-----Original Message----- From: geni [mailto:geniice@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:54 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
On 5/23/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
No, any user or administrator who is following the terms and intent of Biographies of living >persons may remove grossly inappropriate material or delete an offending article even if >almost everyone else on Wikipedia objects.
However there is no evidence that has happened in this case. The article fails on the requirements for G10 (because of it's level of sourceing) and there doesn't appear to be any other speedy criteria that applies. -- geni
Poor sourcing of controversial material is the basis under Biographies of living persons for removing material.
Fred
On Wed, May 23, 2007 12:26 pm, Fred Bauder wrote:
Poor sourcing of controversial material is the basis under Biographies of living persons for removing material.
But material with poor sourcing isn't being removed. MAterial with extremely good sourcing is being removed.
-Jeff
On 23/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2007 12:26 pm, Fred Bauder wrote:
Poor sourcing of controversial material is the basis under Biographies of living persons for removing material.
But material with poor sourcing isn't being removed. MAterial with extremely good sourcing is being removed.
No, an attack article with immaculate sourcing was removed. There is a difference.
- d.
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
No, an attack article with immaculate sourcing was removed. There is a difference.
It wasn't an attack article and in any case BLP doesn't allow you to remove such articles.
No seriously read it some time. Goes on and on about unsourced and poorly sourced but if it is as you say immaculately source BLP has no objections what so ever.
And no it wasn't an attack article any more than [[Radovan Karadžić]] is (heck we go as far as to disambig Thomas Hamilton with "murderer" rather than say scout master.
On 5/23/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Poor sourcing of controversial material is the basis under Biographies of living persons for >removing material.
Fred
One source every 38 words. Clearly this is some defintion of poor sourcing that has not previously had widespread use. You going to delete [[Simon Hughes]]?
On 23/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Poor sourcing of controversial material is the basis under Biographies of living persons for >removing material.
One source every 38 words. Clearly this is some defintion of poor sourcing that has not previously had widespread use. You going to delete [[Simon Hughes]]?
Do you understand the difference between an encyclopedia article and a precision-sourced attack piece? (That's a yes or no question, by the way, not "no, why don't you tell me.")
- d.
When unfortunate things receive wide publicity, or when names are widely disclosed which ought not to be disclosed, keeping the material out of WP is futile. Nothing WP can do will make the person's situation better or worse. DGG
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Poor sourcing of controversial material is the basis under Biographies of living persons for >removing material.
One source every 38 words. Clearly this is some defintion of poor sourcing that has not previously had widespread use. You going to delete [[Simon Hughes]]?
Do you understand the difference between an encyclopedia article and a precision-sourced attack piece? (That's a yes or no question, by the way, not "no, why don't you tell me.")
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l