US Wikimedians (and anyone who can get ABC): there will be a story
about Wikimedia on ABC's Nightline tonight; those who were at
Wikimania may remember seeing them filming. No, I don't know the focus
of the story, but I'd be surprised if it were entirely rosy, given the
show's usual fare. Check your local listings...
(I was one of many interviewed for it and have no idea what they'll use.)
-Kat
who has to go find a TV set now
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | G/AIM:LucidWaking
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
The good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving
-- Lao-Tzu Wikia: creating communities - http://www.wikia.com
Hello,
The following is a modified version of an announcement I posted on Recent
Changes:
Times have changed in Wikipedia. Once, our goal was to cover as much as
possible, to reach a million articles, to be the biggest encyclopedia in the
world. As Jimbo said in his talk at Wikimania, we have to start changing the
focus from quantity to quality. We have to make sure that the key articles that
we do have are as good as possible. Rather than getting another million
articles, I believe that we need 100,000 more Feature-quality articles.
Some numbers that were run yesterday show that we have over 230,000 without
any sources whatsoever. That's almost 20 percent of our total articles
without any sources. Even if we were to provide sources for 15 of these articles an
hour, it would take upward of two years to cover them all … and this does not
include articles which are inadequately sourced or which contain spurious
information, which raise this number by several orders of magnitude.
Before suggesting that these are all stubs, I invite you to look at some
examples: [[Amethyst]], [[Alto saxophone]], [[Alexander I of Russia]] (who
fought against Napoleon), [[Italian literature]], etc., etc., etc. These articles
are the mainstay of a quality encyclopedia.
This means is that there is a lot of work ahead of us. It is time to shift
the focus. I therefore propose two solutions:
1. The field "Requests" on "Recent Changes" be changed to "Requested feature
articles." Instead of asking people to create brand new article, the focus
should be on improving existing articles.
2. Regular contests should be held to promote article improvement. To that
end, I will donate $100 in books and media from Amazon to the person who most
improves an unsourced article related to history or selected from
[[Wikipedia:Vital articles]]. The contest will end on October 7. A panel of judges will
be selected to decide on the entries. For more information about what
constitutes an "unsourced article" please contact me. For historical reasons, this
will be known as "Danny's third contest."
I hope to see as many people participating in this contest as participated
in the previous two.
Danny
(Note:The original message ended up in a moderator queue for being too
long. Plain text version only -Elec)
Greetings, Electrawn here. I think this is a perfect opportunity to
introduce myself since I am being flamed on the list here without a proper
invite. I will mention the articles in reference. Defamation and False light
are serious problems with wikipedia and need to be addressed now.
Eventualism is not going to work in this case, this is a ticking bomb that
has already gone off twice, first with Siegenthaler, and parodied with
"Wikiality." If we are going to hand off cluesticks in posts, we should hand
them to the reflections in the mirror. We need to resolve the issues before
the messengers and lawyers arrive with a subpoena.
Reference/Disclaimer: The information in this post derives from talk at Kyra
Phillips and Jeff Gannon. Kyra Phillips is a CNN news anchor who seems to
lean conservative. Jeff Gannon was a reporter with dubious credentials
involved in a white house scandal. Administrator Rob/Gamaliel is currently
in arbitration with editor Crockspot over edits to Jeff Gannon.
For much of this post, I suggest readers read
http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi .
> Of course I fully support the spirit and motives behind BLP and
> obviously I see the urgent need to make sure serious allegations
> against living people are fully and reliably sourced. But people are
> stretching BLP far beyond what it should be used to combat - unsourced
> and unreliable assertions. Now people are using it to remove all
> sorts of critical information that would reasonably be included and to
> further their own ideological agendas. Some examples, all typed in
> with presumably a straight face.
The contrary to that is that criticisms of Kyra Phillips were petty, not
really criticisms, and provided NPOV:Undue Weight to tiny minority
arguments. In regards to defamation and potential libel, the
statements/criticisms on the Kyra Phillips are likely (
http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi#QID526) Defamation per se:
- Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession,
trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in
those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or
by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or
business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits.
Journalists pride themselves on objectivity and painting them as unobjective
or biased may cause injury. The section itself may paint Kyra Phillips in a
false light, (http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi#QID726).
Yes, it seems by letting a tiny majority have equal say, this is potential
defamation.
Legal or illegal, such biographies should be given benefit of the doubt and
extreme careful vetting to negative criticism. Its an encyclopedia, not a
soapbox. If an editor rushes to add one negative thing without adding two
positive things, that should be a clear clue that its an agenda and NPOV.
BLP is not just for combating "unsourced and unreliable assertions." BLP is
an policy to combat against defamation. WP:LIBEL needs to be defined to
protect wikipedia from both agenda editors and lawsuit happy individuals.
Lets beat this in like a headon commercial.
BLP is a policy to protect biography subjects and wikipedia from defamation.
BLP is a policy to protect biography subjects and wikipedia from defamation.
BLP is a policy to protect biography subjects and wikipedia from defamation.
