On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Avoid victimization
When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, *or
writing about a person who is independently notable but where the
biographical material is so prominent that it can significantly affect
the subject*, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the
material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared
back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.
This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose
notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's
actions, *or writing about a topic that is largely or entirely about
the person being a victim of another's actions*. Wikipedia editors must
not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to
participating in or prolonging the victimization.
Additional material indicated by *s.
It seems like the most common objection is that we can't determine who is a
victim (to which my response is that I'm just extending an existing rule and
we seem to have no trouble doing it for the existing rule).
We'd have the same argument regardless of this new extension of the
rule. What damage are we doing to Santorum not already done by Dan
Savage and the 132 reliable sources documenting this matter?
I don't think BLP needs this kind of mission creep. It's important to
protect Santorum and others from malicious editing and bad sourcing
and undue weight, but it isn't our job to protect Santorum from Dan
Savage or the news media or the world.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
