[WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of l...

[doc]

WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 4/21/2009 11:37:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
> arromdee at rahul.net writes:
> 
> 
>> And this doesn't even touch the issue of what to do with information is
>> verifiable but false.>>
>> -------------------
>>
>>
> 
> Biographical details aren't "True" or "False".
> They are reported, repeated, cited, confirmed, evidenced, and so on.
> 
> Biography is no longer under the Dewey Decimal system.  The idea that a 
> biography, or even an auto-biography (or especially) is reporting "Truth" is an 
> old fiction itself.
> 
> If the subject of a Wiki-article feels that something is "false" the best 
> way to combat that is to publish themselves, on their own official website, 
> the "truth" of the matter and then link it in, or cite it.
> 
> We do not give BLP's control over what we report.  We give them equal 
> access.  If that person cannot be bothered to do that simple simple thing than 
> apparently they don't really care enough about the matter.
> 
> Will Johnson

This is the typical silly response that lies behind the BLP problem.

A few things need taken on board:

1) Having a fair and balanced BLP is not simply a matter of sources and 
verification. The most damaging BLPs I've seen, are the ones that select 
sources, spin facts, omit counterbalance to create a picture that looks 
neutral on a quick glance, but is actually a total distortion of truth.

2) Whilst it is very difficult to distinguish between the subject who is 
intent on getting his own hagiography or whitewash on his article, and 
the innocent subject who has been genuinely and unfairly maligned, that 
is NOT the damaged subject's fault. We need to assume all subjects have 
a genuine grievance until we are sure they don't. It is a bit like an 
asylum seeker argument - many/most may be "bogus" but you really can't 
initially treat them as such because some will be the victims of 
horrible torture and your system must not perpetuate that.

3) There ought to be NO onus on a BLP victim to do anything other than 
say "this article is wrong". Once the victim has complained, the onus is 
on Wikipedia to fix it. Does that make our job difficult? Yes. But we 
are the ones who opened a wiki and let someone write about him, not him. 
  It is useful if he works with us, has patience and learns our system - 
but we cannot expect this or demand this. It is a perfectly 
understandable response for a maligned person to blank, change, and 
spout legal threats. That's what I'd do.