Since this is a great analysis of the issue at hand, I
thought I'd make it
the start of a new thread.
George Herbert took the following quote by heart and made the analysis.
Why is it that folk on this list always simply
point out the problems
with any change rather then engage constructively in finding working
solutions?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>
Date: Apr 21, 2007 3:48 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales should reconsider
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Stable versions is certainly a change which is technical based, has
major effects, and could help significantly on a bunch of different
fronts. Nobody has had much of anything negative to say about that (a
few gripes, but it's very very popular). It's just not live yet.
Structural changes of the "just remove all bios" or "remove any
biography that the subject objects to" are counter to the project's
core goal of making an encyclopedia.
Someone who has a WP article about them that they percieve negatively
may be upset, but it's one thing to say that we sympathize with them
being upset, and quite another to suggest that we shouldn't have an
article about them, or about large classes of people including them.
The idea that people have a right to not be covered in media reports,
encyclopedias, websites, blogs, etc. are not unique to criticisms of
Wikipedia's operations, but are rather odd overall. There is
generally little to no legal basis for these ideas, and little social
basis for these ideas.
Individuals are upset for one or more of three reasons:
1) They think they aren't notable, and don't want to be.
2) They think they're covered inaccurately.
3) They think the coverage presents them negatively.
We have normal processes to deal with truly non-notable subject
articles. They go away, relatively reliably. A lot of people who
don't want to be notable are by other reasonable standards. People
may not like that, but they may not like being covered in a local
newspaper or someone's blog or website, etc. The problem is not
unique to Wikipedia, and we aren't breaking social or legal norms to
cover people who meet some minimum standards of notability.
Notability is something they can challenge, but not something they can
arbitrarily reset standards on.
If they're covered inaccurately then that's a problem, and we can and
should do something about that. BLP says we need to, everyone agrees
with BLP, and people are if anything overly vigorous about enforcing
it.
If coverage is seen as negative, it's for one or both of the following
reasons: The coverage is slanted, or the sourced and accurate facts
behind the article are, or tend to be, interpreted in a negative
manner. If the article is biased, not-neutral, then BLP applies and
other policies apply and we fix it. If the facts don't show a
positive light on someone's life or activities, then that's their
problem, not ours.
People have a right to be upset about a lot of what gets put up about
them in Wikipedia. But the same applies to MySpace, Usenet, IRC, and
a zillion Blogs and homepages. Those don't have any sort of editorial
policy, charter to be accurate and neutral and have sources, and
people who have the power and responsibility to fix things going
around dealing with the things that are done wrong here. Wikipedia
does not offer a unique technical or social opportunity for internet
damage to people's reputations or lives. We are, all things
considered, probably uniquely the most reliable non-commercial source
on the Internet. We are clearly and unequivocally imperfect, but
that's a fact of life to some degree.
We could make a WarmFuzzyPedia. But it would not be accurate, useful,
or something that a lot of people would be interested in building and
maintaining. It would, in my humble opinion, be the end of Wikipedia
to change into a WarmFuzzyPedia, and I will resist you to the last if
you insist on going that direction.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
Since I think this is a terrible analysis of the issue let me repeat my
response:
We're not talking about Brandt and mildly critical stuff on a
well-written and highly monitored article. We are not talking about
people trying to cover up neutral reports of the truth. That's a straw-man.
We are talking about downright libels, negative spinning, and outrageous
lies. We are talking about biographies that have pulled together every
detail of a minor small-town scandal, and ignored any positive
information whatsoever. People have a moral right not to be subjected to
that "WarmFuzzyPedia" or not.
We insist on neutrality, verifiability and 'due weight', but we are
hosting thousands of biographies that do not comply with these policies
and we have structures that have manifestly proven inadequate in dealing
with them.
If we host bios - we have a moral duty of care to the subject. We are
clearly in breach of that duty.
Yes, people don't get 'take down rights' in the real media - but real
media is produced by writers with real names and by publishers who take
legal responsibility, not written by ten year olds or clever anonymous
people with a malicious grudge and then published by non-responsible
foundation.
People have a absolute moral right not to have their name googled and
find that the highest ranking site (or perhaps only internet information
on them) has been written by a silly slanderous schoolkid, their
ex-husband's angry girlfriend, or a disgruntled ex-employee or rival out
to trash them. And often these subtle attacks are on the face reading
well-referenced and seemingly factual. Never spotted as simple vandalism.
People have a moral right not have to check their own biography for
hatchet jobs, and if they they do check it, and there is one, they have
an moral right to expect us to have a means of making sure it never
happens again.
If Wikipedia can't reasonable insure that people don't have these moral
rights infringed, then it has no business hosting their low-notability
biographies in the first place.
Comparisons with other internet user-contribution sites, and the claim
that we are better than them, are misleading. They don't claim to be
'encyclopedias' and they don't usually form the number one hit when a
private individual's name gets googled.
If I put a sheet of paper up in the local youth club, and some malicious
person writes the untruth 'John Smith was arrested for child-abuse',
then I can reasonably claim that the responsibility lies solely with the
writer and not with me. But if I put a ten foot billboard above John
Smith's house, with the invitation "come and write the encyclopedic
truth about John', and leave the paint lying about, I need to bear some
responsibility when the anonymous libeler places his giant statement.
This IS our ethical problem, and we need to do more to solve it.
Doc