Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey/Leave BLPs exactly as they are

Leave BLPs exactly as they are

 * 1) Since this is the closest thing to a "both options are bad" section, let me just say that (absent context), both options (semiprotection and flagged revisions) are bad. Semiprotection would prevent anonymous users from just casually removing obvious BLP violations whenever they see them, which would make such violations harder to fix, and keep them on the article longer. Flagged revisions would mean that when an IP acted to remove BLP-violating information, we would nonetheless continue to display the bad content until some approved user allowed the article to be fixed. Either one implies that you must be authorized to remove libel - that's Bad Bad Bad Bad. I realize that this badness isn't the poller's intention; it's only what will actually happen. We shouldn't stop IPs from fixing things. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you propose we stop IPs from breaking things? IPs are more likely to add violations than remove them. Cool Hand Luke 20:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The same way we do it now, which mostly works (ANI/AIV reports are not a representative sample of all IP edits). My experience is that most IP edits are generally trival (neither especially good nor especially bad), with an admittedly visible volume of test edits. My further experience is that most bad IP edits are either spam/SEO crud or experienced users attempting to avoid scrutiny. Restricting casual editing of BLPs because of a (very visible) minority of edits is the wrong way to do things. I do think there are addressable deficiencies in our monitoring BLP-sensitive articles; I just don't think these proposals are the way to go. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * From my experience, with the exception of highly visible pages (Governors, cabinet members) where vandalism is reverted quickly, IP editors are actually more constructive than destructive, hence (of course) the idea that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought of that, but flagged revisions would mean that if an IP saw BLP-violating information, then a 'reviewer' made a bad 'sight' (which is bound to happen I suppose). --Pixelface (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right - there would be mistakes, oversights, approvals made too speedily, etc. I myself have accidentally rollbacked an article to a heavily vandalized version because I didn't notice another editor squeezing in a rollback before me. There would also be the problem that today's puppetmaster with carefully autoconfirmed accounts can be tomorrow's puppetmaster with carefully aged accounts and approval to make revisions sighted - if someone wants to get this, they'll get it, however slowly. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And Pixelface's edit touches on another issue I mentioned: creating a small (relative to the total teeming millions of the planet, almost all of whom have the theoretical capability to edit) pool of editors with the power to review and approve changes to the most legally problematic group of articles increases the risk of the Foundation, and perhaps even an editor who regularly reviews a particular article and allows changes through, being held liable in a defamation suit as it would be harder to claim Wikipedia isn't "edited" in the legally relevant sense. Daniel Case (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Legal issues for the foundation should be judged by the foundation's lawyer, I think. No point in speculating about them here. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since they are often cited as a reason for increased BLP protection (and justly so), I do indeed think they are a valid part of this discussion. And just because I'm not a lawyer doesn't mean I can't say what I think (and in any event, I don't what expertise Mike has in defamation law). Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Gavia has said it really well. -  NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  01:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with Gavia's concerns.  This is a problem I hadn't considered, and I originally came here with the intention of endorsing semi-protection, but this argument has changed my mind. JulesH (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) A BLP that meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR is not defamatory; a BLP which is defamatory doesn't meet one of WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:OR.  Trying to use semi-protection or flagged revisions to fix policy violations is absurd on its face, because neither of them address the issue at hand.  The only solution is to require strict adherence to policy&mdash;just as WP:BLP already does. Ozob (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) (i) Protecting >500,000 articles would make "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" essentially incorrect. (ii) "Flagged revisions" does not scale to wikis that see more than a few thousand edits per day; the German Wikipedia has already proven this, so there is no reason this projects needs to -- Gurch (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On dewiki, an average of 18.000 revisions get flagged per day, and the system scales with that quite nicely (unless, of course, you have unrealistic expectations, like that every flag must be set within a day or two). --Latebird (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Gavia said it better than I can. