>>Brion:What would such a policy need to say that the Neutral Point of View
policy does not?
Well, Daniel once again has got the feel for the issue... that is that NPOV
and being sued for libel are two different things... I can understand what
youre getting at Brion.. that they are related, with regard to an editors
point of view, But still, we here are involved in making policy and crafting
some general ways of dealing with related (even outside in the legal world)
issues so that later, when these things might come up, they've been thought
through somewhat beforehand.
NPOV is a good general policy.. but when Libel really means someone trying
to edit Wikipedia through a legal interface, rather than the normal one.
Here, of course, as I've said on the T:W:Libel page, theres a burden of
responsibility automatically placed on someone to make a change themselves,
if something is incorrect... Im sure this has been said before, in similar
words.. So, I dont think WP has much to worry about at all... If its true,
and the tribe sticks to it... and yet they want to sue... fine... That would
be one of the easier cases to argue... lawyer or not...
So, yes its an issue.. and having a foundation would inevitably mean a
policy with regard to being sued. And whatever policy that is.. simply by
nature of being solidified into some guide, would have some minimal bearing
on the freedoms Wikipedians enjoy in editing articles.
Funny enough, a major Libel case - Richard Perle is going to sue Seymour
Hirsch (and The New Yorker) for his column... not here in the US, but in
England... go figure... the laws there are apparently more favorable to him,
despite the fact that neither lives there, and the circulation there is a
sliver of what it is here. -Steve
He has not at all headed the advice or warnings of anybody and continues to
not even attempt to accommodate other users. He has yet to answer and
follow-up on /a single/ question or plea on his talk page about his behavior.
The closest he has come has been a response to Tarquin about the the KROQ
articles. But most of the time he just blanks his talk page or says "OK",
"fine" or "whatever" and then continues to do the /same/ things he was asked
not to do. Now he just replied to another suggestion;
:Yeah, yeah, yeah. ''WHAT'' ''FUCKING'' ''EVER!'' - Michael
I'm fed-up with watching other contributions get worn-down by this
unrepentant, unreformable, anti-social behavior. Everything this user
"contributes" has to be checked for accuracy and a good deal of it is just
plain wrong. Worse, after he is informed that it is wrong he has /reinserted/
the same "information".
I have seen no improvement since Jimbo's warning and I think it is now to kick
Michael off the island (in fact, his response to Jimbo's message was to blank
his talk page). He does edit each day with a different IP but we have learned
with 142.177 that simply reverting everything he posts soon after posting it
(SoftSecurity) should do the job (an IP block would be nearly useless here
since he edits in the 64.175.xxx.xxx range)
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
WikiKarma
The usual at [[March 23]]
I am not going to justify protecting the page. Rather, I will relate my perspective as to what happened.
In the morning, there was an email to the list saying that 172 has returned and that we should be wary of his edits. Upon opening Wikipedia, I saw that he had just removed chunks of text from the Mugabe article. His edits were clearly POV. For example, the article said that he had killed political opponents, and he changed "killed" to "suppressed." I reverted that (and this was the source of my comment "Call a spade a spade.") He also removed any text that was critical of Mugabe. I restored the text, and he removed it again. This seesawing went on for quite some time, with him commenting that the text wasn't worthwhile. (The history shows this). Rather than spend another hour reverting back and forth, I protected the page and informed the list. It was immediately unprotected, and 172 began making charges of imperialism, etc. and saying that the criticisms of Mugabe were unfounded and should be removed. He also began adding text to the article, which Eric Moller pointed out was plagiarized. As the morning progressed, Eric, Jtdirl, and myself were going back and forth restoring texts that 172 decided to delete because they did not meet his POV. The whole thing went on for over four hours.
I am not justifying the original block. I simply regarded it as a way of stopping a form of vandalism--and yes, I believe that forcing POV on an article and erasing text because it does not conform to a particular POV is a form of vandalism. I also added material to counter claims that 172 made. Frankly, I don't care if they are in or not. I do, however, have a problem with taking an individual who is obviously controversial and removing all material that sheds light on the background to the controversy. I also have a problem with plagiarism, and expect more from someone who claims to have a PhD in history with a field of specialization in that field.
