On 4/17/12, George Herbert wrote:
> Why would you not find yourself in a similar situation if employed by
> a published scholarly encyclopedia and were told "This guy is just
> notable enough, write a brief bio of him for the next version"?
The difference is, there is (usually) an intermediary b
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On 4/17/12, George Herbert wrote:
>
>
>
>> The key problem here - IMHO - is not-sensitive editors interacting
>> with sensitive BLP subjects.
>
> That is not always the case.
>
> What would *you* do if you cleaned up and expanded an article on
On 4/17/12, George Herbert wrote:
> The key problem here - IMHO - is not-sensitive editors interacting
> with sensitive BLP subjects.
That is not always the case.
What would *you* do if you cleaned up and expanded an article on a BLP
you had never heard of before (to 'do the right thing'), an
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Sarah wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:26 PM, George Herbert
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Sarah wrote:
>>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:18 PM, David Goodman wrote:
It would be better to have a rule to never take the views of the
subject
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:26 PM, George Herbert
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Sarah wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:18 PM, David Goodman wrote:
>>> It would be better to have a rule to never take the views of the
>>> subject in consideration about whether we should have an artic
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Sarah wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:18 PM, David Goodman wrote:
>> It would be better to have a rule to never take the views of the
>> subject in consideration about whether we should have an article,
>> unless an exception can be made according to other Wik
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:18 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> It would be better to have a rule to never take the views of the
> subject in consideration about whether we should have an article,
> unless an exception can be made according to other Wikipedia rules, in
> particular, Do No Harm. People h
On 16 April 2012 14:12, Fred Bauder wrote:
> The problem arises in the cases of articles which are libelous,
> malicious, or manifestly unfair. Other instances, other than people who
> are clearly notable, are not relevant; it doesn't matter whether we have
> articles or not, promotional or criti
The problem arises in the cases of articles which are libelous,
malicious, or manifestly unfair. Other instances, other than people who
are clearly notable, are not relevant; it doesn't matter whether we have
articles or not, promotional or critical, so it doesn't matter if the
subject has the powe
