http://archive.is/Tb7mo
For context, just Google Mark Pearson accuser and you will find out the name of a Game of Thrones actress who some people are very mad at. As is current British law, his accuser has remained anonymous before and after Pearson's trial for sexual assault in December 2014, even though he was found not guilty. It's a very complicated case as their thread has already figured out, and the accuser may not even be the actress in question.
I advise you to go there if you want to discuss it in general, I shall stick to discussing the bits relevant to Wikipedia here, given we at least seem to remember our purpose is Wikipedia criticism. Suffice to say, there isn't enough information coming out of reliable independent sources to say anything useful about this case or controversy on Wikipedia. Pearson evidently doesn't clear their bar for notability, the case evidently hasn't, so the only real relevant aspect is that the actress does have their own Wikipedia biography.
As you might expect given my description above, there cannot and likely never will be any mention of this controversy on her biography due to WP:BLP, even if the reliably sourced bits make it into generic articles on rape law, or even a case article. On current evidence, it never would or could be mentioned in or linked to this person's biography.
That's the theory. Sadly, as one of the idiots on Wikipediocracy sees it......
As is normal for that bullshit fake news not remotely a critical criticism website, it turns out "AndyTheGrump", one of their beloved and protected posters, is yet again (is he ever not?) either horribly misinformed, being otherwise utterly stupid, or is actively trying to hide Wikipedia's failings and defend its honour.Nothing in regard to how Wikipedia has acted seems to me to be in any way contrary to standard WP:BLP policy.
One of the first things they teach you in BLP school is that BLP applies everywhere. Not just the article text, but all areas of Wikipedia. Blatant violations, such as linking famous people to damaging controversies where no RS has done so, are to be removed on sight, and active measure are to be taken in instances of repeated and persistent attempts.
So imagine my surprise when I realised that the Wikipedia talk page of said actresses biography has just one active section.....
The legally proven claim is of course bullshit. To properly understand what a fuck up this really is, Primefac is one of their most trusted and experienced Administrators, and yet even he seems to not know what BLP calls for in this situation - instant removal, with prejudice (i.e. revision delete so it isn't even available in the page history in old versions). Make his reply to the IP on their talk page, warning him not to repost what he said anywhere on Wikipedia, on pain of instant no further warning block for any kind of or cute attempt at repetition, including inference and hints.Mark Pearson
Why is there no mention of her false rape accusation against Mark Pearson? It it legally proven and now belongs on her page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.143.92.33 (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Probably because there are no reliable sources that verify the information. Primefac (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Not only that, the archive of said talk page is full of other insinuations and clues for people to find out what certain people want them to know. There's probably even more in the talk page history, where well meaning editors will have simply reverted stuff without knowing policy demands they also request revision deletion.
Not only that and that again, the artice itself has repeatedly seen edits this year by people inserting this information into the article. Primefac is aware, as he reverted one attempt in May, without revision deleting it. And yet despite what BLP says, namely to permanently protect articles which experience persistent attempts to violate BLP by multiple editors, it remains at the most permissive level of access, namely, got a computer? Then edit! The last time it was under any restriction at all, was back in October 2017.
What we're seeing here is the darker parts of the internet quite effectively using Wikipedia to further their agenda, because the site is so poorly organised and wholly lacking in leadership or any kind of real world accountability, and also perhaps because some time has passed now since the specific issue was in the mainstream media, despite these failings being wholly contrary to their own stated policy, and with all the potential for serious harm to a living individual they carry.
And we also see so called critic site Wikipediocracy failing to ban people who are either too stupid or too corrupt to say these things (and will inevitably have a temper tantrum and call you stupid for doing so, without even attempting to defend themselves). They banned me though, of course. Something about me not being their kind of people. An actual critic who wants to talk about Wikipedia and in a non-retarded fashion, presumably.
