On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, geni <
geniice@...> wrote:
> 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen <
gwern0@...>:
> > “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place
> > we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a
> > really hard time with it if it had.”"
> > ...
>
> The question is though is is
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuinely not a
> reliable source?
What was that underlying principle which was codified after the Brian
Peppers deletion debates? Ah yes, 'basic human dignity', now to be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Basic_dignity.
This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be
endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely
reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way
of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And that
would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news
agencies were reliable.
--
Sam Blacketer
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
