On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 2:46 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/9/30 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/unflattering-wiki-entry-puts-italy-c...
Our BLP rules are *really important*.
- d.
Maybe the the people who view them as an excuse to remove content with an unreasonably large number of citations isn't helping their credibility.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It's certainly disillusioned me with it after my recent experiences. BLP is important, but it's equally important to keep it in tight rein to only unsourced or poorly sourced information. I'm certainly not too happy with the whole idea of it right now, it should be an extension of NPOV and V (information should be properly weighted and properly sourced, and we should give especial urgency to this requirement on a BLP), not some type of "I personally don't think this should go in an article on this person, so even though our sources do I'm going to cry BLP and remove it."
In this case, it doesn't look like we reported false information, so what's the problem? What is with those who think BLP means "We can't report negative or controversial information even if it -is- well-sourced"?