Rumble over BLP Options

[Milton Roe]

If by "get it" you mean understand the importance of getting BLPs right, then of course I get it. Just about every day that I edit I revert or remove inappropriate material about living people. I work as hard as anyone can be expected to in improving articles on BLPs. There are few editors who "get it" better than I do... Will Beback talk 11:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT:

I really do NOT think Beback gets it.

Actually, I think that he does get it. Like any other Wikipedia policy, BLP works either at odds with your POV, or in concert with it.

This isn't a matter of your POV. It's a matter of your privacy being invaded, if you call that a POV. Has Will Beback owned a peice of land in South Pasadena with another man, for the last 12 years? Inquiring minds want to know. What do the wife and kids say about this? What, no wife and kids? Hmmm.

God damn it, Beback, wake up.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I don't think we actually disagree. Or perhaps we do. My thesis is that WB violates BLP maliciously and intentionally, not because he fails to apprehend the real-world consequences.

[Gruntled]

I don't think we actually disagree. Or perhaps we do.

Bravo, bravo. The best and most incisive comment of the year, I feel.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I don't think we actually disagree. Or perhaps we do.

Bravo, bravo. The best and most incisive comment of the year, I feel.

[EricBarbour]

It's good to see some holiday good cheer.

(Meanwhile, Will is decidedly not showing any holiday cheer.)

[Lar]

It's good to see some holiday good cheer.

(Meanwhile, Will is decidedly not showing any holiday cheer.)

Why does WP need that (not)article ? It's pretty dodgily sourced and has sat around for years. While the NOINDEX helps it doesn't seem a keeper to me.

[Infomercial]

It's good to see some holiday good cheer.

(Meanwhile, Will is decidedly not showing any holiday cheer.)

Why does WP need that (not)article ? It's pretty dodgily sourced and has sat around for years. While the NOINDEX helps it doesn't seem a keeper to me.

Not to mention we have enough articles about Indian porn stars (none).

And on the whole Will Beback thing, there are people who enforce BLP to the letter and people who tl;dr it all. Though administrators should be more strict with these policies, what I read of Beback's arguments sound pretty reasonable. I might have to do a bit more research, but improving these articles might actually be better in the long run than simply deleting them, whether there's opposition or not.

This post has been edited by Infomercial: Sun 26th December 2010, 11:34pm

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Will Beback's case must be understood from the standpoint that some of his activity is done just to keep up his busy-work admin cred, and some of his activity is devoted to exploitation of Wikipedia to further his ideological agenda. When you look at any given article he edits, you need to know why.

[taiwopanfob]

I might have to do a bit more research, but improving these articles might actually be better in the long run than simply deleting them, whether there's opposition or not.

Articles can be un-deleted at will. Any BLP that fails the dead-tree biography test, regardless of the in-article sourcing, should be deleted right now. Literally, now. People who complain about this can be called "volunteers": the article(s) can be undeleted in their user-space, and once it meets their standards, they sign-off on it with the WMF in some way it can be traced back them, should some legal matter arise. Subsequent editors of the article should also be identified to the WMF, for similar accountability purposes. Further structure re: quality assurance is a good idea as well.

Though this is sensible, and easily done, it is clear this won't happen, as very few people really want to improve these articles. We need only look at the experience of Scott Macdonald, Lar and others are having.