Talk:BLP Task Force

Getting started on the talk page[edit]

There's been some discussion of focus on the mail list, and it might be time to start sorting things out here.

The goal of this is to provide a proposal to the Board of Trustees to consider/modify/pass about how to handle the most sensitive, time consuming, and costly issue that the Foundation has, both voluntarily, staffed, and editorially.

We need to focus on the core issues, which we all know what they are: retention of articles, the process of deletion of articles, editorial standards, and consideration of the feelings of subjects.

This seems like a task that is probably much more difficult in theory than fact, since philosophy is much more complicated than a resolution of a governing body.

Perhaps setting up a few subpages in the order of steps to resolving these issues to for a proposal is in order.

Thoughts? Keegan 04:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think we should try to move the discussions from the e-mail list to these pages. On behalf of the rest of the task force, I thank Keegan for volunteering to set it up. ;-) shirulashem 14:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go Vols.. Keegan 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Task Force/Scope leading to BLP Task Force/Ideas leading to BLP Task Force/Workshop leading to BLP Task Force/Proposals to BLP Task Force/Findings to the ultimate BLP Task Force/Submitted Proposal. Keegan 20:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues[edit]

to be moved to Workshop, proposals, etc as appropriate.

Issues under discussion:

Unsourced BLPs
Unwatched BLPs, including Uncategorized, which the bots cannot find
Possibly unclear notability guidelines for subjects
Possibly unclear guidelines for content inclusion
Deadlocks which seem unbreakable; and/or repeat arguments regarding specific contentious BLPs

Proposed actions include:

CSD for unsourced BLPs, currently under discussion
BLP ruling body based on ArbCom but content based; or Content body which would address not only BLPs but other contentious wars on content; currently merely an idea being floated. Alt: Strengthen and apply BLP noticeboard more. Objections to BLPN approach: En-centric

I've moved these for BLP Task Force/Workshop for expansion. Kevin 05:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Commons has no BLP policy. Nothing. But there are frequently heated discussions on Commons noticeboards over content such as this[1] (an image which WP editors sometimes add to the WP article about Dershowitz), and some guidance moving Commons toward a BLP policy is probably needed. Malcolm Schosha 12:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ILP* ;-) Cbrown1023 talk 16:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fodder for discussion[edit]

If/when there's more action on BLP policy, I'd like to recommend the comments by Mrsuperk in this exchange on en-wp: en:Talk:KORC (AM)#Names removed Thoughtful analysis from a non-notable person mentioned in an article. -Pete F 20:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]