Guy Chapman writes:
>On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 19:38:27 +0000, David Boothroyd
><david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I should like to clarify the issue in this dispute. The question is
> >not whether the blog is a 'source'; it is clearly not a source for
> >anything other than what is said on the blog. The issue is whether or
> >not to mention it in the article
>
>Er, no. The issue is whether to *link* it in the article. That is
>rather different.
No, not just that. I understand your position to be that the blog is
worthy of mention in the text but not worthy of a link. However, there
are other actors in this drama, who are the people who wish to have
all mention removed. They are the people I was reverting when you
blocked me for 3RR.
PS: If you look back to my edit to [[Anne Milton]] on 5 October, and
compare it with how the article stood immediately before Twobells'
contribution, where does that leave your still unproven theory that
the reason I want the blog mentioned is that I have a political
animus against Anne Milton? The relevant diff is
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_Milton&diff=79621472&oldid=7…
--
David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
david(a)election.demon.co.uk (home)
dboothroyd(a)westminster.gov.uk (council)
I should like to clarify the issue in this dispute. The question is
not whether the blog is a 'source'; it is clearly not a source for
anything other than what is said on the blog. The issue is whether or
not to mention it in the article; the subsidiary issue is, should that
question be answered in the affirmative, it should be linked to.
My position is that the answer to both questions is Yes. The following
reasons justify mentioning the blog:
1) The blog has been mentioned twice in the (UK) national press. The
first was in Damian Whitworth, "A strange case of espionage and warfare
inside the commuter belt", The Times, April 18, 2005, p. 28. The second
was Rod Liddle, "Battle of the Guildford gals", The Sunday Times, May 1,
2005, p. 15. I have undertaken an extensive search and have yet to find
any other site set up to target an individual candidate being mentioned
in the press. This is therefore a unique situation.
2) The blog has also been mentioned by Sandra Howard (wife of the
then Leader of the Opposition) in her election campaign blog.
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=sandra.howard.page&obj_id=122745
3) The fact that Anne Milton is quoted by Sandra Howard asserting that
Tim Ireland was "stalking" her through the weblog is particularly
significant. It is a notably extreme accusation.
4) It appears to be the only case where a blog about an MP has
continued to be updated. There have been others, but they have all gone
under. This one hasn't.
5) The author of the blog, Tim Ireland, is notable enough to have an
article about him. His notability is for his work on political blogs.
6) I do not propose to mention this in the article, but in my submission
the edit wars engaged in by supporters of Anne Milton (including by IP
addresses traced to the Parliamentary estate) who attempt to remove all
mention of it from the article, denote that it is considered notable by
them. See the article history.
I do not see how WP:BLP is engaged merely by mentioning that a critical
blog exists. It is potentially engaged by reporting Anne Milton's
reaction, but that has an unimpeachable source in The Times piece.
Now Guy imputes to me motives other than improving the encyclopaedia
to explain why I think it should be mentioned. This is really neither
here nor there to the merits of the case but I would invite anyone
wishing to examine the issue to look at my contributions on Talk:Anne
Milton starting in June.
Should the first question be decided in the affirmative, that the
blog is notable enough to be mentioned, then should it be linked? I
submit the answer is clearly "Yes". Once the article mentions the blog,
inquiring readers may wish to look at it for themselves. It simply
makes no sense to say that the blog is notable but yet not linkable.
Even the Wikipedia article on Goatse.cx links to a mirror to it.
I would make a proviso that the link to the blog should make clear
that the site is not in any sense neutral. It might also be
reasonable, though I don't think warranted, to have the site
address in text rather than as a hyperlink.
Perhaps I should say that as I understand Guy's position, he considers
that a link to the blog is acceptable from [[Tim Ireland]] but not
from [[Anne Milton]]. I cannot understand the internal logic of such a
position.
--
David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
david(a)election.demon.co.uk (home)
dboothroyd(a)westminster.gov.uk (council)
Charles R. Matthews writes:
>David Boothroyd wrote:
> > The question is
> > not whether the blog is a 'source'; it is clearly not a source for
> > anything other than what is said on the blog. The issue is whether or
> > not to mention it in the article; the subsidiary issue is, should that
> > question be answered in the affirmative, it should be linked to.
>
> >From WP:BLP:
>
>[...] insist on reliable third-party published
>sources and a clear demonstration of relevance
>to the person's notability.
>
>NB that it is the _person's notability_ in question. It is not just a
>matter of whether the blog has some notability, for close watchers of
>UK politics. It is a question of whether an MP, attacked by a blog, is
>in some way characterised for notability by such an attack. You are
>saying 'the only': i.e. the only pair of blog and MP in such a relationship.
I think you have slightly misread the policy. The point being made there
is that, in the case of negative material which does engage WP:BLP,
the negative material must have a relevance to the reason why the
person is considered notable. Therefore, if there was a blog set up to
attack Anne Milton for her treatment of her neighbours, that would fall
foul of that requirement because she is not notable by virtue of living
next to someone. However, in this case we have a blog which attacks her
for her political position: that passes the requirement because she is
notable for holding a political position.
This of course assumes that the mere existence of the blog does engage
WP:BLP. I do not see how this is the case. It is not even potentially
defamatory of person X to say that person Y does not like them.
> > 3) The fact that Anne Milton is quoted by Sandra Howard asserting that
> > Tim Ireland was "stalking" her through the weblog is particularly
> > significant. It is a notably extreme accusation.
>
>Well, the jury will have to describe whether objecting to such
>harassment makes Anne Milton more notable than otherwise. Or whether
>she is reacting as a normal person might well do.
That does beg the question of whether the existence of the blog or its
contents amounts to "harassment", or whether such harassment would be
over and above the level of scrutiny and fair comment anyone might
expect when standing for public office. I haven't made my mind up on
that.
