On 29 August 2010 18:06, Carcharoth <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:43 PM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Mandy Rice-Davies applies. > Is it safe to look that up? "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he." He's not even the author, he's a descendant on the gravy train. >> Speaking as an arbitrator, how would you square such a thing with NPOV? > Surely if the ending is still described in the article (as I was > careful to say), NPOV wouldn't be affected? All I'm saying is that if > there was a specific OTRS request that could be verified to be from > the relevant people, then it could be acted on. Requests from > Wikipedia editors and readers to add spoiler notices wouldn't count. > It would have to be a specific request from the "subject" of the > spoiler. What you're talking about here is leaving complete information out, or twisting the article content, due to a complaint from a financial interest. I ask again: if the case came to you that one side was saying "we must do this to the article because someone with a financial interest asked us to" and the other was saying "we are an encyclopedia and this is an NPOV issue", what would your thinking be on the matter? - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
