User talk:Justthefacts98

Hello Justthefacts98. I'm writing to let you know that Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons requires that any accusations of the type you recently added to the article Daniel Fusco may not be mentioned without, at minimum, citation to a reliable source. Blogs do not satisfy this requirement for potentially defamatory material. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Alright, since you reinstated the edit, I've now blocked your account indefinitely. If you want your ability to edit back, the first thing you'll need to do is respond here on the talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Someguy1221 I didn't understand what happened before. I thought the edit was being taken down by the subject or one of his employees. I'm new to this. The blog you call unreliable is a well respected, internationally known blog. Surly there is room in wikipedia's policy to allow that all blogs are not created equal. I don't see why the story can't be highlighted on his page. It does not defame the subject. It simply highlights the information.

I guess I don't understand. There's a lot that is on the subjects page that has no source. His "discography?" I don't follow how you can site the subjects personal website, but not a nationally known blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justthefacts98 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi Justthefacts. The difference here is that the information you are drawing from that blog is defamatory if untrue. That is a threshold that invokes the biography policy I linked above. I'm not going to speak to the merits of the rest of the article or its sources, but defamation is a special problem. I would also note that it is not a defense to say that you are simply noting that accusations have been made - our policies dismiss that. Quote: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Blogs, even highly reputed blogs, fall under our policy for self-published sources, which states: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." These rules were created to be mindful of the harm that false accusations can cause, and so we only describe such accusations if A) there is substantial coverage in reliable sources; or B) there is some coverage, and the accused has been found guilty in a court of law. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I can see that. I understand the need to protect people from defamation. But defamation only applies if it's false. Lumping in false with the true seems to tip the scales in favor of the false and ignore the true. I understand that you're enforcing the policy, not writing it. It does undermine my trust in Wikipedia.