Danny
I can't stress enough how much I would like for a
discussion of the war in Iraq to take place somewhere
other than the mailing list. Why don't the interested
parties decide where to hold the discussion, announce
which page that is, and then continue the discussion
there?
thanks
kq
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
We need to come up with a neutral, timeless name for the war
in Iraq. Forgive me for the length of this post, but I
believe it's important enough to warrant your attention.
I object to the incessant labeling of the war in Iraq as
the "invasion of Iraq". There is a lot more to the war than
the fact that 2 or 3 countries have invaded it.
Regardless of our personal feelings about how right or wrong
the conduct of any nation in the war has been, the
*articles* should:
* have neutral content
* have neutral titles
Let me lay my cards on the table, so you don't
misunderstand. My church opposes the US campaign: Bush was
wrong to attack. I agree with that POV. Many others do,
also, although perhaps not for precisely the same religious
reasons as Rev. Moon.
However, even though I'm "right" about my POV and most
Wikipedians happen to agree with me...
WE ALL AGREED TO ADHERE TO JIMBO'S NEUTRAL-POINT-OF-VIEW
POLICY
Excuse me for shouting, but several of us have been
confounding neutral-point-of-view with other things. I'm not
naming names and not engaging in prolepsis or other Roman
rhetorical tricks. I just want to fix the problem, so let's
all pitch in, please.
The war started in 2003, and it's taking place in Iraq
(which is near the Persian Gulf), so we might call it:
* the [[2003 war in Iraq]] or [[2003 Iraq War]]
* the [[2003 Gulf War]]
There are various military campaigns. I know of 4 countries
fighting against Iraq (the "allies" or "coalition"). We
should write about the war from the standpoint that there
are two sides in the war:
* Iraq
* US, UK, Australia & Poland
(I might be wrong about Australia or Poland; if so, that's
an important detail and please correct me.)
(There might be other countries which are parties to the
conflict. Maybe Iraq has a military or other ally which I
don't know about; if so, we should write about that ally!
There are up to 4 dozen countries in various degrees of
opposition to Iraq, and we've begun an article or two on
them.)
Also, I think "coalition of the willing" is a purely
political phrase: propaganda, i.e., a slogan. I don't think
it makes a good title for either of the following topics:
* the countries which oppose Iraq in the 2003 war, or
* every country which has made a statement or taken action
FOR OR AGAINST IRAQ
The latter topic, especially, would be just plain stupid to
call [[coalition of the willing]] because by design it
includes opponents.
I started dividing the [[coalition of the willing]] article
into:
* a short article about the slogan "coalition of the
willing"
* a longer article, tentatively called [[US-led coalition
against Iraq]]
But the "...coalition" article lists every nation in the
world which has ever made a statement or taken action on the
war. Roughly, there are around 2 or 3 dozen nations ranged
against Iraq (in word or deed) and maybe 5 dozen speaking up
for them or providing aid.
Shouldn't we have an article which lists the positions of
each nation of the world on this war? If so, what should we
call it? How about [[national positions on the 2003 war in
Iraq]]? Can we think of a shorter or more accurate title?
I hate to keep taking discussion off the talk pages, but
this is the only central place I know of, and talk gets
fragmented and overlooked too easily when discussing
multiple articles.
Ed Poor
Oops!
I just noticed that the "Daniel" whom I was lecturing was Daniel Mayer, aka Maveric -- not Daniel Ehrenberg (LittleDan).
Thus the condescending tone of my message seems doubly out of place.
Apologies all around :-(
Contritely,
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Poor, Edmund W.
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 8:58 AM
To: 'wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org'
Subject: Writing about Saddam (was: Be on the lookout, 172 is back)
Hey, Daniel, I hate to throw it back in your face, but...
Around here, the usual policy is:
1. If you see a problem, fix it.
2. If you can't fix it by yourself, ask for help.
I think you are capable of:
* attributing controversial statements to their adherents
* mentioning that So-and-so has called Saddam's policies "oppressive"
* mentioning that Whosis believes that Saddam has "terrorized" his own people
* reporting on the extent to which speaking out against him has gotten people killed
* writing (or linking to) an article about Saddam's use of chemical weapons against the Iranians and Kurds
* writing (or linking to) an article about uprisings following the first Gulf War, and the outcome of those uprisings, e.g., Joe StraightArrow said "Saddam brutally crushed the uprising in al-Giraffe, killing N thousand unarmed civilians" or whatever.
