Nathan wrote: > I think this might be one situation where our duty of care in > biographies of living people is being overzealously observed, but its > definitely a gray area and I'm not at all certain. It's jarring for me > to see some obviously relevant information excluded from the article, > particularly when its been reported in most major news venues in the > world, but I do understand the desire to be above the gross > speculation found in some outlets. > > Thoughts? Have we been so successful at permeating the community with > care for BLPs that we need to start emphasizing the limits of that > care more clearly?
The distinction to be made is between information about a person, and popularly reported claims about the person. It needs to be made clear that reporting about a controversy is not identical to reporting about the person. It's disingenuous to pretend that a very public controversy doesn't exist. Rather than suppressing anything about the controversy we would do better to find the appropriate language for discussing it neutrally. It's much easier to permeate a community with a series of doctrinaire rules than with a grasp of the underlying principles. Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
