced negativity in a fashion different from that in which we'd treat unsourced comments in, to pick the first three random articles I find, [[Mancor de la Vall]], [[Sherston Software]], or [[Danzig III: How the Gods Kill]]? I imagine that there are those who will say "yes", and I suppose I
If by "unsourced criticism" you mean "unsourced defamatory accusations" then, yes, I think we should make more of an effort to keep the articles of likely suers clean than other articles.
I don't think we're ever justified in adding trashy accusations about anyone without a source, but it makes sense to focus our effort wherever it's most needed.
motivation tends to underline BLP. In view of the failure to command a consensus of either [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] or [[WP:NOT EVIL]], and of the disfavoring by the community of Jimbo's "human dignity" formulation with respect to deletion, I cannot abide the suggestion that the community writ large truly believe, legal/publicity concerns aside, that we ever ought to concern ourselves with the external consequences of our editing.
I do. For barely notable people, information in Wikipedia could have a disproportionate effect on their life. We should be aware of that, and behave accordingly.
Steve