> On 20 May 2011 17:23, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: >> Speaking as someone who's been in the middle of this exact issue from >> the >> Wikipedia perspective, edits similar to the one described to have been >> made >> on Twitter were removed multiple times from our own site over an >> extended >> period: not because of the injunction, but because it was contentious >> and >> negative information that could not be reliably sourced. Our BLP >> policy has >> worked. > > > Questionable. Oh we've kept the better known cases under wraps but > oversight and rev del but the lesser known cases and the flat out > false ones (want to damage a footballer's reputation? hint that they > have a super injuction) we haven't been so good at keeping up with. > The pattern of reverts and rev dels is pretty obvious if you know what > to look for as is the suspicious traffic bumps. > > Perhaps ironicaly the number of false accusations has reached the > point that if we did care about BLP issues the responcible thing to do > would be to publish most of the 53 on the main page. > > -- > geni
Please mail User:Oversight with any such instance you are aware of. We do suppress any mention of a superinjunction, as the assertion that there is embarrassing personal information sufficient to support issuance of a superinjunction is defaming. Fred Fred _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
