Earle Martin wrote:
On 20/10/06, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
In this incident we had two copyvio articles and
a bunch of unattributed
images. It's not at all clear how you're progressing from that to the
conclusion that all of Wikipedia's fictional character articles are so
out-of-control that they need to be "nuked."
I think Phil is speaking from having read numerous fictional character
articles, not implying that his feelings stem from this incident. (I
happen to agree with him; the amount of blithering fancruft is
astonishing.)
Yet he's using this incident as his "excuse" for it. If this incident
itself had nothing specifically to do with his proposal and he was just
tossing in an old dream of his, why was it initially focused on just
Marvel comics characters?
We need to demonstrate our lack of tolerance with a
zeal
previously known only to BLP.
Wikimedia Foundation could get sued for having
"fancruft" in articles
about fictional characters? Or having fancruft could somehow ruin the
lives of fictional characters? Those are the reasons for BLP but I don't
see any similar level of importance for fictional character articles.
Again, I think you're misreading Phil's point, namely that we should
be as ruthless at eliminating fancruft as we are at BLP issues, not
that fancruft is causing the same problems as BLP issues.
No, I don't think that I am. There's reasons why BLP is "ruthless" with
regard to biographies of living people and those reasons are completely
inapplicable to biographies of fictional characters. If you want to
propose being equally "ruthless" for fictional characters I want to see
a reason that's just as strong.
Also, the definition of "fancruft" is far less clear than the definition
of "libel." I'd want to see something solid and widely accepted for that
as well.