Our BLP policy is pretty solid, and the editors that enforce it are pretty
good at keeping out the crap :) We can always improve it, of course. And
there are never enough BLP editors. (There are probably about 5 or 6 that
specialise heavily in such content).
Most of the outstanding issues are with current events (not to blow my own
trumpet but see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ErrantX/Current_events_and_BLP), which
tend to attract enough non-BLP experienced editors to "overrule" them
(leading to articles with content that we don't really need/want).
IMO it's far from the point that hosting BLP's is more harm than it is
worth.
Tom
On 21 May 2011 14:21, Sarah <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 20:19, Wjhonson
<wjhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
It is not up to us to decide that something is "private". If it's been
published, then it is public.
If it's been published in a reliable source,
than it's useable in our
project.
But not everything that's usable has
to be used. I'm increasingly
wondering whether we should be hosting any BLPs, because these are
often difficult decisions to make -- at which point there is
legitimate public interest in a person's private life -- and they
can't be reached thoughtfully in an open-editing environment.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l