[WikiEN-l] Attack blogs in WP:LIVING articles

[David Boothroyd]

Charles R. Matthews writes:
>David Boothroyd wrote:
>  > The question is
>  > not whether the blog is a 'source'; it is clearly not a source for
>  > anything other than what is said on the blog. The issue is whether or
>  > not to mention it in the article; the subsidiary issue is, should that
>  > question be answered in the affirmative, it should be linked to.
>
>  >From WP:BLP:
>
>[...] insist on reliable third-party published 
>sources and a clear demonstration of relevance 
>to the person's notability.
>
>NB that it is the _person's notability_ in question. It is not just a
>matter of whether the blog has some notability, for close watchers of
>UK politics. It is a question of whether an MP, attacked by a blog, is
>in some way characterised for notability by such an attack. You are
>saying 'the only': i.e. the only pair of blog and MP in such a relationship.

I think you have slightly misread the policy. The point being made there
is that, in the case of negative material which does engage WP:BLP,
the negative material must have a relevance to the reason why the
person is considered notable. Therefore, if there was a blog set up to
attack Anne Milton for her treatment of her neighbours, that would fall
foul of that requirement because she is not notable by virtue of living
next to someone. However, in this case we have a blog which attacks her
for her political position: that passes the requirement because she is
notable for holding a political position.

This of course assumes that the mere existence of the blog does engage
WP:BLP. I do not see how this is the case. It is not even potentially
defamatory of person X to say that person Y does not like them.

>  > 3) The fact that Anne Milton is quoted by Sandra Howard asserting that
>  > Tim Ireland was "stalking" her through the weblog is particularly
>  > significant. It is a notably extreme accusation.
>
>Well, the jury will have to describe whether objecting to such
>harassment makes Anne Milton more notable than otherwise. Or whether
>she is reacting as a normal person might well do.

That does beg the question of whether the existence of the blog or its
contents amounts to "harassment", or whether such harassment would be
over and above the level of scrutiny and fair comment anyone might
expect when standing for public office. I haven't made my mind up on
that.

>Of course being a normal person among Westminster politicians could
>be notability in itself?

Touché.
-- 
David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
david at election.demon.co.uk (home)
dboothroyd at westminster.gov.uk (council)