> 2) Regarding "Our BLP policy has worked.", that's a fascinating > argument that the super-injunction *is* worthwhile. If Wikipedia > defines verifiability in terms of major media sources, and the > super-injunction inhibits those sources, then it effectively > inhibits Wikipedia (even if it's impolitic to put it that way). > I actually believe that the accumulated sourcing now *should* satisfy > Wikipedia's verification requirements in the case of the footballer, > and was tempted to make that argument. But given I have a nontrivial > connection to UK jurisdiction, plus I'm sure I'd get a huge amount > of personal attack due to the various politics, it wasn't worth it. > Just observing, on various talk pages, I believe the WP:NOTCENSORED > faction has made its sourcing argument poorly. Maybe there's another > lesson there as to relative costs imposed. > > -- > Seth Finkelstein
Google searches for "superinjunction" "Name of footballer" "name of squeeze" yields no hits at reliable sources. Fred _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l