See [[WT:BLP]]. I've been changing "negative" to "controversial", since controversy is the problem as I see it, and using the word "negative" is blatantly throwing NPOV out the window.
Our pop culture articles are a wasteland of fan-maintained hagiography anyway. Do we need to throw NPOV out for those? See e.g. http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/2006/05/what-bears-do-on-lawn.html
There's also a fair bit of Jimbomancy going on, which doesn't help.
- d.
--- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
See [[WT:BLP]]. I've been changing "negative" to "controversial", since controversy is the problem as I see it, and using the word "negative" is blatantly throwing NPOV out the window.
Controversial is definitely better than negative. Not sure there is an ideal 1 word summary, but it definitely shouldn't be dependent on whether or not it's positive or negative. Maybe doubtful, risky, dubious, unsettled, or unreliable. Today's living bio example of choice: Mark Foley.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I suggest "potentially defaming, slanderous or libelous"
http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi#QID726
Question: What is a "false light" claim?
Answer: Some states allow people to sue for damages that arise when others place them in a false light. Information presented in a "false light" is portrayed as factual, but creates a false impression about the plaintiff (i.e., a photograph of plaintiffs in an article about sexual abuse, because it creates the impression that the depicted persons are victims of sexual abuse). False light claims are subject to the constitutional protections discussed above.
Question: What is a "fair and true report"?
Answer: A report is "fair and true" if it captures the substance, gist, or sting of the proceeding. The report need not track verbatim the underlying proceeding, but should not deviate so far as to produce a different effect on the reader.
Editors acting with malice who create articles just to fill Controversy and Criticism sections and leave everything else empty is what BLP is trying to stop.
-jtp
top
On 10/4/06, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
--- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
See [[WT:BLP]]. I've been changing "negative" to "controversial", since controversy is the problem as I see it, and using the word "negative" is blatantly throwing NPOV out the window.
Controversial is definitely better than negative. Not sure there is an ideal 1 word summary, but it definitely shouldn't be dependent on whether or not it's positive or negative. Maybe doubtful, risky, dubious, unsettled, or unreliable. Today's living bio example of choice: Mark Foley.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/4/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
See [[WT:BLP]]. I've been changing "negative" to "controversial", since controversy is the problem as I see it, and using the word "negative" is blatantly throwing NPOV out the window.
Our pop culture articles are a wasteland of fan-maintained hagiography anyway. Do we need to throw NPOV out for those? See e.g. http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/2006/05/what-bears-do-on-lawn.html
While it's obvious that we shouldn't leave out negative information just because it's negative, we need to be especially careful with negative information. Hagiography is an article-quality issue - we aren't going to get sued and we aren't going to damage someone's career if hagiography stands in an article for a few days or weeks. More importantly, hagiography isn't different for the living or the dead defamation is. What's unique about Living people is that they can be harmed by what is said about them in an article far more than dead people or mountain ranges. So there's a very realy reason to focus BLP on negative or potentially damaging information.
I think the best conception of BLP is "make sure that information content clearly outweighs the harm done", not "make sure than the information is accurate". I'm not aware of anyone who ever lost their job because people said nice things about them.
Ian
There's also a fair bit of Jimbomancy going on, which doesn't help.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l