On 10/03/2011 18:16, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 10 March 2011 13:11, Fred Bauder<[email protected]> wrote: >>> What is an "airbush"? I think we should be told. >> Our article "Airbrush" does not include information on the use of >> "airbrush" as a metaphor > Charles' point was that the article says "airbush" not "airbrush" in > the headline. There's a more serious kind of point that goes like this: the article in question being a BLP, we should very much judge the content in the light of BLP policy rather than who inserted it or edited it. What to an activist intensely interested in the subject of a BLP may seem like a whitewash may, in the light of the way we handle BLPs, be simply a scrupulous application of our criteria on referencing, due weight, salience and so on. In fact if that doesn't happen in such a contested area as US politics, something is probably wrong: we're writing an encyclopedia, after all, not operating a political seismograph tracking every little uptick of comment. That is not to excuse the activities of those who'd wish to put spin-doctor content onto the site.
In short, the way COI applies to BLPs ought to be even-handed, because the coverage we want is neutral. Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
