[WikiEN-l] Cluesticks needed regarding WP:BLP and WP:RS

[Rob]

On 9/6/06, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco at mac.com> wrote:
>

> > * A man who posted nude pictures of himself on websites whose domains
> > he registered advertising himself as a $200-an-hour gay prostitute can
> > not be identified as a prostitute.
> Was this reported in a reliable source (this person being called a
> prostitute?). If not, this is OR.

Yes, by multiple mainstream reliable sources.  And as Bryan pointed
out, he's calling himself a prostitute by posting an ad advertising
his wares.

> > * The Columbia Journalism Review is a reliable source.  A blog run by
> > the Columbia Journalism Review on the website of the Columbia
> > Journalism Review is not.
> Only if the Columbia Journalism Review has editorial control of the
> blog. Otherwise, I would agree that it is not a RS.

Exactly the sort of distinction reasonable editors should be making,
but these people are just invoking RS and saying blog=unreliable
regardless of the source.

> This is ungrounded paranoia. If you think that this new "unit" is a
> threat to WP, join in  and help make it better, as some of us are
> attempting to do.

If you've had prior dealings with some of these editors, you might not
think I was being paranoid.  I'd rather overreact now than have to
deal with a bigger problem down the line.  And one of the reasons I'm
posting here is to get more editors to become active in this matter
now, to help make things better, exactly what you suggest.