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

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

David Boothroyd wrote

> 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.

Some tension between your two points, here. Milton, we assume, commented on the blog, i.e. she reacted to its existence. There might be some cause to include the blog in the article if her reaction had been extreme (e.g. legal measures). But if it is being argued that her reaction was in any sense over-reaction, then indeed including the blog in the Milton article is a negative comment ("MP lashes back at blogger shock", in tabloid terms); and so the BLP guideline is relevant. This only makes for Milton's notability if politicians rarely do this. 

I really think, outside the rather airless atmosphere of Westminster politics, this gets the big 'so what?'.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information