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Damn right. Wikipedia should be as open and free as possible - if American libel laws require that we change that, we should move the servers to a different country. -- Explodicle (T/C) 23:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Exactly. I have seen no compelling evidence that some sort of drastic changes regarding BLPs are needed, and the harm done by the proposed changes looks much more significant than whatever problems do exist. Nsk92 (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) In the sense that I don't think we're taking full advantage of the tools we already have available. My experience having watchlisted Anna Wintour after improving it to A-class has shown me that a vigilant regular editor is all that is needed for one high-profile BLP (and there are periodic attacks on that one from both PETA types and angry fashionistas); see the article's edit history. I was going to support flagged revisions until I read the opposes; they have concerns there that lead me to believe it could actually make problems worse by preventing anons from making good edits. I also think either measure may actually increase our legal exposure since it will be harder to claim that we aren't a common carrier. There are some ways we could improve this; I'll put them in the above section later. Daniel Case (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Daniel, what happens when the super-vigilant editor goes on vacation for a few days? It's not realistic, IMO, to expect every good editor to keep vigil over even one BLP every day for months or even years, and the number of BLPs greatly exceeds the number of active, full-time editors. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I occasionally do? I'm not against long-term flagged revisions or semi-protection for articles, BLP or otherwise that have shown a definite need for it. But not every BLP does, and frankly a fair amount of other editors doing RCP have caught other vandalistic edits even on days I've been online. In the case of a vigilant editor going on vacation, if an admin, he or she could easily just unilaterally semi-protect it for a few days or request it put on flagging for that time period. That's what I said ... we're not using our existing tools well enough. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep it open. Malinaccier (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Leave everything as is for now Until we've established a control group and tested things thoroughly.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Where you've signed your name and what you've said are very inconsistent. If you're open to the idea of flagged revisions once details have been worked out and so forth, why are you signing with the "Abandon the idea of trying to do better with BLPs" crowd? Wily D  15:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I support testing the flagged revisions feature with a small subset of articles, but I think BLP is not the right subset because 1) it is too large; 2) it would add to the hoopla about BLP with which I don't agree. --Itub (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Ozob. I feel personally we make too big of a deal about BLP's as it is. What are we so afraid of? That guy who was wrongly called a supporter of the assassination of Kennedy... he tried his best to defame us with no success whatsoever. The law is clearly on our side. Come on, Wikipedia! Be strong and courageous. Don't be so daggum scared of anonymous edits! We already do too much to stop people from joining the encyclopedia by not letting them start articles. Like many of you long-termers, I started my Pedia career filling in a redlink. Would you be a Wikipedian now if that redlink hadn't enticed you to start writing? Matt Yeager  ♫  (Talk?) 06:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Working fine as is. Hipocrite (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Leave BLP guidelines as they are. Vandalism we can deal with - easily if judged by the pack of editors chasing real and perceived vandalism.  --  Iterator12n   Talk 21:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) I agree with Gavia as well. Both options seem counterintuitive to one of the core policies of Wikipedia, ("the encyclopedia anyone can edit"). That was one of the groundbreaking principles of the site; the idea that everyone in the world can contribute knowledge. Of course in the past we have set up rules for how this is to be done, but keeping more than 500,000 articles "untouchable" from the world (with the exception of the relatively few admins and trusted users who would be able to verify a flagged edit in the case of FR or who would be able to edit it in the case of semi-protection) seems to be backtracking on what made the site so famous. Killiondude (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  03:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) The status quo may well be problematic, but I don't believe the case has been made either that any significant action, as opposed to tweaking, is urgently needed or that the two proposals here, semi-protection and flagged revisions, would make a huge difference. The former would essentially throw one of WP's core principles—that anyone can edit—out the window for a vast number of articles, as well as running afoul of one of the most meaningful (imho) WP guidelines, AGF. The latter is an interesting idea which eventually may be necessary, but I don't think the case has been made that it would do the trick if applied only to BLPs. Rivertorch (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) If the cure is worse than the disease... CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) In a word: Why? I'm not really defending the status quo, per se, but I'd before I could really get behind any major changes driven by WP:BLP, I'd want to see some hard data that suggests we really need to do so.  