Juliet Landau gets "rolled" by WP Options

[Detective]

...backed by her birth certificate...

Maybe it could say, "backed by what is likely a forged or altered birth certificate..."?

I don't think that the BLP policy allows unsourced suggestions that someone has forged an official document or knowingly used a forged official document. Indeed, I hope the WR policy doesn't allow it either.

[thekohser]

...backed by her birth certificate...

Maybe it could say, "backed by what is likely a forged or altered birth certificate..."?

I don't think that the BLP policy allows unsourced suggestions that someone has forged an official document or knowingly used a forged official document. Indeed, I hope the WR policy doesn't allow it either.

I guess I needed to add a or maybe a to my post?

[dogbiscuit]

It is an interesting one though, because it turns several issues upside-down.

To me the fundamental point is that Wikipedians have set their minds to being the upholders of the truth, even though it is verifiability that is the test. They have moved into investigation rather than passive regurgitators of other information, there is a hint of Original Research here.

I don't have a total sympathy for JL - in fact in the UK, what she is doing is arguably unlawful under the Fraud Act of 2002 - any wrong statement with the intent of financial gain is captured by the act - and it is the misleading statement that is the criminal act, not the financial gain. Suing someone for revealing what is in fact a matter of public record (in the UK) also seems rather bizarre. On the other hand, she has a moral point: if people discriminate on her age rather than her performances, then she has a claim that it is unfair for people to undermine her method of dealing with this discrimination.

If, say, Private Eye was pursuing this, then we would see it as appropriate to that publication, and although sometimes we don't like the media sitting in judgment, but somehow it seems uncomfortable that some anonymous band are sitting their interfering with someone else's life. If it were Private Eye, you could see that she could discuss it with them and say "Yes, you've found me out, but this is why I am doing it." and then Private Eye might decide it was just a spiteful story rather than some Sword of Truth investigation. Wikipedia cannot conceive of applying that sort of judgement.

In the end, what is the point? How does the world gain from this information? Are we doing anyone a service by protecting them from the misrepresentation of her age - as long as she is using her correct age in contractual agreements (including insurance cover for her acting engagements) then it is hard to see that this is makes a difference to the world. We can see that there is harm and we can also see that Wikipedia is incapable of understanding that determining cases by their arbitrary rule book does not allow for common sense, because there is always the next nerd coming along to open up the can of worms again.