This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Despite a lot of talk and declarations of good intent, it appears that the battle to improve Wikipedia's handling of articles relating to living people is slowly but surely being lost. The reason it is being lost is not in the main because editors feel that censorship in any form is wrong—If asked, most editors would surely say that Wikipedia's owes living people mentioned in its articles a duty of care—but because otherwise good editors fail to realise that enforcing it requires diligence, firmness and often an uncompromising stance.

The problems

• Burden of evidence - This lies on the editor adding the material. This is commonly forgotten
• "Do no harm" principle - Just because it is published elsewhere does not mean we need to compound any offence. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and we do not have the same commercial pressures that newspapers do. Therefore, Wikipedia's decisions about what is worthy for inclusion is different from a newspaper's.
• Poor sourcing - While most agree that chatboards, blogs, wikis etc. are poor sources, there appears to be an automatic assumption that a newspaper is a reliable source. While newspapers may often be reliable sources, where these newspaper articles rely on anonymous or otherwise poor sources themselves, we should be especially careful about how these are used. This especially applies to gossip columns or articles on lurid topics.
• Privacy and encyclopedic content - Is it relevant that an article include minor offences such as traffic or DUI breaches, shoplifting etc? Are the names of children or the schools these children attend necessary in a comprehensive article? Do we need to say that a subject has been accused of being gay, especially where he denies the allegations? Often the allegation alone causes damage to the subject that no denial, even if included in the article, can fix.
• Compromise - Often in disputes about BLP breaching material, well meaning editors often try and find some compromise between the two parties in line with WP:CONSENSUS. In BLP disputes, this often takes the form of adding the word "allegedly" or adding the subject's denial of the claim. These "compromises" weaken the intent of WP:BLP. Including the controversial claim, regardless of adding a denial or sprinkling the word "allegedly" around liberally, does not make the inclusion of the claim any less damaging to the subject. Combine this with assuming that any source is a reliable source and BLP breaching material is retained and given a stamp of approval.
• Good faith - Assuming good faith is seen as a "good thing" and indeed in most cases it is. However, when a IP or newly registered editor arrives to add BLP breaching material to an article, assuming good faith can be damaging to the subject and the public. Rather than assuming the new editor is merely misguided or ignorant of Wikipedia's rules, new or IP editors adding this material should be seen as malicious, especially if they insist on re-adding the content after it has been removed