http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Quest&diff=215176592&oldid=215126489
Reason for the revert? "Unnecessary detail."
Because we don't want our golden boy to look bad.
Well, the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy page sez:
> We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.
So >>1, are you seriously arguing that News of the Weird and/or the New York Post (which the News of the Weird writeup cites) are "high quality references?"
Looking at the article history shows the same info has been erased several times for the same reason: the NYP source doesn't cut it. It's a tabloid.
I don't know why the fella used a different edit summary this time around, but you shouldn't have expected anything other than a revert.
I'm guessing you could find plenty on WP:BLP to justify its removal as "unnecessary detail", too.
In short: Wikipedia gotta tread carefully if they don't want to get sued for libel.
> OMG OMG high quality reference's and POLICIE'S!!!!!!1!!11
It doesn't matter. Whether the source be The New York Times or The New York Post, if the material is libelous, Wikipedia will get sued.
Wikipedians are clearly just trying to sugarcoat the article by omitting the whole rope-tied-to-dick episode. Which is POV pushing, including an unsavory fact in an otherwise pristine article or omitting it?
Uh, no. Reporting something is good faith does not get you sued for libel.
>>4
Point, moreover:
> In November of 2006 the California Supreme Court ruled that 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) does not permit web sites to be sued for libel that was written by other parties.
Still, I think Wikipedia is being reasonable in seeking to prevent a repeat of the Siegenthaler incident.