On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 18:01, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
2) Regarding "Our BLP policy has
worked.", that's a fascinating
argument that the super-injunction *is* worthwhile. If Wikipedia
defines verifiability in terms of major media sources, and the
super-injunction inhibits those sources, then it effectively
inhibits Wikipedia (even if it's impolitic to put it that way).
I actually believe that the accumulated sourcing now *should* satisfy
Wikipedia's verification requirements in the case of the footballer,
and was tempted to make that argument. But given I have a nontrivial
connection to UK jurisdiction, plus I'm sure I'd get a huge amount
of personal attack due to the various politics, it wasn't worth it.
Just observing, on various talk pages, I believe the WP:NOTCENSORED
faction has made its sourcing argument poorly. Maybe there's another
lesson there as to relative costs imposed.
--
Seth Finkelstein
Google searches for "superinjunction" "Name of footballer" "name
of
squeeze" yields no hits at reliable sources.
I saw it in a reliable source recently that would have passed muster.
I personally don't care who's had an affair with whom, so I didn't
think to use it, but it would have been policy compliant -- except in
the sense that it was only one source and BLPs are safer with multiple
sources for anything contentious.
So yes, the sourcing policy (V, not BLP) -- specifically the concept
of "verifiability, not truth" -- did work. And, as Seth points out,
that means the superinjunctions worked too, because they're the reason
we lacked verifiability until recently.