[WikiEN-l] idea: BLP clean up category

[Denny Colt]

On 4/4/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
> This is the one case in which we actually want people to make drive-by
> deletions, and ask questions afterwards. That's one issue. A second is that
> creating a template that says 'potential libel here, come look' could have a
> downside.
>
> Charles


I thought about the potential of the attracting unneeded attention... but
the people who are likely to edit with a mind to enforce BLP are likely to
just nuke the outright offensive material. But not everyone is also an
admin. Non-admins can't do that, and there might be an article that *should*
exist for whatever reason--notable subject, say--but the current article is
a complete mess that the person maybe feels they don't have the time or
ability to clean themselves. A well sourced article but an attack
themselves--where perhaps POV pushers are fighting back...? Doc Glasgow on
WP:AN made a great example of this better than I did at first

On 4/4/07, Doc Glasgow wrote on WP:AN:
>
> There IS merit in this. Unsourced negative material must simply be
> removed, period. We don't need to draw attention to such cases, just
> ruthlessly clean them out. However, often an article may have well-sourced
> information but be written entirely one-sidedly. We increasingly get
> complaints about hatchet jobs. OTRS ops have not the time to re-write
> articles and look for sources giving the other side of the story. In such
> cases, what is needed is precisely to draw the article to the attention of
> the wider community and ask people to do that as a priority. It will also
> often involve battling with some POV pusher who is jumping up and down when
> the well-cited but partially chosen material is removed by an angry subject.
> Perhaps we need a more specific category here: {{POV bio}}? - and give
> barnstars to people willing to take them quickly in hand.--Doc<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_glasgow>
> g



-- 
- Denny