>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com]
>Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 09:15 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Analysis of BLP issues (Jimmy Wales shouldreconsider)
>
>On 22/04/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 22/04/07, doc <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> > > If no one else has ever published an article which is about the person, as opposed to mentioning them in some regard, that should be a clue.
>> > > Fred
>
>> > That would be another way to go. Unless there is a published biography
>> > on the individual, our default is deletion. Again there will be
>> > exceptions - but we could let afd sort that out. We just change the
>> > default - you need a consensus for inclusion if there is no other
>> > biography in publication.
>
>> That seems like a sensible criterion - and there might be potential to
>> extend that to classes of articles other than BLP.
>
>
>The objection to this one is entrenching systemic bias.
>
>
>- d.
We are a compendium of existing knowledge. The body of existing knowledge suffers from grave defects.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com]
>Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 08:45 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Analysis of BLP issues (Jimmy Wales should reconsider)
>
>OK. What seems a practical first move?
>
>Deleting all living bios is not going to fly. It just won't be accepted.
>
>The layer of barely-notable bios could be vanquished with little
>trouble. The tricky part is "what is notable?" It's not going to be
>possible to come up with a hardline definition that doesn't result in
>gross systemic bias, editors deleting like deranged robots or both.
>
>Is a new deletion rule on living bios worth trying? It's the most
>politically viable idea I've heard so far.
>
>
>- d.
If no one else has ever published an article which is about the person, as opposed to mentioning them in some regard, that should be a clue.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Steve Summit [mailto:scs@eskimo.com]
>Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 10:26 AM
>To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Analysis of BLP issues
>
>David Gerard wrote:
>> On 22/04/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>>> James Farrar wrote:
>>>>> Unless there is a published biography on the individual,
>>>>> our default is deletion.
>>>>
>>>> That seems like a sensible criterion - and there might be potential to
>>>> extend that to classes of articles other than BLP.
>>
>>> I've always seen this as a rather horrid criterion. So what does this
>>> mean? Most sportsmen, most television stars, most musicians, many
>>> politicians - gone. And let's not even get started at the systematic
>>> bias issues inherent in this...
>>
>> Indeed. Our systemic bias is bad enough now without entrenching it in
>> this manner.
>
>Wait, wait, wait. A little while back, the notion was that
>biographies would be deleted *if the subject requested it* and
>there were no other published biography. If the "if the subject
>requested it" clause were reinstated, would the notion be so
>destabilizing?
That's good, the complaints often come regarding the golems constructed from scraps of stray media coverage.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marc Riddell [mailto:michaeldavid86@comcast.net]
>Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 10:40 AM
>To: fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info, English Wikipedia
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Analysis of BLP issues (Jimmy Wales shouldreconsider)
>
>on 4/22/07 12:28 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info wrote:
>
>> We are a compendium of existing knowledge. The body of existing knowledge
>> suffers from grave defects.
>
>Great point! Another way to put it: "Don't blame me, I just report it." or
>"I don't make this stuff up ya know."
>
>Marc
But somebody did, and got a stamp of approval for it.
Fred
On 4/20/07, Info Control <infodmz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/20/07, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I hope the checkusers have
> > investigated this affair for possible abusive socking).
>
>
> I hope that any checkusers abusing the privacy of their peers with
> undocumented, out of policy, out of bounds, and wrong use of the tool would
> be hauled in front of ArbCom and/or desysopped/banned.
>
Just for the ediifcation of those who do not know, why is it there is no
public record of who ran what RFCU IP check? Shouldn't people be entitled to
know if their privacy was for possible undocumented searches exposed?
I ask as least *one* administrator is documented to have been active on
Wikitruth, and at least one former admin (Everyking) is a Wikipedia Review
editor. What recourse do users in good standing have to find out if their IP
information was viewed?
Courtesy of Messed rocker, we now have a list of biographies of living
people that are marked as lacking citations. There are over 8,300 of
them - and that's just the ones marked as unreferenced.
To those that say the system roughly works, and we shouldn't contemplate
changing our inclusionism, I say, fix this. No more saying 'it can be
done', if it can, do it.
Doc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced_BLPs
> Jimmy Wales
> Ooooookay. You asked me to do it, and I did it. Now you ask me to
> undo it, and I am undoing it.
Score! I claim a pundit victory. Admittedly partial, since
it happened way faster than I thought it would - "Predictions are
hard, especially when they're about the future." (attrib Yogi Berra)
If anything, I wasn't cynical enough.
Now we'll all see if there's another act to this drama ...
--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com/
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php