Uhh, I don't like this:
There is tactile prose all over wiki commenting on the "goods" of people no matter how subjective they are, but you're not allowed to mention any of their "bads".
So basically, you're allowed to tell mistruths until the cows come home as long as they are niceties, but if you ever mention something bad about a person you have to be textbook perfect. i.e. If you ever want to say something good you can just write a few nice words, but something bad requires layers of sourcing and referencing and zero discretion by the author. It would be a much better place if they applied those standards across the board.
"written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."
There is tactile prose all over wiki commenting on the "goods" of people no matter how subjective they are, but you're not allowed to mention any of their "bads".
So basically, you're allowed to tell mistruths until the cows come home as long as they are niceties, but if you ever mention something bad about a person you have to be textbook perfect. i.e. If you ever want to say something good you can just write a few nice words, but something bad requires layers of sourcing and referencing and zero discretion by the author. It would be a much better place if they applied those standards across the board.