[Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
morton.thomas at googlemail.com
Sat May 21 13:25:50 UTC 2011
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:
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
On 21 May 2011 14:21, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 20:19, Wjhonson <wjhonson at 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
> 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
More information about the foundation-l