We've got lots of essay-style opinions, but that's all subjective.  I know lots of vandalism occurs, but this discussion is focused on vandalism to BLP articles.  I don't take it as given that BLP articles warrant special vandalism protections.  I'm aware that BLP articles have special requirements, but I don't see that as automatically translating into special vandalism protections.  I know libelous/slanderous edits to BLP articles occur, but I haven't seen any decree from WMF legal counsel that existing countermeasures are failing.  Maybe I just missed a memo; if so, could somebody point me at it?  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10)  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)  Keeping out anon editors would hurt projects such as WP:IN where a significant number of contributions to Indian people are made by anons.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong Oppose Something needs to be done. Timmccloud (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. We have working systems, we just need to implement them better.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support per Gavia, whose observations match mine (except that IPs are net destructive also in Junior High School subjects, like Alexander Hamilton. Surprise.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support leaving things as they are --Kiyarr lls- talk 21:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Strong Support I've seen too many positive contributions from IP's, and doing something like this would jeopardise the positive work done.  Spencer T♦C 20:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Strong Support IPs do way to much productive work. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) General Support, as per Spencer above (26), if weakly, in light of semi-protection (see #118). Ngorongoro (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Well, not "exactly as they are generally"&mdash;it is ever important that we push back against BLP overreach, ultimately ridding ourselves of most of the language of Biographies of living persons, removing much of the discretion enjoyed by admins vis-à-vis BLP [reversing Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff and Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes; adminship is, after all, ministerial], and on the whole rejecting explicitly the proposition that we are to be guided by any variant of the imperative "do no harm"&mdash;but exactly as they are with respect to flagged revisions (which I continue to oppose categorically as inconsistent with my conception of what the project ought to be) and semi-protection (the long reservation offered because there does not exist any heading under which ought to situate themselves those who not only oppose any change but are incredulous of the claim that there is a problem that we need address). Joe 05:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - While the current situation is far from perfect, I can see no sensible and/or logical way to improve it. Flagged revisions is unworkable - due to the size of the project nothing will ever get updated, and the overworked reviewers will be lucky to spot even the most obvious vandalism. Implementing it for only BLP articles seems technically impossible, without leaving some way of articles being removed from the system (decategorisation, for example), and would still create a huge backlog. Permanent semi-protection, on the other hand, would go against the fundamental principle that "anyone can edit" Wikipedia, and also generalises that IP users are the cause of the problem, when registered and even established users could be involved. --G W … 12:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Finally, one good idea!. Stop experimenting, edit the articles! NVO (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Yes. These so-called solutions seem to cause more trouble than they're worth. Do we even have a real problem to begin with? –neurovelho 22:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) Support- I really don't see a problem with the way things are now. Just because some IPs vandalise doesn't mean that all IPs should be blocked. Often, IPs are the first to notice and remove vandalism. Copana2002 (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) Support per GW. Mion (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) yes. Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" has great inherent strengths, and great inherent weaknesses. We need to be extremely careful so our "solutions" don't affect the strengths while targetting the weaknesses. The only thing that should be "done for" BLPs is RC patrolling, widespread watchlisting (you can also watchlist an article you have otherwise no involvement with, just for catching dubiuos edits), and sprotection in the case of trouble. More bureaucracy and red tape hurts the project, because it ties up the manpower we need for writing, watching and fixing articles. --dab (𒁳) 11:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Support As the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, there will always be problems with vandalism, and some of it could cause problems. The question is, where do we draw the line? If we semi protect/flagged rev all BLPs, what's next? I've seen unsourced claims about corporations in articles. Should we semi-pro these articles to avoid defamatory statements about the corporation? What about organizations? Schools? Just let Wikipedians watch these like we always have. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) StronglyOpposed to all of the above - 
 * "This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
 * This is not the encyclopedia that anyone can vandalize.
