[WikiEN-l] Criticism sections on bios of living people
phil.boswell at gmail.com
Mon May 8 09:00:03 UTC 2006
> 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?
Our article should reflect reality: the principle of "least astonishment"
applies. So if a reader discovers references to some person in a wildly
critical blog, they should be able to come to Wikipedia and discover that,
yes, this person is subject to such criticism, but that the source is
such-an-such a blog and as such not necessarily reliable.
Arriving at our article and failing to discover any such mention might
prompt them to wonder whether the article is strictly accurate (with good
reason); if they are sufficiently paranoid they might suspect that the
"truth" is being suppressed and we all know that such suspicions lead to
sweaty palms and hot-headed edit wars.
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?
Our usual take on blogs is that they are reliable sources as to their own
existence and subject matter and very little else.
There are notable exceptions: there is a chap on LiveJournal for example who
posts extremely knowledgeable and insightful commentaries on Legal Decisions
in the US Court System; he is widely regarded as one of the best such
commentators available and the fact that he uses the excellent facilities
provided by LJ should not detract from that.
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Criticism-sections-on-bios-of-living-people-t1569035.html#a4277738
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.
More information about the WikiEN-l