User talk:Indubitably/Victims

Possible inclusions

Martha Nussbaum - Martha Nussbaum
Pamela Jones - Complaint.

Source for both is here

Jay Brannan - [1]

-->David Shankbone 15:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, David. I'll look over these soon. :) Lara 18:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Pamela Jones example because she's coming from the open source community; so she can hardly be considered antagonistic to the idea of Wikipedia. Weren't there also some WMF and Wikia folks who complained that they were being victimized via their bios? -->David Shankbone 21:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/05/22/18245911.php Lara 18:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What real-world negative effects were suffered by Tom Brokaw?

The lead of this page mentions 'real-world negative effects' suffered by its listees, but there is no mention of negative effects in Tom Brokaw's listing. –xeno^talk 19:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tweak the lead. Thanks for mentioning that. Lara 23:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essay

Why not make this an essay in WP space? Chuthya (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may actually do that. Thanks. Lara 23:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this is main space material. "Wikipedia biography controversies", with Seigenthaler incident moving to be the "2005 Wikipedia biography controversy" John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you think is best. Lara 14:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

I appreciate the idea of this essay, but bear with me while I play devil's advocate. Doesn't it go against the idea of denying recognition to vandals? Might it not serve as a goal for a vandal to land their 'work' on this page? Doesn't it serve to further propagate the damaging claims, inverting the logic at Talk:Richard Gere? Fences&Windows 23:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never notice this page on my watchlist for whatever reason. No, I don't think this page necessarily goes against the idea of denying recognition. In most of these cases, the vandal isn't named, and they've already been in the news. The cases are sourced and serve as a good reference for those who deny there is a BLP problem. Now, if I just started pointing out random incidents, such as this gem that didn't take but a couple minutes or so to revert but was picked up by Google and remained as the search result summary (as the #2 hit on Google) for who knows how long, then I'd be going against the idea of denying recognition. Lara 20:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]