 * We have no obligation to anyone who comes here for purposes other than editing and reading. We do have an obligation to those who enforce the rules we have accepted by becoming editors. They say they need some tools to help them because their burden has become onerous, and they are graciously giving us the right to choose the tools they are to use. Concensus has been found for two tools. We have an obligation to choose.  Phil_burnstein (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Where exactly has this consensus been found? I have been absent from Wikipedia for a while, so I am a late entry into this discussion.  Perhaps it exists elsewhere, but on this page, I certainly don't see any consensus that these tools need to be used.  None of the proposals seem to have a significant imbalance toward support rather than opposition.  As such, it seems to me that further debate over whether either approach is appropriate is definitely necessary.  Making a hasty choice based solely on the idea that something must be done is not going to be particularly helpful in the long run. BecauseWhy? (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support It is impossible to get consensus on this as there are more users on wikipedia than those with accounts ya know. If the IP editors saw all this flagged revs discussions in a site notice than all of this will SNOW collapse. If I recall Jimbo made it quite clear that consensus has to be determined from the greater number of users, not just who happens to show up.  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - The grass is always greener?? :) --Tom 19:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - I see nothing inherently wrong with the current approach that is eclectic and judicious. It is not perfect, but alternatives are worse. Wandering Courier (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support If one of the options above has to be implemented, I would favor the first, but as all have major problems, I'm for keeping things as is. Alohasoy (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Perhaps introduce some sort of carrot for people willing to patrol bios (specific to undoing vandalism), but locking out anons is a dreadful idea DBaba (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Under no circumstances. At somepoint the very fact people insist there is a problem creates that problem - and insisting their wrong doesn't make the problem go away.--Tznkai (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Any other option would go against the grain: free editing for all. Vandalism will be recognised and delt with on a case to case basis. It's not ideal, but neither (and even more so) are the proposals of this poll. Debresser (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong Support BLP's are relevant for the scope of a encyclopedia. Anything thats "public knowledge" should be fair game for such an article. I don't think any additional oversight/protection is needed and would likely prove to be ineffective to solve whatever problem there is. Any obvious libel should be immediately recognized by the article's regular editors. I also don't believe the persons the article is about should be able to omit facts (publicly known) about themselves because they don't like them. If it's in public knowledge (reported on, legal cases, etc..) then it should be fair game. Raeky (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Anyone should be allowed to edit Wikipedia, but some discretion can be used for BLPs if they have had problems in the past. Themfromspace (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Anyone should be allowed to edit Wikipedia, and for any pages subject to vandalism there will be editors waiting to correct them. --Gibnews (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - No solution is better than a bad solution. Tarc (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support It's not broken. These "solutions" will not solve the "vandalism/libel problem" and will only discourage legitimate editors and increase bureaucracy and BS. -Drdisque (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Lukewarm support. It works reasonably well, warts-and-all. I'm not convinced that any of the suggested changes would help us. GregorB (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Support I think flagged edits are a bad idea, and I don't think we should have a blanket semi-protection. Semi-protect the ones that are heavily vandalized (which is how it currently is), but the lesser articles are the ones that could benefit the most from IP edits.   Asmeurer  ( talk   ♬  contribs ) 20:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Otherwise, how long will it be before there are special rules for other classes of WP articles as well?Vitaminman (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Half the fun is finding vandalism and removing it. --Auric (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. BLPs aren't in any major trouble now. Why should we protect them? Jonathan321 (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) General Support - I think we're doing pretty well, and we're only getting better and better. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Support-ish current BLP policy goes a little too far for me, though I wouldn't some of its more moderate ideas on other articles. Any further would be worse. --Rumping (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Support: Semi-protect the BLPs which are often vandalized, just like every other high-risk article, and leave the others alone. Plenty of anons contribute constructively to BLPs, so why cut them off entirely? WP:BITE. