[WikiEN-l] let's be honest then

[Ray Saintonge]

Dycedarg wrote:

>If and when stable versions is implemented, I would recommend that every
>single BLP article that has not been approved be "invisible", or in other
>words impossible to find via Google or by using the standard search box in
>Wikipedia and ignored by the mirrors. You'd have to go to an advanced Wiki
>search and intentionally click an "unapproved articles" check box to search
>for them. Nothing would be deleted, but we'd vastly reduce the probability
>of an unsourced, libelous piece of garbage receiving any kind of attention
>from the general public. 
>
In the same way banning cars from the road would prevent automobile 
accidents.  People would still be able to own cars as long as they left 
them in their garages or driveways.

>If we could approve them at a fairly rapid rate,
>our coverage could recover to its prior levels within a relatively short
>period of time, at least when compared to any mass deletion scheme. Or,
>alternatively, just have a gigantic red banner at the top that says "This
>article is unapproved. Any unsourced piece of information is as likely to be
>true as random gossip received from a group of twelve year-olds. Read at
>your own risk. 
>
I have consistently supported the stable version concept, and would have 
something even more sophisticated than what is currently proposed.  In 
the short term, however, it would just be nice to see anything 
implemented about this.  Your comments in this part are more realistic 
than in the earlier part of the message.  A simple banner which doesn't 
need to be too gigantic is fine.  Rud = not approved; green = approved.

>If this article is about you and it contains ridiculous crap,
>please remove it yourself and request that an approved version be put in
>place using <insert whatever method of communication is decided upon here>."
>
Encouraging participation by the subject would be a great step forward.  
It would address the frustration that many of them feel.

>I don't think it would be necessary to do this about any other kind of
>article (unless possibly those about corporations) because of the reduced
>risk of real-world damage, BLP articles are the only ones I see causing
>enough trouble to make this worth it.
>
BLP's would dominate this class of articles, but there are others as 
well where a similar approach would be fruitful. 

Ec