On 6/28/07, michael west <michawest(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Look some of the WP:BLP deletions
haven't been fun. I don't
particulary
> like every wikilawyer quoting WP:BLP at me
either. I can imagine the
horror
> of hours of edits going through the mincer
and I am not saying that
policy
> is always right or admins. But when an
article is presented in such a
way
> that if lends it weight to shock or
ridicule, I can't see how even the
most
> "give the benefit of the doubt"
editor can say that articles like that
suck
> and why didn't it get a spd? I'm not
trying to give you the mighty
mighty
> tiger argument - "then consider it was
you on WP?" I am saying if it
isn't
> covered by notable news organisations then
neither should we.
I see where you are coming from, but I must disagree. Notable news
organizations can be extremely spotty in their coverage.
Also, are you actually asserting that there are some topics, such as
Brian Peppers, which otherwise pass our verifiability standards, but
about which we could *never* write a NPOV article? Or are you saying
that it would be too harmful to the subject of the article to have
one? In the latter case, I thought we had mostly agreed on this
mailing list that any harm that we do by publishing information that
is available elsewhere is minor compared to the harm of censoring
topics because it might hurt someone's feelings, especially as it
would never stop at the 'obvious' cases. (Sorry, can't find the link
at the moment)
Sincerely,
Silas Snider
No, the "and it makes baby jesus cry too" sentiment that is passed off as
sane "this is an encyclopedia" grate me too. Censorship/WP:OFFICE is not
cool. WP exists now and apart from someone bored at work/home who writes a
"badness", that makes the project look "bad" WP:OFFICE should only
come into
play then, when vandalism has gone outta sight.
My concerns about Brian Pepper (plz G-d Don't do it again Brian) is that or
new episodes of the "internet phenonemn" is that without real coverage in
newspapers, we rely on boarderline sources, which may have really only found
about something because we discuss them so much. Wikipedia is a great way
is becoming infamous - we don't feed trolls but we feed every other nutter
who is interested in something unsavoury.
Depending on when something is written, it can be cached or mirrored for
days later. You try telling that to a 9th grader. "nah it must be true it
was on wikipedia". We have a great duty to tell the truth, in terms of truth
there really was nothing we could add - it was as you say already out there
- but we added a top post to every single search. Why was Brian Peppers
there? Brian Peppers was there because nobody could believe a basket case
like him could exist, never mind commit a sex crime. It is offensive those
words, people weren't trying to find out what happened but to guess about
what he had done.
WP:BLP can't work on every case. Notable newspapers probably do as you
suggest have their own agenda when reporting things. Censoring what makes
wikipedia bad isn't bad.
Mike Mike33