quick bit extra - flagged revisions for BLP material is also a bit of a no-brainer, and should be recommended by the foundation immediately as a valuable software improvement - it's really part of point 1) (Semi 'protext' all BLP material - curse my typo!)
cheers, Peter PM. On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:06 AM, philippe <philippe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:48 PM, private musings wrote: > > > basically there's a sensible three stage plan to follow to help drive > > quality and minimise 'BLP' harm; > > > > 1) Semi-protext all 'BLP' material > > 2) Allow an 'opt-out' for some subjects (eg. non public figures, or > > those > > not covered in 'dead tree sources' for example) - note this is more > > inclusive than a simple higher threshold for notability > > 3) 'Default to delete' in discussions about BLP material - if we can't > > positively say that it improves the project, it's sensible and > > responsible > > to remove the material in my view. > > > As a general rule, I think pm has given us a common-sense place to > begin discussions about how to cleanup existing BLPs. There will > always be situations that don't fit within this, but as a starting > point for guidelines, I support these. > > Philippe > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
