On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:39:52 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overstock.com&diff=156282353&a... 1: ArbCom has not ruled on this 2: please explain how NPOV applies on talk page
As you say, damnatio memoriae was swiftly rejected-- but the next time somebody makes an orwell references, remember there was a time when some people really said "absolutely no *reference* to unpersons allowed in Wikipedia", and we went to arbcom over it.
Actually, as that last link shows, it was an "anonymous website" - did we have a source for it being Bagley at the time? I thought he only admitted it later. And the content mentions that the site existed, so actually the encyclopaedia covered it. Not well, but it covered it.
Oh, and the "unperson" had a whole article to himself, which is not quite how I understand not *mentioning* the supposed unperson.
Plus it was over two months ago, and you appeared to be suggesting that this was still an issue now, which as far as I can tell it is not. Do you have a more recent example?
So much is down to detail and nuance, isn't it?
Guy (JzG)