[Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
puppy at KillerChihuahua.com
Wed Mar 4 22:41:54 UTC 2009
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>:
>> How about something a little more helpful?
> Uh, I think pointing out obvious problems counts, particularly when
> the solution offered is to do the same things that are already
> problematic twice as hard.
> The hard part is to lead the community to a standard of living bio
> that is suitable.
> * What makes a valid research source is not something teenagers on a
> website can make up off the top of their heads and expect to get
> right, but that's what WP:RS is. See the talk page if you don't
> believe me. Hubris and enthusiasm don't make competence,
> * No guideline or policy will protect against stupidity or malice, and
> those that try to will be a millstone for good faith editors. But time
> and time again, the community reaction has been to add more policies
> and guidelines in the hope these will protect against stupidity or
> malice, and blame the good faith editors for not following the bad
> guidelines hard enough. See the current arbitration case on the
> - d.
I cannot stress enough how strongly I agree with this assessment. If
NPOV, V, and RS were followed - as they should be by normally
intelligent adults wishing to write good articles - BLP isn't even
needed at all. I support BLP existing, although I've seen it misused a
good bit - but IMO it wouldn't hurt a bit if someone IAR'd and gutted a
lot of the other policies that have grown up like weeds over the last
couple of years. More will only make matters worse.
More information about the foundation-l