Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives.

-- http://durova.blogspot.com/

-----Original Message----- From: Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 3:32 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma 2009/6/4 Durova <nadezhda.durova(a)gmail.com> affect Trouble is, even if you NOINDEX so it can't find it in google, they could still find it in the wikipedia or via inbound links. So, although, the proposal could (at best) conceivably improve things, it would ultimately solve nothing.>> And I would like to add that anyone could simply repost the information, point at the Wikipedia article as the source, obeying the GFDL considerations effectively eliminating any benefit from Noindex. Which basically is what mirrors accomplish anyhow. Any mirror can repost any manually crawled content without regard to Noindex. Noindex is not a requirement that anyone is bound to obey. Will Johnson _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-----Original Message----- From: Durova <nadezhda.durova(a)gmail.com> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 4:33 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma Mirrors don't get such high search rank as Wikipedia. Most people who search Google never look past the first 10 entries (if they even scroll down to number 10, which many don't). Noindexing is a distinct advantage in situations such as job searches or business contract bids where one competitor might stoop to tactically damaging another candidate's biography. Yes, the information remains available, but deliberate misinformation doesn't shoot to the top position instantly.>> --------------------------------------------- If you noindex, then Wikipedia's entry doesn't appear at all. Some of our mirrors do have relatively high rankings, appearing on the first page. This is especially true of the more comprehensive, but obscure entries. Such as you might find say, with a University professor or second-tier author. We write up a full biography, noindex it, and our mirrors end up on the first page of Google hits. I fail to see the actual damage caused. Competitors already try to damage each other, if bids are based on Wikipedia entries, then it's doubtful that the businesses are really doing any sort of due diligence in the first place. All businesses have complaints lodged against them. If you don't have at least a few detractors, then you must have just started. I'd like to see some concrete examples of real damage, before such a sweeping modification is instituted. Will Johnson _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Obviously the bids don't cite Wikipedia.  It's not uncommon, though, for the decision maker to run a quick Google search.  Now if exploitation is going to happen, Wikipedia happens to be one of the easiest platforms to exploit. Wikipedians try to manage our BLP problems, but very often we fail.  Do we shrug off legitimate complaints as easily as you advise?  Perhaps this is a philosophical/ethical difference.  I say we look for solutions.

As several others have mentioned, noindexing won't prevent vandalism, won't prevent mirrors from showing the hidden content, and won't prevent direct visits to the hidden content.

As several others have mentioned, noindexing won't prevent vandalism, won't prevent mirrors from showing the hidden content, and won't prevent direct visits to the hidden content. Additionally, as I mentioned in a comment on your blog, most BLP-related complaints on OTRS are more concerned with the vandalism itself or with the wiki-nature in general - Google doesn't really enter the picture unless their cache is outdated.

The BLP policy page is a broken mess of pseudo policy written by people looking to forward their positions. It has no place in rational discussion of the BLP issue.

2009/6/4 Durova <nadezhda.durova(a)gmail.com>om>: Been suggested before. Answer is either: No what search engines do with wikipedia content is none of our business. No the subjects of articles have no right to determine wikipedia behavior Of course it could also be argued that effectively making a public record of people who are sensitive about their bios it's exactly an improvement on the current situation. -- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

The proposal is to noindex upon the subject's request. Isn't it best to let the people who live with the consequences weigh those pros and cons? If the main thing they want is to get Wikipedia off the top Google result, then it may be worth it to them. On principle, I'm not keen on paternalism.

