[Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

???? wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk
Sun May 22 08:33:24 UTC 2011

On 21/05/2011 23:09, Sarah wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 16:01, Risker<risker.wp at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> As to the comments from MZMcBride and Sarah, I would like to see a
>> significantly higher minimal level of notability for BLPs.  In the past few
>> years of working with the Arbitration Committee, I have seen literally
>> thousands of BLPs that easily meet the current notability standards, but
>> have been turned into coatracks to highlight a particular belief of the
>> subject (whether or not that is why they are notable), to self-aggrandize,
>> to attach all the negative information that can be found about the subject
>> regardless of its comparative triviality.
>> Worse yet are the ones that are userfied instead of deleted, or never even
>> made it into article space; they often come up as top google hits for the
>> subject, because Google "crawls" user space.  (They don't seem to crawl user
>> talk or article talk, or if they do, they do not include them in their
>> results.)
> A huge percentage of the BLP problems I've seen in the last six years
> have been vanity articles. Raising the notability bar would help to
> resolve that.

There are many core problems that affect this issue. One of which is 
'Verifiability not truth' which seems a laudable concept when applied to 
hearsay, and to allow articles on the paranormal etc. But is often used 
in BLP articles to justify including untruths, rumours, and to repeat 
slurs about someone, that happen to have a source that can be verified.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list