Sam Blacketer wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, geni <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen <[email protected]>: >> >>> “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place >>> we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a >>> really hard time with it if it had.”" >>> ... >>> >> The question is though is is >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuinely not a >> reliable source? >> > > > What was that underlying principle which was codified after the Brian > Peppers deletion debates? Ah yes, 'basic human dignity', now to be found at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Basic_dignity. > > This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be > endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely > reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way > of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And that > would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news > agencies were reliable. > >
Apparently the news agency is the top of its local area (Afghanistan), so how you spin that into "obscure" is frankly beyond me. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
