Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
||
Line 483:
::It's a question, is there anything it doesn't do right now that you would like for it to do? The devs have stopped work on any improvements pending a consensus on its continued use, but are willing to make improvements should it be kept. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 18:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Could someone in the know post a cute little table of the problems people reported and which ones have been fixed? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 05:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*I would like a Twinkle-esque system for adding pending changes to articles without going through the protection tab.
*We need some way of actually explaining it to new users--it has proven hard enough to explain to the most experienced. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 05:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 1,010:
:It seems inevitable that the subject will be the most avid and most sensitive reader of a biography, and that they will always have reasons to complain. I ''do'' support the idea of distancing Wikipedia from little-edited BLPs, or making them less authoritative, by using automated templates or some other mechanism to warn readers when a BLP may not be reliable, and encouraging them to report vandalism. I know that conventional wisdom here opposes any enumeration of little-edited BLPs, but since the least read are the most common I am not persuaded. I think that a combination of a special patrol for the category and templates warning users would do much to prevent the embarrassment of false allegations. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 20:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
::Ok, but there's a huge difference between the subject of an article complaining because they simply do not like it and complaining because of blatant libel. Articles should not say that the subject's wife is a dog or that the subject is a prostitute (absent well-sourced cases where this is true, appropriate, and doesn't violate [[WP:UNDUE]]). A warning template on top of the article doesn't make that any more appropriate. [[User:Zachlipton|Zachlipton]] ([[User talk:Zachlipton|talk]]) 20:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
:::For a (tl;dr) view on why BLP is important, I would highly advise you to read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QZ_Deletion_dispute#Outside_view_by_Newyorkbrad] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Doc_glasgow#Outside_view_by_Newyorkbrad]. Ethics are important.
::::What those two views are both talking about is the "need" to remove ''widely known, well sourced'' information from Wikipedia because they don't want to "make people sad". If they are relevant to PC, it means that the role of the PC reviewer is not just to revert vandalism, false information, and difficult to track down information, but also any information they don't think sounds very nice. I should further point out that despite this resolute action to expunge Brian Peppers from the [[List of Internet phenomena]], a [http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22brian+peppers%22&btnG=Search search] still turns up entries from more open sources of information, such as snopes.com and Encyclopaedia Dramatica, as the top search hits. Last but not least, I should add that obviously the people of Ohio, as a matter of law, deliberately chose to stigmatize and humiliate Mr. Peppers in the first place. Are you dismissing them as unethical also? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 05:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
| |||