--- On Tue, 3/3/09, Sue Gardner <sgard...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> From: Sue Gardner <sgard...@wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living
> people
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 2:17 AM
> 2009/3/2 philippe <philippe.w...@gmail.com>
>
> >
> >
> > On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:48 PM, private musings wrote:
> >
> > > basically there's a sensible three stage plan
> to follow to help drive
> > > quality and minimise 'BLP' harm;
> > >
> > > 1) Semi-protext all 'BLP' material
> > > 2) Allow an 'opt-out' for some subjects
> (eg. non public figures, or
> > > those
> > > not covered in 'dead tree sources' for
> example) - note this is more
> > > inclusive than a simple higher threshold for
> notability
> > > 3) 'Default to delete' in discussions
> about BLP material - if we can't
> > > positively say that it improves the project,
> it's sensible and
> > > responsible
> > > to remove the material in my view.
> >
> >
> > As a general rule, I think pm has given us a
> common-sense place to
> > begin discussions about how to cleanup existing BLPs.
> There will
> > always be situations that don't fit within this,
> but as a starting
> > point for guidelines, I support these.
>
>
> It seems obvious to me from the conversation on this thread
> that part of the
> reason the German Wikipedia seems better able to manage its
> BLPs (assuming
> that is true - but it seems true) is because there is a
> smaller number of
> them. Presumably a smaller number of BLPs = fewer to
> maintain and
> problem-solve = a higher quality level overall. (And
> possibly also, OTRS
> volunteers who are less stressed out, resulting in a higher
> level of
> patience and kindness when complaints do get made.)
>
> Assuming that's true, allowing BLP subjects to opt-out
> seems like it would
> have a direct positive increase on the quality of remaining
> BLPs, in
> addition to eliminating some BLPs entirely. Clearly, there
> would still be a
> notability threshold above which people would never be
> allowed to opt out -
> there will always be articles about people such as Hillary
> Clinton and J.K.
> Rowling and Penelope Cruz. But a decision to significantly
> raise that
> threshold, as well as default to deletion upon request,
> seems like it would
> have a positive effect on quality.
>
> Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising
> the notability
> threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion
> upon request is a
> bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other
> Wikipedias should shift
> closer to the German Wikipedia's
> generally-less-permissive policies and
> practices, particularly WRT BLPs?
1) Raising the notability threshold is not an intrinsically bad idea, but it is
hard to agree without knowing the new threshold.
2) Defaulting to delete should be for all BLPs or none. I disagree that it be
any different because it was requested. It will only lead to false hopes and
greater disappointment if we have a special rule for "per request". Personally
I support defaulting to delete on all BLPs
3) I disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift to follow
anyone's policy or practices. They need to work out what will work best in the
culture of their own community. Although the goal of protecting living people
from being harmed by Wikipedia needs to be universal, I don't that it should be
put in terms of de-style or en-style.
Birgitte SB
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
