On 4/4/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
This is the one case in which we actually want people to make drive-by deletions, and ask questions afterwards. That's one issue. A second is that creating a template that says 'potential libel here, come look' could have a downside.
Charles
I thought about the potential of the attracting unneeded attention... but the people who are likely to edit with a mind to enforce BLP are likely to just nuke the outright offensive material. But not everyone is also an admin. Non-admins can't do that, and there might be an article that *should* exist for whatever reason--notable subject, say--but the current article is a complete mess that the person maybe feels they don't have the time or ability to clean themselves. A well sourced article but an attack themselves--where perhaps POV pushers are fighting back...? Doc Glasgow on WP:AN made a great example of this better than I did at first
On 4/4/07, Doc Glasgow wrote on WP:AN:
There IS merit in this. Unsourced negative material must simply be removed, period. We don't need to draw attention to such cases, just ruthlessly clean them out. However, often an article may have well-sourced information but be written entirely one-sidedly. We increasingly get complaints about hatchet jobs. OTRS ops have not the time to re-write articles and look for sources giving the other side of the story. In such cases, what is needed is precisely to draw the article to the attention of the wider community and ask people to do that as a priority. It will also often involve battling with some POV pusher who is jumping up and down when the well-cited but partially chosen material is removed by an angry subject. Perhaps we need a more specific category here: {{POV bio}}? - and give barnstars to people willing to take them quickly in hand.--Dochttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_glasgow g