[WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma

[wjhonson at aol.com]

-----Original Message-----
From: Durova <nadezhda.durova at gmail.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 5:16 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rand_Fishkin

One of several BLPs I've nominated for deletion upon request from the
subject.  He's notable basically for two things: owning a business and
having proposed to his wife at a professional sporting event.

When he first discovered someone had created a biography on Wikipedia 
he was
flattered.  After a few months, though, it became burdensome to check 
every
week and see whether it had been altered.  He began to worry--since his
business is a service industry--what would happen if one of his 
competitors
vandalized it strategically while he competed for a contract.

He wasn't famous enough to be on many watchlists.  If the vandalism 
occurred
the day after he checked the page it'd be six days more before he 
spotted
it, and longer while OTRS processed his request.  In that time, would a
potential client be misled?  Would he lose out on a contract and have 
to lay
off good employees?  Overall it simply wasn't worth it.

This was one biography that got deleted upon request; many others don't.
And that's partly because of opinions that have appeared in this thread:
*Some Wikipedians believe that the subject of a BLP should never have a
voice in editorial decisions at all.
*Some Wikipedians argue that it's easy enough to Googlebomb people by 
other
means, so Wikipedia shouldn't erect any barriers either.
*Other Wikipedians believe every instance should be handled "case by 
case",
which means we can never give a simple and direct answer to a BLP 
subject
who raises legitimate concerns.

I don't like *any* of those solutions.  When I call the phone company 
with a
complaint about my bill, I want to know what the rules are in plain
English--I want an outcome that's understandable and consistent.  And 
even
if the answer is no, I want a simple plain and direct no.>>

 --------------

That's a bit evasive.  Your example was handled the way you think it 
should be, so where is the problem?  You say there are other examples 
where this didn't happen.  What are they?

The rules are clear.  The outcomes are not clear.  This is because we 
write imperfect rules.  They don't cover every single case, nor should 
they.

That is why we're asking for examples where you think the outcome *does 
not* represent what you think it should have.

His bio was not deleted because he asked for it to be.  That's not the 
entirely of what occurred.  We do allow subjects to speak on their 
bios.  We do it all the time.  We just don't allow them to have veto 
power.


Will