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

[Jeff Raymond]

Michael Snow wrote:
> Jeff Raymond wrote:
>> The problem is BLP
>> being used as a bludgeon to get rid of well-sourced, verifiable, NPOV
>> information because the neutral point of view is negative.
>>   
> How can the neutral point of view be negative? That's a contradiction in 
> terms. 

No, a neutral point of view simply presents the facts in a neutral way 
without value judgements.  Thus, it doesn't try and overcompensate in 
either direction.

> An article may contain negative information, but the presentation 
> must still be neutral.

Right, as I said.

> The notion that if only negative information is 
> available, this excuses making the "neutral" point of view negative, is 
> at the root of many of these problems.

No, that's a misunderstanding.  Maybe it's a mistake in my clarity, but 
that's a misunderstanding.  See above.

> It seems that very few of our 
> contributors have the skill and judgment needed to translate highly 
> unfavorable source material into neutral prose.

This is certainly true.  But we also have few administrators, it 
appears, who can tell the difference between unfavorable source material 
and point of view issues.  It works both ways.

-Jeff

-- 
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly
	because you kind of get the impression she
	sang every song either about or to her cats.
	They seem to be the driving force in most of
	her creative process."     - Chuck Klosterman