"A" wrote
<snip>
So, this brings up several interesting issues:
- Is a "____sucks.com" blog a notable or reliable source?
The onus is on those who say a blog _is_ a reliable source, to back that up.
- If an editor is engaging in vicious personal attacks offsite, then
coming here and demanding civility, is that a violation of the letter and/or spirit of the project?
Everyone can expect civility on Wikipedia.
- Are "criticism" sections valid in general, or do they just become a
repository for quibbles and an amplifier of relatively insignificant hatecruft about a person?
They are a way of dealing with controversy, and not letting it colour the whole piece. They are subject to NPOV and sourcing policies. Also a 'de minimis', I'd say. No reason for WP to get into kicking a dog once.
- If they are valid, do blogs count as notable or reliable sources?
What if they are anonymous? Are there criteria in place for determining this?
See 1: the default is 'no'. If blogs are sourced, the sources are better taken directly.
- Should we formulate a guideline regarding living persons and this
kind of criticism in their biographies?
There is a living persons biog guideline. In short it says we err on the side of understatement.
Charles