>Of course being a normal person among Westminster politicians could
>be notability in itself?
Touché.
--
David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
david(a)election.demon.co.uk (home)
dboothroyd(a)westminster.gov.uk (council)
David Boothroyd wrote
<snip>
> The question is
> not whether the blog is a 'source'; it is clearly not a source for
> anything other than what is said on the blog. The issue is whether or
> not to mention it in the article; the subsidiary issue is, should that
> question be answered in the affirmative, it should be linked to.
>From WP:BLP:
[...] insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
NB that it is the _person's notability_ in question. It is not just a matter of whether the blog has some notability, for close watchers of UK politics. It is a question of whether an MP, attacked by a blog, is in some way characterised for notability by such an attack. You are saying 'the only': i.e. the only pair of blog and MP in such a relationship.
> 3) The fact that Anne Milton is quoted by Sandra Howard asserting that
> Tim Ireland was "stalking" her through the weblog is particularly
> significant. It is a notably extreme accusation.
Well, the jury will have to describe whether objecting to such harassment makes Anne Milton more notable than otherwise. Or whether she is reacting as a normal person might well do. Of course being a normal person among Westminster politicians could be notability in itself?
I think the case for saying the blog must be mentioned in the Anne Milton article is weakish.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
"Thomas Dalton" wrote
> I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here - if you're suggesting
> the quote could replace the source for verification purposes, that's
> just asking for people to post fake quotes - that's not what you're
> saying, is it?
Not at all. How do you get that? I'm not saying don't cite the source, I'm saying quote from the source as well. The two sentences out of the webpage you actually rely on, for example
>A well written article should make it perfectly clear
> what point is sourced from what citation without having to read the
> source. Also, all the relevant information from the source should be
> included in the article - that's the point of a source. So the quote
> would be redundant.
It's not always just about 'information'.
> > Wikipedia's readers are not only academics, and we do not aim at academics. We aim at a treatment superior to almost all journalism, but we do not assume the reader has the academic resources available.
>
> > Because our articles are not academic papers.
>
> True, but I still think the conventions are just as appropriate on
> Wikipedia as they are in academia.
They are not. Because academics write for fellow academics, and we do not. Said that already, I believe ...
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Gregory Maxwell says:
> The great irony is that now that we have within our
> community a concrete, intentional, and overt act of sexism to discuss
> ... our only list for discussing sexism is closed to the victims.
The second irony is that there is no list accessible to you for discussing
sexism, and yet I can still hear you discuss it. Loud and clear. From three
lists over. Let's tone it down then, shall we?
Allow me, if you will, to quote something from a week or so ago on the Other
Sexism Thread, written by yourself:
> In any case, the attacking tone this thread has taken.. especially by
> those who are claiming to be attacked is especially troublesome. I
> was and am honestly afraid to post my thoughts as a result of it. I
> think you should take a step back and think about that before
> replying.
Regards,
Dan Mehkeri
"Oldak Quill" wrote
> WikiFable sounds a little narrow in scope. I'm not sure what approach
> a larger project would take: creative writing in general?
Traditional dictionaries 'of phrase and fable' contain, as well as mythology, proverbs, folkways, odd expressions. Random page opening: a page with 'enfant terrible', 'England's Darling' (turns out to be Hereward the Wake), 'Queen's English', 'Englishman's home is his castle', inter alia. (And 'inter alia' is between 'IQ' and 'intercalary'.) The cover alludes to 'myth, folklore, legend and literature'.
I'm not suggesting anything quite so diffuse, but there is this genre of dictionary, and we already have the wiki dictionary, and quotation dictionary, in place.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Guy Chapman wrote
> I'd like to know whether it's worth the
> effort - in other words, is it OK to link an attack blog if it is
> mentioned elsewhere, albeit as a bit of local colour in the election
> coverage? I note that the blog is not linked from the Times article
> from which the text is sourced.
The defaults are that blogs are not reliable sources, and that we do not link to attack sites. You need to justify your characterisation of the blog as 'attack site'. The other party needs to justify this site as a reliable source. It is conceivable that both of you have adequate warrant for these claims.
Selectively linking to partisan sources is possible under policy, but naturally a 'shield' of NPOV must be present in the article.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Ray Saintonge wrote
> Perhaps I misread something to think that Charles was
> promoting the idea of a separate wiki for such things and pop culture.
I was promoting the idea of Wikifable, a place where myths could be written in narrative mode. As indeed a place to transwiki such material: so that we have a range of places. Superman on WP should be analytical and sourced, on Wikifable could give the outline of the Superman comix/TV/film stories.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>
> >Most dead-tree sources can be found a good library, which should be
> enough to verify it if we need to.
>
> Know anyone who has ever gone to a library to verify a Wikipedia
> citation? Ever had a suspicion about a dead-tree citation? Could you
> be bothered going to a library to check it out? Could you be bothered
> to click on a link?
>
Yes to all four. But it was to check out a citation in a book I wanted to read
anyway, and also it should be noted that I am a freak.
In a different case, there was an article on an obscure topic that was
plausible, had proper-looking references to both online and offline sources
written by subject-matter experts, and turned out to be total [[WP:BOLLOCKS]].
It was frustrating not to have access to some of the sources, but luckily in
this case the paper copies weren't needed. It was challenged it while the
article authors (or, likely, one author with multiple socks) were still writing
it, so they were there to answer requests to quote the relevant passages; they
also had a talent for self-conviction.
If it had been some time after the fact, it may have been a different story, and
the article might still exist. I don't know that I would have bothered to track
it down myself. It's not even clear I would even have successfully navigated
AfD, which was hard enough as it was. It has been my only AfD listing since I
started on... well, look at that, four years yesterday, virtual happy birthday
to me.
Dan