[WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

[David Gerard]

On 28/03/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard at gmail.com]
> >On 28/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

> >> He's notable for his academic work. His personal life should be briefly
> >> mentioned if at all. "He divorced his wife in a messy court battle" (or
> >> however you say that neutrally). The details are not important to an article
> >> about him.

> >If it's something a reader would reasonably expect to be mentioned in
> >an article, because it was a famous incident (even if it's rubbish),
> >then it'll need to be mentioned in the article, because otherwise
> >it'll be readded and readded and readded.

> This is realistic, but accepts the premise that Wikipedia will always be second-rate, since "anyone can edit". And the premise that we cannot make and enforce policy with respect to regular editors.


I'm somewhat conflating what should be in the article and practical
management of the article. WP:BLP deals (or dealt) with an example
like this - the messy stuff is noted only if it's notable in itself.
If it is notable, it's notable, even if it's rubbish. This is
problematic in cases like [[Peter Hollingworth]], of course. And the
blind idiot worship of print sources in [[WP:RS]] doesn't help make us
a better encyclopedia.


- d.