Earle Martin wrote:
On 20/10/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
There's reasons why BLP is "ruthless" with regard to biographies of living people and those reasons are completely inapplicable to biographies of fictional characters. If you want to propose being equally "ruthless" for fictional characters I want to see a reason that's just as strong.
I thought having an encyclopedia that didn't suck was a pretty strong reason. Do I need to elaborate on what I think that entails? I hope not; I would have thought it was fairly self-evident.
We already _have_ content policies that require fictional character articles to "not suck." They're the same content policies we have for biographies of living persons. The only difference is that BLP says we have to apply those content policies with the utmost speed and efficiency, because serious harm can come from some such policy violations on articles about living persons.
It is not at all self-evident that the same sort of harm can come from having articles that "suck" on fictional characters. If our article on Peter Parker claims he's gay, is he going to sue Wikimedia Foundation for libel or get fired by a homophobic J. Jonah Jameson?