--- On Tue, 15/3/11, Ray Saintonge <sainto...@telus.net> wrote:
> From: Ray Saintonge <sainto...@telus.net>
> On 03/14/11 5:41 AM, Andreas Kolbe
> wrote:
> > So that would mean exporting all BLPs to a completely
> separate project, like
> > Commons, which hosts and edits these BLPs, which are
> then available as read-
> > only pages in Wikipedia. The existing BLPs in
> Wikipedia would be deleted,
> > and any BLPs created in Wikipedia would be instantly
> deleted, or moved to
> > the other project if they show promise.
>
> Taking that one step further, when the subject of one of
> these
> biographies dies the article would need to move back; the
> proper article
> history would also need to move. Moves would also
> involve making sure
> that a lot of links are repaired.
That sounds complicated. A user right for BLP editing in Wikipedia would
not have these drawbacks. As long as an article is in the living persons
category, editors would need the BLP user right to edit it; once the article
is no longer in the category, it would become open to any and all editors
again.
Incidentally, having the BLP user right would also be a reflection on the
editor's work, and a content-based "badge" to strive for that is separate
from adminship. And something that editors would be loath to lose.
It is not a perfect solution because, as others have pointed out, BLP-
sensitive material is not just contained in BLPs. However, the majority of
BLP problems that subjects are justifiably aggrieved about do occur in
their actual biographies.
The fact that we cannot implement a perfect solution does not mean we should
not implement a solution that would help address a majority of the problems
and would help foster a culture of responsibility.
So, how about it?
Andreas
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
