[WikiEN-l] Criticism sections on bios of living people

[charles matthews]

"A" wrote

<snip>
> So, this brings up several interesting issues:
>
> 1. Is a "____sucks.com" blog a notable or reliable source?

The onus is on those who say a blog _is_ a reliable source, to back that up.

> 2. If an editor is engaging in vicious personal attacks offsite, then
> coming here and demanding civility, is that a violation of the letter
> and/or spirit of the project?

Everyone can expect civility on Wikipedia.

> 3. Are "criticism" sections valid in general, or do they just become a
> repository for quibbles and an amplifier of relatively insignificant
> hatecruft about a person?

They are a way of dealing with controversy, and not letting it colour the 
whole piece.  They are subject to NPOV and sourcing policies.  Also a 'de 
minimis', I'd say.  No reason for WP to get into kicking a dog once.

> 4. If they are valid, do blogs count as notable or reliable sources?
> What if they are anonymous? Are there criteria in place for
> determining this?

See 1: the default is 'no'.  If blogs are sourced, the sources are better 
taken directly.

> 5. Should we formulate a guideline regarding living persons and this
> kind of criticism in their biographies?

There is a living persons biog guideline.  In short it says we err on the 
side of understatement.

Charles