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Aye Mind flux (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) Support You don't fix a problem area with a solution that cripples possible cures. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 21:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) Strong support. The proposed cures are worse than the disease. BecauseWhy? (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Support I like the idea of FR and I think we should try it, but I would also be fine with doing nothing in regards to BLPs. The "problem" is a social one and requires that the general public obtain some common sense. That being said, I don't think the problem is as big as people try to make it sound, including Jimbo. -- Ned Scott 04:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Support So far most suggested changes are damageing ineffective or both.Geni 18:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Leave things as they are. Doing otherwise damages Wikipedia and flies up against what it stands for. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 19:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) Support I fail to understand why some editors are screaming "Crisis at BLP!" Ted Kennedy's article was vandalized for a few minutes. Just revert and semi-protect the thing!! It ain't broke, so there is no need to fix it... 82.230.24.185 (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) Support There is no problem here. Jimmy Wales getting the vapors because some old politicians had their articles vandalized does not constitute a problem.  Nine times out of ten vandalism is fixed within minutes by the large number of people engaged in recent changes patrolling at any given time.  The possibility of vandalism is inherent to Wiki; the only way to elimiante that is to destroy the Wiki concept altogether.  And I happen to like it.  It ain't broke; don't "fix" it. Semi-protection for frequently vandalized articles works adequately. —Hiddekel (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 29) Yeah, where's the fire?  Until I'm convinced by something more than "think about the children!" w.r.t. BLP. (I know, unfair to calmer heads, but those who are shrill get the squeaky wheel.) -  brenneman  06:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 30) Strong support. It is the time to be courageous. To change the rules is a sign to the vandals : Ok, you've won ! and to the mighty who do not like such a freedom of expression. Wikipedia has proved its quick ability to face the hardships. Besides, I don't think I would have contributed if there had been a basic semi-protection or a flag. Those who like it can go to Knol or Britannica, this is another age-old experience, which is valuable but different from Wikipedia's ground principles and philosophy. Gul-o-Khar (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 31) Support Continue to allow changes to be made and seen, except on articles where protection has become necessary. Encourage editors with white hats to prioritise BLPs over other articles, and provide tools such as a list of recently changed but unchecked BLPs. Certes (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 32) Strong support - I think we are letting a few notable BLP violation incidents hijack Wikipedia here. There are some problems with the Wikipedia open model in general, and it doesn't just apply to BLPs. This doesn't mean we should change the open model. The fact that there are extremely few serious BLP violations today compared to the overall amount of vandalism proves that nothing should be done, at least at this point. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 07:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 33) support - We've created an amazing encyclopedia without the need for any special BLP treatment. I'd probably be willing to accept some sort of protection policy for some BLPs (or in general) but oppose a blanket protection that would hamper the growth of the encyclopedia especially on BLP stubs. Regarding flagged revisions, I don't think they solve any alleged legal problems that flagging is intended to prevent and implicitly accepts the notion that there is a legal problem, which then unduly puts legal burden on the green flaggers. I see Wikipedia vandalism as no different than normal graffiti. Is a building owner responsible for the words that some punk kids spray paints on his house? They shouldn't be. And I think the law will eventually have to recognize that this applies to wikis. If libel cases are brought against Wikipedia in the US, appeal those suckers as far as you can and to the Supreme Court if need be. Any sane law would only but the legal burden on the vandal, not victim (that is, the Wikipedia Foundation via the Wikipedia itself). Jason Quinn (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 34) Support WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and that means instant results. We can handle petty vandalism just fine. I would raise the threshold for BLP notability (e.g. "must have a dedicated entry in a mainstream tertiary source"), but that's another issue. Crum375 (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 35) Support as per Hiddekel at 65 Dalliance (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 36) Support - I can't help but think that these solutions are being offered up as a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. Wikipedia can be one of two things: it can be open to being edited by anyone, or it can be 100% accurate all the time. Vandalism will happen if anyone can edit, but it generally gets caught and anything that doesn't . . . well, Wikipedia just has to show that it has a reasonable policy in place for removing libelous opinions (which the five pillars cover) and have the ability to provide the details (ie IP) of