On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 4:15 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 5/12/2008 3:00:35 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
ansell.peter@gmail.com writes:
Noone said you have to be a luddite to overcome the problem. Newspapers hypothetically could publish any random story>>
But could a newspaper get away with a story like this:
"Somewhere near Chicago, a man shot his wife. He worked in some sort of factory, and they may have had two to four children".
The extent to which BLP'ers or rather "tendentious editors who think they are following BLP" is just ridiculous. "Oh you only found the name in 20 newspaper articles? Well you'll need to find it in... um.. three hundred. That's our new criteria."
When a hundred outlets report that Jennifer Aniston has a new boyfriend, and we don't, we are not fooling anybody. We just look stupid and lazy. We are not protecting anyone's privacy by ignoring what everyone has already read somewhere else. Or what you can find out with three google searches.
Will Johnson
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001) _______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
One quick Google search, and there's his name. We're not being kind by not publishing the name in that case, we're being silly. (And that's the charitable term.)