This might seem like a lot of work to you, but remember that you asked to become a sysop. People expect more!
Ed Poor
> This is a violation of sysop guidelines. You are
> not allowed to protect a page where an edit war
> occurs in which you yourself are involved. Please
> do not do this. I have unprotected the page.
> Sysops are NOT editors.
It's not as strict as that. I see nothing wrong with:
1. Telling the list you protected the article (and why).
2. Making ONE LAST EFFORT toward neutral POV.
3. Then butting out until a consensus emerges.
I would only worry, Erik, if someone made a practice of getting the last word by repeatedly doing the above.
In this case, another sysop selected another version to revert it to, so no harm was done.
Ed Poor
----
"Don't cry till you're hurt". --Robert Heinlein, ''The Man Who Traveled in Elephants''
Ed Poor wrote:
>Sheldon, I think you worry too much -- at least, as far
>as Jimbo and the Wikipedia project are concerned.
>
>Wikipedia is a work in progress. I don't think anyone
>would bother to launch a libel action against it, if for
>no other reason than it's hard to hit a moving target.
I certainly hope you're right, but people file libel actions for all
sorts of reasons, some of which are unfair and unreasonable. People
sue in hopes of getting a quick cash settlement; they sue because
they're jerks or because they're paranoid; sometimes they sue because
they're in the right.
Given the nature of my own project, I certainly want to make sure
that I understand how libel law could affect the Disinfopedia.
However, I don't think you can just *assume* that no one would bother
to sue Wikipedia. Currently you're a much larger target than
Disinfopedia, reaching a larger potential audience and therefore a
larger pool of potential litigants. Even if we assume that the
average Wikipedian is less likely to sue than the average
Disinfopedian, you still may be at higher risk.
--
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------
Awhile back, Jimbo wrote:
>>From our perspective, NPOV is a great mechanism for avoiding libel,
>because it's pretty hard to libel someone without taking any position.
His point at the time was that my Disinfopedia is inherently more
controversial and confrontational than Wikipedia. Being controversial
arguably creates more INCENTIVE for someone to sue. Regarding the
question of actual LIABILITY, however, I don't think NPOV offers the
protection that Jimbo thinks.
The Wikipedia editorial policy is "neutral point of view." My
Disinfopedia policy is "fair and accurate." Either of those policies,
if practiced consistently and completely, should offer protection
against a successful libel action. (Actually, I think "fair and
accurate" offers slightly better protection, because it may be easier
to define "accurate" than "neutral.") In practice, however, 100%
compliance doesn't exist. The real question is what happens if
someone wants to sue over an article that they think fails to meet
one of these standards.
To put this in concrete terms, let's consider how someone might write
an article about Jeffrey Dahmer. It is certainly fair and accurate to
say that Dahmer was a serial killer and human cannibal. I haven't
looked at the Wikipedia article on Dahmer, but I imagine that's what
it says about him, and I can't imagine anyone seriously claiming that
these statements violate the NPOV rule. Moreover, Dahmer's relatives
would have no basis for a lawsuit, because this characterization is
true. It's been proven in court, and Dahmer admitted it.
Now let's imagine a hypothetical situation in which a false urban
legend has been circulating that MERV GRIFFIN is a serial killer and
human cannibal. This claim gets added to the Wikipedia by someone who
believes it. Griffin responds by suing for libel.
You can't really argue that a NPOV rule prevents Wikipedians from
calling ANYONE a serial killer and human cannibal. Therefore, the
question of whether it's OK to say this about Merv Griffin ultimately
devolves to whether it is a "fair and accurate" statement.
From a strict NPOV perspective, in fact, you would have to refrain
from taking a position either way about Merv's eating habits. Once
someone has inserted that claim in an article, subsequent editors
must either (1) delete the claim entirely, because it's ridiculous,
thereby asserting a point of view; or (2) offer a tortured
construction such as, "Some people allege that Merv Griffin kills
people and eats them; most people, however, contend that this is
ridiculous." If you adopt #2 (the strict NPOV construction), Merv
might still have grounds for libel action.
I'm certainly not trying to suggest that the Disinfopedia editorial
policy is better than the Wikipedia policy. The two policies simply
serve different purposes. However, I'm questioning whether
Wikipedia's policy offers as much protection against libel action as
some people seem to think.
--
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------