--- On Fri, 13/5/11, geni <[email protected]> wrote: > From: geni <[email protected]> > > I actually think it's malice, rather than a failure to > think through what > > verification means. And it's malice in most cases > where editors insist > > that some tabloid claim should stay in a biography, > based on "verifiability, > > not truth." They don't like the subject, and enjoy > taking pot shots at them. > > > > Not consistent with actual use
You don't seem to have followed the discussion. We are not talking about the whole universe of tabloid references in Wikipedia. They do report news as well, and are sometimes cited for that. We are talking about poorly sourced gossip in BLPs that's in some way embarrassing to the subject. Like someone having -- allegedly -- cheated on his wife, allegedly not being able to read properly, allegedly having been a Scientologist, etc. If you believe that people's sympathies or antipathies vis-a-vis the subject and their activities do not play any role in their decision to add such content, you have led a sheltered life in Wikipedia. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