The proposal is to noindex upon the subject's request. Isn't it best to let the people who live with the consequences weigh those pros and cons? If the main thing they want is to get Wikipedia off the top Google result, then it may be worth it to them. On principle, I'm not keen on paternalism. On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presum… -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Hi all, in two years of looking for solutions to the BLP issues have finally stumbled upon an idea that hasn't been raised before. Basically it's this: *Suppose we noindexed biographies of living persons, upon the subject's request.* This would require developer assistance, and require a bit of structure to make sure the ability doesn't get misused. An initial draft proposal is at my blog. Am interested in thoughts and suggestions. http://durova.blogspot.com/2009/06/biographies-of-living-persons-ingenius.h…

Incidentally, NOINDEXing requires no developer assistance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:NOINDEX

wrote:

Subject-Was: Re: A new solution for the BLP dilemma "Nothing new is under the sun", are among the most humbling of a preacher's words. If you hav ever right-clicked on a file that you uploaded to your website (and you probably hav one that you are not using), then clicked on "properties", you would be greeted with this menu of flags, all within your control: R W P e r e a i r d t m e i t Owner: X X O Group: O O O Everyone: X O O Those would be appropriate settings for your user page, which is the only one that the system would let you own. Admins would be owners of all pages in main: and user: on wikipedia. That way, if you you refused to comply with one rule or another concerning how user space is used, then an admin would permit everyone to also be able to write to your space, so that a volunteer could show you his ignorance of those rules :-) I can almost see the author of "vandalproof" hanging his head and asking why he did not think of that. group permission is a special feature of protected file systems. Windows does not hav group permission in XP, TMK, and it does let you protect shared objects from being written to. My web server is NetBSD, so it does hav groups. Users can be added to groups, so that people who hav made applications for being included in a group -- applications to a sysop would let you write files in a particular project, because you were a member of the required group. In a series of occurances, here is how a biography might become authorized and get a special stamp of approval from the subject of the biography. Someone write's a biography about someone else on their user page. They let it out among their collaborators. Two of those collaborators want to fix it, so the starter permits everyone to write to it. An edit war breaks out, so the sysop (sysops always hav power to permit, as well as power to destroy, which is not displayed) retracts all permission, except permission to a group, then assigns three veterans to that group and solicits their attention to an article in progress. No blocks are issued. No significant flaws are in the wording or the evidence. The page is permitted for reading by all and writing by none. Occasionally, on the talk page, someone raises {{editprotected}}. The questions typically get an answer that could hav been found by reading three months of history. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

The idea of restricting asrticle writing to a small group ("experienced article writers" "admins" "veterans" "blp specialists endorsed by the community") has been raised before. In principle if the group is made large enough to not be owned by some small clique and with a suitable policy guiding how it works and its responsiveness, it's viable without undermining NPOV and openness. The crunch point is "open to editing by all", and a large number of users take that aspect seriously and literally. Philosophically once "open to all" is drawn back, the same logic applies to any type of article where a person or group might be unhappy with editing, and there's also a risk that groups once created tend to gravitate to their own internally developed norms or to become slightly separated. Open editing is a major safeguard against Wikipedia being able to be monopolized by some special interest group, or affected by censorship of some minority or externally imposed stance. Add a means to limit article control to some group, and there's always a risk it can be used in future in other ways..... Not agreeing or disagreeing, more just outlining the perceived pros cons and issues. FT2 On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Jay Litwyn <brewhaha(a)freenet.edmonton.ab.ca _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

