QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 3rd March 2011, 12:10pm)
I've heard about the Brandt case before, yes, though i'm probably the wrong person to talk to about this, as i'm fairly certain you are of the opinion that people should be allowed to recuse themselves. I am of the opinion that, since Wikipedia runs off of secondary sources, if you are notable enough due to those, then it is in an encyclopedia's interest to have information about you from those sources, regardless of your opinion. The existence of the article will not effect the existence of the sources themselves.
So you will indemnify the target? I am serious here: you, whateveryounameis, will sign a contract that says you will take personal responsibility for the BLP, paying any damages out of your own pocket (or the pocket of your liability insurance company)? You know, put your money where your mouth is.
QUOTE
Now, if an article is being thrown together on very thin sources and people wish to be recused, that's a different matter. But I personally believe that truly notable people have already had it taken out of their hands because of their notoriety. They just have to live with it.
Yeah, and fuck you too. Almost all BLP's at the project are non-notable: if there is no dead-trees, or equivalent, then notability has not been sustained.
This post has been edited by taiwopanfob: