On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 18:01, Fred Bauder <fredb...@fairpoint.net> wrote: > >> 2) Regarding "Our BLP policy has worked.", that's a fascinating >> argument that the super-injunction *is* worthwhile. If Wikipedia >> defines verifiability in terms of major media sources, and the >> super-injunction inhibits those sources, then it effectively >> inhibits Wikipedia (even if it's impolitic to put it that way). >> I actually believe that the accumulated sourcing now *should* satisfy >> Wikipedia's verification requirements in the case of the footballer, >> and was tempted to make that argument. But given I have a nontrivial >> connection to UK jurisdiction, plus I'm sure I'd get a huge amount >> of personal attack due to the various politics, it wasn't worth it. >> Just observing, on various talk pages, I believe the WP:NOTCENSORED >> faction has made its sourcing argument poorly. Maybe there's another >> lesson there as to relative costs imposed. >> >> -- >> Seth Finkelstein > > Google searches for "superinjunction" "Name of footballer" "name of > squeeze" yields no hits at reliable sources.
I saw it in a reliable source recently that would have passed muster. I personally don't care who's had an affair with whom, so I didn't think to use it, but it would have been policy compliant -- except in the sense that it was only one source and BLPs are safer with multiple sources for anything contentious. So yes, the sourcing policy (V, not BLP) -- specifically the concept of "verifiability, not truth" -- did work. And, as Seth points out, that means the superinjunctions worked too, because they're the reason we lacked verifiability until recently. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
