On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 16:01, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > As to the comments from MZMcBride and Sarah, I would like to see a > significantly higher minimal level of notability for BLPs. In the past few > years of working with the Arbitration Committee, I have seen literally > thousands of BLPs that easily meet the current notability standards, but > have been turned into coatracks to highlight a particular belief of the > subject (whether or not that is why they are notable), to self-aggrandize, > to attach all the negative information that can be found about the subject > regardless of its comparative triviality. > > Worse yet are the ones that are userfied instead of deleted, or never even > made it into article space; they often come up as top google hits for the > subject, because Google "crawls" user space. (They don't seem to crawl user > talk or article talk, or if they do, they do not include them in their > results.) > A huge percentage of the BLP problems I've seen in the last six years have been vanity articles. Raising the notability bar would help to resolve that.
For those who deal with the BLP queue on OTRS, how serious is the problem of BLP attack pages, whether rising to the level of defamation or not? I know the problem exists -- anyone who edits can see it -- but I'd be interested in hearing from OTRS people how pervasive it is in terms of what's reported to them. Does anyone keep figures? Sarah _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
