[WikiEN-l] BLP messiness

[JodyB]

The Cunctator wrote:
> This section of the BLP is kind of rot:
> ----
> Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons
> that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards
> specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural
> interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). Where
> the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the
> three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to
> biographical material about living persons found anywhere in
> Wikipedia, including user and talk pages.
> ----
>
> What if the material is accurate and can be checked with a quick
> google search?  Wouldn't a better formulation be:
> ----
> Editors should add proper sources to contentious material about living
> persons. If such a source cannot be found, the material should be
> removed. Where the material is derogatory and unsourceable, relies on
> improper sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability), or is a conjectural
> interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research), the
> three revert rule does not apply.
>
> Derogatory opinions about living persons on user and talk pages must
> follow the above rules. Contentious or negative biographical material
> on user and talk pages must be verifiable. If properly contextualized,
> contentious material from questionable sources may be discussed, but
> the problems with the material and the sources must be clearly
> identified, and such material may be removed if the discussion has
> ended or is not contributing to the development of the article. When
> in doubt, derogatory material that is not properly sourceable should
> be removed.
> ----
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>   

Your idea may be fine in theory but isn't the burden on the author to adequatly source his articles to begin with? One would think he would be in the best position to do so. Further, such a change would allow material to remain in the article far too long because we all know that most folks won't go the the trouble of finding the sources. Of course, not all sources are available via a "quick google search."

Just my thoughts,

Jody