[WikiEN-l] BLPs: Wikipedia entry nearly scuppers rugby player's career

[Todd Allen]

I do not agree. I think NPOV covers the fact that we should not give
negative information more weight than appropriate, V covers that we
shouldn't use garbage sources such as tabloids or gossip blogs, and
NOR covers "no investigative journalism". If several reputable sources
have chosen to mention something, it is not a BLP violation to include
it. At that point, if someone believes it shouldn't be included, it's
a content dispute. BLP is a very powerful policy with exceptional
enforcement powers, and it needs a narrow scope, that being unsourced
or poorly sourced information. It should not be morphed into an easy
"HARM!" hammer for content disputes. Those should be handled through
the normal consensus, discussion, and if necessary dispute resolution
process when valid sourcing exists. Mainly, BLP should say "Enforce
our content policies strictly and immediately when a living person is
involved", not "Go beyond them".

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> For context, your statement as quoted was: "The point of WP:BLP is (or
> should be) that our fundamental content rules NPOV, NOR, V are all that's
> needed - but we need to apply them very harshly and we really can't be
> eventualist about bad info in living bios."
>
> What about the advances we've made over the past two years in agreeing that
> the well-being of article subjects is also a legitimate consideration.  In
> Wikipedia jargon, I could simply say that "you left Notability off your
> list."  But it's a deeper sense of respect for our obligations, as reflected
> in such places as [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff]] and
> [[/Footnoted quotes]].  See also [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc
> glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad]]; [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ
> Deletion dispute#Outside view by Newyorkbrad]]; the DRV log for May 28, 2007
> (Hornbeck/Ownby); and the Shawn Hornbeck thread currently on ANI.
>
> There is plenty of accurate, neutral, fully sourceable material about living
> persons that still has no place in Wikipedia.  Or anywhere else on the
> Internet, really, but we can only control our own site.
>
> Newyorkbrad
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 5:01 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2008/10/1 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad at gmail.com>:
>>
>> > Well, you can certainly quote David for that statement, but I for one
>> don't
>> > agree with it at all.
>>
>>
>> What parts?
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.