[WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

[MacGyverMagic/Mgm]

On 3/28/07, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 28, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Marc Riddell wrote:
>
> >> No. Dead people should be treated with equal respect to living ones.
> >
> > I agree. And the key word, I believe, that should guide any Article
> > on any
> > person - living or dead - is RESPECT.
>
> The problem, Marc, is how do you enforce respect? We have seen it
> again and again and more so as Wikipedia becomes such a prominent web
> destination. It is soooo tempting to the anon visitor, seeing the
> article about this "Professor John P. Smith", which the anon knows,
> to add these "tidbits" of information from the local weekly, just for
> fun.
>
> It is only when the shit hits the fan that we act and promptly remove
> that information.
>
> I have seen these discussions too many times: "The Washinton Post has
> run a story in 1978 in which person X, that is a detractor of Y, says
> of Y 'he is a [expletive] abuser, and he poured chemicals on Z', so
> we should mention detractor's opinion in the article about Y because
> it has been published in a reliable source". Of course, that story
> has only appeared once, no scholars studying Y or other mainstream
> press has picked up and reprodduced X's viewpoints of Y, but
> nonetheless, editors push for its inclusion in a BLP on the basis of
> the argument "it has been published in a reliable source".
>
> IMO, WP:BLP needs more teeth than it has now. Maybe a more stringent
> application of NOR and V is now due.
>
> -- Jossi


The key issue here is the reliability of the detractor. Most detractors are
strongly POV, so unless it's a majority opinion shared by more people, it
shouldn't be included, even if it's published by a newspaper.