In a message dated 7/31/2008 3:12:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wikimail@inbox.org writes:
Why is libel tolerated on the talk pages in the first place? I don't see many people arguing for noindexing the project pages because of libel.>>
It isn't. This is just a tired old horse that keeps getting trotted out by those who want to destroy the transparency that others have to constantly fight to keep.
Some people don't like the idea that what they say today, can be compared to what they said last year, and that this can be done by anyone with the persistence to dig.
Any true libel, can and is, removed as soon as it's found. However in the U.S. "you can't libel garbage by saying it stinks" and opinions are not libel, so instead you get smoke screens like this trying to confuse the evidence. And we operate under U.S. laws no matter what craziness Britain institutes :)
Will
************** Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
On 7/31/08, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/31/2008 3:12:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wikimail@inbox.org writes:
Why is libel tolerated on the talk pages in the first place? I don't see many people arguing for noindexing the project pages because of libel.>>
It isn't. This is just a tired old horse that keeps getting trotted out by those who want to destroy the transparency that others have to constantly fight to keep.
Some people don't like the idea that what they say today, can be compared to what they said last year, and that this can be done by anyone with the persistence to dig.
Any true libel, can and is, removed as soon as it's found. However in the U.S. "you can't libel garbage by saying it stinks" and opinions are not libel, so instead you get smoke screens like this trying to confuse the evidence. And we operate under U.S. laws no matter what craziness Britain institutes :)
Will
As I understand your position, it is that as a matter of principle, petty disputes among Wikipedia contributors (many of whom edit under their real names), as well as negative remarks about subjects of deleted articles and the like, should not only be preserved on Wikipedia itself, but they must remain readily available as top Google hits for the people in question, presumably in perpetuity. This position is not defensible. It remains entirely unacceptable for the best-known and most popular participatory website in the world to treat people in this manner.
There are very legitimate and debatable questions about the precise demarcation of where the no-indexing codes should and should not be used, as well as precisely what technical features should be implemented to use them. However, I have seen no seriously reasoned objection here or elsewhere to the no-indexing of the varius RfA, RfAr, XfD, and BLP/N pages and their archives that was apparently implemented some time ago. Now, at a minimum, to the extent it hasn't been already, this should be extended to DRV, AN/ANI/AN3, SSP, RfCU, WQA, and the old CSN and PAIN archives, all of which can rightly be regarded as pages for the resolution of internal Wikipedia issues whose searchability outside the project is plainly going to continue doing far more harm than good.
Newyorkbrad