Sun 7th June 2009, 5:48pm
QUOTE(Kevin @ Sun 7th June 2009, 2:57am)
A cynical read of her proposal goes like this: Let's fuck someone over, and then if they complain we'll hide it out of sight. Surely the answer lies in Wikipedia actually publishing decent bios in the first place, rather than restricting access to the crap ones.
But in effect, we're simply accepting the fact that "Wikipedia actually publishing decent bios in the first place" is an impossibility. And since "Wikipedia vanishing off the face of the internet forever and ever" is almost as unrealistic, well... there you go.
Remember, at least 90 percent of BLP subjects actually want to have those articles appear in Wikipedia and have little or no problem with them being at the top of Google results. (In fact, it may be more like 97 percent.) There's really no reason to "noindex" all
BLP articles just to be "consistent" or to "err on the side of caution," all on behalf of just a few thousand people (i.e., legitimate BLP "victims") at most. And it also should not
be necessary for the article subject to intervene in all, or even most, cases - a simple agreement among WP users that the article is too biased or inaccurate, or is the target of too much vandalism or edit-warring, should be perfectly sufficient to allow for this.
I suppose there are other things they could do too, like make all new articles "noindex" by default until an admin comes along and "approves" them for indexing - it's a little excessive, but it might also help with the mass-stub-creation problem, actually.
Remember, perfectionism is the enemy of progress...
QUOTE(One @ Sat 6th June 2009, 7:15pm)
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 6th June 2009, 4:30pm)
More likely she just doesn't want to give the "trolls" any credit for, well, anything whatsoever.
In addition to sharp BLP criticism, this site ironically provided a platform for viciously false attacks on named living people, notably Durova herself. ... I wouldn't acknowledge this place either.
Well, as long as it's OK if I don't acknowledge Wikipedia itself as being a source of ideas for positive change, that's perfectly fair then.