[WikiEN-l] Slashdot article

[Steve Summit]

Snowspinner wrote:
> I would ask how "whether we can verify that they are the subject" is
> in any way a substantively different issue than "whether we can verify
> their identity,"

But it doesn't even matter, does it?  Our verifiability policies
have always revolved around the verifiability (or lack thereof) of
the facts we present.  Since when do we care about authenticating
the real-world identity of people who submit verified facts,
or point out unverified facts?

> We were informed about problems on a BLP. Instead of taking those  
> problems seriously and looking at the article, we ignored them because  
> we disliked how we were informed. This despite the fact that the  
> problems were real, and that, contrary to your assertions, no sources  
> backed up the claims.

So (naive question, I know) why has there been any debate here
whatsoever?  The de facto rule these days is that unsourced facts
can and do get deleted at the drop of a hat.  The de jure rule
for BLP's (as I understand it) is that the impetus to remove
unsourced facts is even higher.  Why is anyone defending our
failure to remove an unsourced false BLP fact?