the individuals responsible. Or does US law really hold the owner of a building for defamatory grafiti painted on it if they take a couple of days to paint it over? JonStrines (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 37) support the presumption that IP editors do more harm than good is wrong wrong wrong. There are cases where a high level of disruption merits temporary (or longer term) protection on individual articles. Oh hey, that's what we do now! Much better than a blanket policy that prevents all articles from being instantly improved. xschm (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 38) Support I think many people agree that BLPs are a problem area that needs to be dealt with. However hitting the panic button and declaring solutions as panaceas is not the answer and may well make things much worse, as such solutions are not insurance against vandalism. Orderinchaos 00:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 39) Support It seems to work; the scandalizing seem to be done by media folks intend on creating controversy anyhow, and we already have WP:BLP, right? &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 18:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 40) Support seriously, use watchlists, RBI. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

All BLPs should be removed from Wikipedia and stay on social networking sites where they belong until the LP has been dead for awhile

 * 1) Strongly support. I don't care if it's about my mother or President Bush or Hilary Duff.  Everyone deserves privacy. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 05:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So, if someone comes here and types in George W. Bush into the search box, they get...nothing? Tarc (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They get...a new special page. "No page with that title exists. You can search again when the subject has died, or try a more complete encyclopaedia." Certes (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) STRONG OPPOSE There is nothing in the definition of encyclopedic that excludes living people. Check any of the major encyclopedias ... they all contain information about living people. Truthanado (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) * I checked the 1911 Britannica and didn't find a single BLP. —suriv (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) What? Is this here to make options like "Semi-Protection and Flagged Revisions for all BLPs" look reasonable by comparison? -kotra (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Really? The issue here is preventing nonsense from being added to BLP articles, not a complete ban.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose and close per WP:SNOW. Badagnani (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Lol all living famous authors, poets, scientists, actors, presidents and ex-presidents of countries, etc? No way. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Biggest oppose possible All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support stealthy ninja-removal of all living beings from our realm - Running On  Brains  09:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong oppose Encyclopedic knowledge has to include today - what next, exclude any accepted reasoning, such as evolution or the big bang, that is in dispute until it is proven ? Truthanado, motion seconded - ps here is the listing for Obama in the Encyclopedia Britanica (online) Obama --Chaosdruid (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Suppport. Next, let's ban blogs. Then Google, which is the real source of the BLP problem. Then newspapers and television news--even if they manage to avoid libel they still violate "do no harm" on a daily basis. Finally, we should ban talking--people must not be subject to gossip. Wkdewey (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong Oppose - I don't know why I'm even bothering to oppose this, since it is so ludicrous it obviously will not happen. Withour information about people now living, Wikipedia will be worse than useless.  Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Strongest Possible Oppose - what an absolutely absurd idea!!! What's an encyclopedia for if not to provide information on notable people!  Whether they're dead or alive doesn't enter into it.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with invasion of privacy, since we get all our information from already-published sources.  Leaving this function to social networking sites is an utter abrogation of our responsibility, and would make WP a laughing stock, an encyclopedia in name only.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Strong oppose – this suggestion would mean the deletion of George W. Bush and Paul McCartney, among others, as articles, which is certainly not what we should be aiming for when creating an encyclopaedia. It Is Me Here  <font color="#CC6600;">t / <font color="#CC6600;">c 20:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose I am not sure whether this suggestion was serious but I shall assume good faith and politely oppose it just in case it sneaks through. BLPs are clearly encyclopaedic content, and social networking sites are not the first places many people would look for this information.  Like any other article, a BLP which occasionally and briefly displays a little vandalism is much better than a permanent Page Not Found.  Certes (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose I'm not sure what social networking site one might find Gough Whitlam or Al Gore on. Orderinchaos 00:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose this is a encyclopedia...encyclopedias have BLP. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)