OK - so I think a fair summary of this proposal (correct me if I'm wrong) is: We should create a group of experienced BLP editors (or similar) to edit a BLP that has been the subject of an edit war. The page would be protected from editing by other (non-sysop) users. This would form an alternative to or replacement for page protection, and would hopefully lead to more editing than page protection. We should also allow users to create draft articles in their userspace that are (by default) protected from editing by other non-sysops. I share FT2's concerns about the need to avoid creating a BLP cabal with the first point, and I also have concerns about the second point - it could lead to POV forks and encourage people to hide an imperfect article in their userspace rather than it being more visible and publically editable, which will lead to faster improvement. It could also lead to greater feelings of article ownership - if you grew an article to (say) A-class in your userspace before moving it to article space you'll probably have greater feelings of ownership than if it was in publically editablearticlespace from the start. On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 04:05, Jay Litwyn<brewhaha(a)freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote: preacher's words. If you hav ever right-clicked on a file that you uploaded to your website (and you probably hav one that you are not using), then clicked on "properties", you would be greeted with this menu of flags, all within your control: one that the system would let you own. Admins would be owners of all pages in main: and user: on wikipedia. That way, if you you refused to comply with one rule or another concerning how user space is used, then an admin would permit everyone to also be able to write to your space, so that a volunteer could show you his ignorance of those rules :-) I can almost see the author of "vandalproof" hanging his head and asking why he did not think of that. does not hav group permission in XP, TMK, and it does let you protect shared objects from being written to. My web server is NetBSD, so it does hav groups. Users can be added to groups, so that people who hav made applications for being included in a group -- applications to a sysop would let you write files in a particular project, because you were a member of the required group. authorized and get a special stamp of approval from the subject of the biography. everyone to write to it. as well as power to destroy, which is not displayed) retracts all permission, except permission to a group, then assigns three veterans to that group and solicits their attention to an article in progress. reading three months of history. -- 1001010 1001000110000111011001101100 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Maybe the ideas aren't good enough? :-) Carcharoth On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:04 PM, FT2<ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: by persist wrong) uploaded all only pages with would volunteer author that. Windows shared would of permit, _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

OK - so I think a fair summary of this proposal (correct me if I'm wrong) is: We should create a group of experienced BLP editors (or similar) to edit a BLP that has been the subject of an edit war. The page would be protected from editing by other (non-sysop) users. This would form an alternative to or replacement for page protection, and would hopefully lead to more editing than page protection. We should also allow users to create draft articles in their userspace that are (by default) protected from editing by other non-sysops.

I share FT2's concerns about the need to avoid creating a BLP cabal with the first point, and I also have concerns about the second point - it could lead to POV forks and encourage people to hide an imperfect article in their userspace rather than it being more visible and publically editable, which will lead to faster improvement. It could also lead to greater feelings of article ownership - if you grew an article to (say) A-class in your userspace before moving it to article space you'll probably have greater feelings of ownership than if it was in publically editablearticlespace from the start.

Subject-Was: Re: A new solution for the BLP dilemma "Nothing new is under the sun", are among the most humbling of a preacher's words. If you hav ever right-clicked on a file that you uploaded to your website (and you probably hav one that you are not using), then clicked on "properties", you would be greeted with this menu of flags, all within your control: R W P e r e a i r d t m e i t Owner: X X O Group: O O O Everyone: X O O Those would be appropriate settings for your user page, which is the only one that the system would let you own. Admins would be owners of all pages in main: and user: on wikipedia. That way, if you you refused to comply with one rule or another concerning how user space is used, then an admin would permit everyone to also be able to write to your space, so that a volunteer could show you his ignorance of those rules :-) I can almost see the author of "vandalproof" hanging his head and asking why he did not think of that. group permission is a special feature of protected file systems. Windows does not hav group permission in XP, TMK, and it does let you protect shared objects from being written to. My web server is NetBSD, so it does hav groups. Users can be added to groups, so that people who hav made applications for being included in a group -- applications to a sysop would let you write files in a particular project, because you were a member of the required group. In a series of occurances, here is how a biography might become authorized and get a special stamp of approval from the subject of the biography. Someone write's a biography about someone else on their user page. They let it out among their collaborators. Two of those collaborators want to fix it, so the starter permits everyone to write to it. An edit war breaks out, so the sysop (sysops always hav power to permit, as well as power to destroy, which is not displayed) retracts all permission, except permission to a group, then assigns three veterans to that group and solicits their attention to an article in progress. No blocks are issued. No significant flaws are in the wording or the evidence. The page is permitted for reading by all and writing by none. Occasionally, on the talk page, someone raises {{editprotected}}. The questions typically get an answer that could hav been found by reading three months of history. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l