On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 2:46 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2008/9/30 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:
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(a)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"?
--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.