On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, geni <geni...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com>: > > “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place > > we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a > > really hard time with it if it had.”" > > ... > > The question is though is is > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuinely not a > reliable source?
What was that underlying principle which was codified after the Brian Peppers deletion debates? Ah yes, 'basic human dignity', now to be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Basic_dignity. This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And that would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news agencies were reliable. -- Sam Blacketer _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
