Our BLP policy is pretty solid, and the editors that enforce it are pretty good at keeping out the crap :) We can always improve it, of course. And there are never enough BLP editors. (There are probably about 5 or 6 that specialise heavily in such content).
Most of the outstanding issues are with current events (not to blow my own trumpet but see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ErrantX/Current_events_and_BLP), which tend to attract enough non-BLP experienced editors to "overrule" them (leading to articles with content that we don't really need/want). IMO it's far from the point that hosting BLP's is more harm than it is worth. Tom On 21 May 2011 14:21, Sarah <slimvir...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 20:19, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > It is not up to us to decide that something is "private". If it's been > published, then it is public. > > If it's been published in a reliable source, than it's useable in our > project. > > > But not everything that's usable has to be used. I'm increasingly > wondering whether we should be hosting any BLPs, because these are > often difficult decisions to make -- at which point there is > legitimate public interest in a person's private life -- and they > can't be reached thoughtfully in an open-editing environment. > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l