[WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review

[Fred Bauder]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Carl Beckhorn [mailto:cbeckhorn at fastmail.fm]
>Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 08:03 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
>
>On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 01:11:35PM +0000, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>Verifiability and No original research are fundamental policies and 
>>enforced as such.
>
>Of course they are policies. I only said they are not foundation issues 
>and therefore must be the other sort of policy: the type that is 
>actionable only because there is consensus to follow it.
>
>I am more intersted in the interplay between 
>* your (novel) interpretation of the BLP policy
>* the requirement for "wiki process", which _is_ a foundation issue. 
>
>It's clear that they fit together nicely in this case, but not in the 
>way you claim. 
>
> - Carl 


I think my prior interpretation of BLP may have been unduly expansive.

With respect to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view there is firm longstanding consensus dating from the founding of the project. A transient consensus overruling those fundamental policies in a particular case is not valid and will not be effective.

Likewise we will not permit potentially libelous material to remain in an article. We term it poorly sourced controversial information, but bottom line, not only is there potential legal liability, but it is wrong. With respect to articles such as about the complaining witness in the Duke La Cross case, Neutral point of view conflicts with Verifiability as we have no way to round out such an article as the only published material is negative. Resolution of the conflict is difficult and results will vary with the situation.

Fred