User talk:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP

Penumbra

The problem with trying to divide biographies of living persons policy (BLP) into "simple" and "penumbra" is that people will disagree on classification. They already disagree on classification but if you have two different classes instead of one you're just giving them more chances to disagree. Of course someone who thinks an issue is very harmful will insist that it's a "simple" BLP issue and someone who thinks it's maybe not so bad, or even thinks it's a trivial matter will plop it firmly into the penumbra. Someone who thinks this is a game of charades will say it's not a BLP issue at all. So here we're not actually making tools for consensus, we're manufacturing tools for disagreement.

I've argued for a bright line because that's what the BLP is based on. If someone tells me he's deleting an article because of BLP problems, my reaction is "sure, let's get it out of plain sight and see if there is something we can salvage from it, otherwise it's dead." And I'm an inclusionist. I want there to be more articles about Pokemon. I want more articles about soap opera actors, sportsmen (and women), high ranking civil servants, and musicians. But I'm not stupid, I realise that sometimes there will be really bad stuff in articles, and it will do harm. I'm not here to do harm so if someone has a serious enough issue with an article that he thinks it needs to be deleted, I'm like "okay, buddy, how can I help?" I assume good faith. I don't want to ask them some fatuous question like "are you sure it isn't just a penumbra issue?" That would be insulting. Why would he delete if it's something he could have handled in the usual way? --Tony Sidaway 04:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that I did make a bright line distinction between the two types. If it is well sourced it is in the penumbra set. Otherwise its simple. Can you construct a possible example where which category it would be in would be subjective? JoshuaZ 04:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could easily see arguments occurring over whether an article is well-sourced or not. One side considers an article to be well sourced and therefore in the penumbra set. The other side believes that the sources are unreliable garbage and thus in the simple set. ChazBeckett 14:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, possibly, but I think it isn't hard to argue that when sourcing is questionable to go one the side of caution. The problem we are trying to deal with at least is the recent deletions and content removal where everyone has agreed they were well sourced. JoshuaZ 14:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua, I have to throw in my lot with Chaz on this point. At Justin Berry, one side considers even a national periodical not to be a reliable source, while the other side wants to include third-party blog posts as though they were. It's been months, and I'm still dealing with the same stuff. --SSBohio 01:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. I think it's a great resolution to the problem. Anything that is excellently sourced can remain at least until consensus determines otherwise. Poorly sourced information can be immediately removed, or better sourced. Badly sourced information can quickly get a great source or quickly get removed. It neatly ties in WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I do think that the names could be improved some, but it's nothing I would vote against it for (partially because I can't come up with a better name). McKay 05:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to accurately sum up the problems we are having right now. violet/riga (t) 07:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]