In a message dated 10/28/2008 5:35:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time, arromdee@rahul.net writes:
# Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons # whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable # should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion
Look carefully at that middle line. It does NOT have to be negative in order for it to be removed.>>
------------------ "Contentious"
Like "consensus", "contentious" is not defined by a single editor objecting. **************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics – check it out! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir= http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 WJhonson@aol.com wrote: # Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons # whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable # should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion
Look carefully at that middle line. It does NOT have to be negative in order for it to be removed.
"Contentious" Like "consensus", "contentious" is not defined by a single editor objecting.
So you're seriously suggesting that the line about him being a director should *not* have been removed, even though there was no source for it and he sincerely objected to it?
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
[Ken had written:]
It does NOT have to be negative in order for it to be removed.
"Contentious" Like "consensus", "contentious" is not defined by a single editor objecting.
So you're seriously suggesting that the line about him being a director should *not* have been removed, even though there was no source for it and he sincerely objected to it?
One of the meta-messages of this thread is that we ought not to extremify everything, ought not to constantly apply rigid one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter thinking.
Will is seriously suggesting that the line did not have to be removed immediately.
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Steve Summit wrote:
One of the meta-messages of this thread is that we ought not to extremify everything, ought not to constantly apply rigid one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter thinking.
Will is seriously suggesting that the line did not have to be removed immediately.
Okay. Considering that this happened in a BLP, this is one of the stupidest suggestions I've seen.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Steve Summit wrote:
One of the meta-messages of this thread is that we ought not to extremify everything, ought not to constantly apply rigid one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter thinking.
Will is seriously suggesting that the line did not have to be removed immediately.
Okay. Considering that this happened in a BLP, this is one of the stupidest suggestions I've seen.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't think calling someone "stupid" is helpful here. I do share the opinion that when someone objects to unsourced information in a BLP, it has become contentious at that point and must be removed until and unless it can be sourced. (That, indeed, was the original idea of BLP, and that was the BLP I supported, not this monstrous "Don't hurt anybody's FEEWINGS, sourced or not!" that it's become.) But I can see the other side here, we weren't exactly saying this guy is a child molester.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Okay. Considering that this happened in a BLP, this is one of the stupidest suggestions I've seen.
I don't think calling someone "stupid" is helpful here.
Unless someone here is named "suggestion" I do not think that any person has been called stupid in the above.
Everyone has daft ideas from time to time, even our most brilliant. And even when your idea is great some people with differing perspectives may hold the opinion that it's a stupid idea. That people have negative opinions about your opinions is no cause for insult.
(Though Ken may want to keep in mind that intense words like "stupid" are more likely to derail discussion with accusations of personal attacks, even when used in an impersonal way, compared to less intense words.)
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Steve Summit wrote:
One of the meta-messages of this thread is that we ought not to extremify everything, ought not to constantly apply rigid one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter thinking.
Will is seriously suggesting that the line did not have to be removed immediately.
Okay. Considering that this happened in a BLP, this is one of the stupidest suggestions I've seen.
Considering that it wasn't negative information or at all harmful to the subject, *this* is one of the stupid suggestions I've seen. I can accept the otherwise rather objectionable community of wiki-lawyers around WP:BLP as a necessary evil to avoid some genuinely harmful outcomes relating to even temporary presence of very negative unsourced claims, but to expand it to things that aren't even negative is truly ridiculous.
-Mark
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Delirium wrote:
Okay. Considering that this happened in a BLP, this is one of the stupidest suggestions I've seen.
Considering that it wasn't negative information or at all harmful to the subject, *this* is one of the stupid suggestions I've seen.
I will repeat: unsourced information doesn't *have* to be negative to be removed from a BLP. It says it *right there in the rules*.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Delirium wrote:
Okay. Considering that this happened in a BLP, this is one of the stupidest suggestions I've seen.
Considering that it wasn't negative information or at all harmful to the subject, *this* is one of the stupid suggestions I've seen.
I will repeat: unsourced information doesn't *have* to be negative to be removed from a BLP. It says it *right there in the rules*.
If nothing else this is relevant because the negativity of any particular fact may be highly subjective.
A subject is likely to consider anything which is untrue to be "negative" in any case: "You said you've never been a director, but WP says right here...".