Addressing critical information: Most "critical information" in wikipedia is
from a tiny minority. Some of these editors are cranks, some are well
meaning or mastermind schemers. In an article about an inanimate object,
like say pluto, wikipedia eventualism can have its way. Dead people don't
have careers, just legacy. Eventualism can discuss whether Abraham Lincoln
was gay all day. In a BLP article, the defamation per se ramifications put
the subject, editors, wikipedia and wikimedia foundation in potential legal
trouble. This requires immediatism, which is contrary to how most editors
act and feel about wikipedia. (Consensus building, etc.).
"Ideological agenda." Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a tabloid newspaper,
nor a bunch of other things. Wikipedia is moving from concept to
authoritative. The more relevant wikipedia becomes, the more potential
damage from defamation in BLP articles. The stakes become higher. Expert
Editors are realizing the stakes are becoming high and becoming discontent
and flaming out (see WP:Expert Retention). Openness is what made wikipedia
reach critical mass and will be critical to its reaching fully authoritative
status in the future. The US is still a nation of laws (as much as we hate
them and those that create the laws) and we can't throw those out just
because they are inconsistent with a majority of wikipedian editors.
Personally, I find Kyra Phillips and the criticisms on her page amusing but
irrelevant. The criticisms are dangerous when seen from a libel perspective,
and BLP has to be used like a fist to keep it out of the article until it is
negative criticisms are carefully gone over with a fine toothed comb and
polishing cloth. My thoughts on Jeff Gannon are he probably is a prostitute
and there are certainly big problems with his white house access. Still,
claims of sexual impropriety are strong defamation per se, and need the fine
comb and polish cloth...and then again twice more for good measure.
BLP:When in doubt, keep it out.
BLP:When in doubt, keep it out.
BLP:When in doubt, keep it out.
...
Now I "threw the book" at Kyra Phillips as a sort of test case. While
NPOV:Undue is much much stronger, WP:V requires that editors with dubious
sourcing have the burden of proof in BLP instances to keep a dubious claim
in. It is much easier to attack a dubious source than dubious claims. WP:V
with WP:RS has much more of a yes or no factor than the NPOV:undue
Maybe/maybe not.
>* A man who posted nude pictures of himself on websites whose domains
>he registered advertising himself as a $200-an-hour gay prostitute can
> not be identified as a prostitute.
>
>
This related to [[Jeff Gannon]], and the potential defamation per se is
ugly:
- Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted,
convicted, or punished for crime; (
http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi#QID726)
- Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity.
- Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession,
trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in
those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or
by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or
business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;
I suppose we could even use the disease claim, since prostitutes are known
for likely having diseases. Claiming a guy is a prostitute nails the head of
defamation per se. WP:V isn't enough here if using primary sources, editors
better make sure this is TRUTH before allowing it in wikipedia as a fact.
The more "true" phrasing is to use the word alleged. Alleged prostitute is
much easier to prove true. Did the media at the time bring up allegations of
impropriety and prostitution? Sure did. Using wikipedia to say he IS a
prostitute? Potential libel, lets have a media source with a fact checking
department or a grand jury indictment/trial or a book publisher and author
sort that out. Using an op-ed piece in a primary source form to back up the
claim is dubious. A secondary source here is REQUIRED.
The "agenda" here is wikipedia CYA.
> * The Financial Times cannot be used as a source in an article about a
> journalist because they "report on finances issues" and thus are
> "unreliable" when it comes to other matters.
>
> This is related to Kyra Phillips
Field of view. Sources get more unreliable as they report on matters outside
their focus subject. While your surgeon is qualified to remove your gall
bladder, is he qualified to replace your auto transmission? Can an auto
mechanic remove your gall bladder? Now this analogy is specific to
defamation. Think of the surgeon as a potential BLP source, the gall bladder
as negative criticism and the body as the BLP subject. The auto mechanic
here is just a regular source, maybe even the same BLP source, your
transmission is negative criticism and the auto is a non BLP subject. If the
surgeon screws up your car, you are just likely out time, money and a means
of transportation. If the auto mechanic screws up your gall bladder surgery,
you may die. The point here is BLP articles have much higher stakes,
certainly not death itself, but death equivalent if they have no career.
This calls into play use of FT in a BLP article...use of FT may be fine in
any article, say Pluto...but a UK papers commentary of a US journalist may
be dubious.
Irrespective, the FT source use in the article wasn't criticism, more a
notable instance of stupidity regarding what Kyra Phillips said. It did not
back up claims of "conservative bias" or my assertion of possible bad
objectivity. It was just a stupid thing to say, and journalists make them on
rare occasions. The framing of the statement was used to support a "bias"
claim, which may be false light.
Personally, attacking FT as a source is a devil's advocate argument. I
certainly believe a UK paper can comment on a US journalist and do it
fairly, objectively, and not be a dubious source. There are much bigger
problems with the section/statements in general than claiming FT as a
dubious source. However, since it is much more defined on what a dubious
source is in policy, it is easy to chip away at the libel rocks using this
method.
* The Columbia Journalism Review is a reliable source. A blog run by
> the Columbia Journalism Review on the website of the Columbia
> Journalism Review is not.
>
>
I will state I don't think the blog of CJR is a dubious source. I would
think by having the name CJR as part of the name of the blog, the reputation
and editorial oversight of the CJR journal extends to the blog. Another
brought up significant questions of the blogs oversight and self published
sources. Since those tests were generally unanswered, even though I strongly
don't agree, I still follow "when in doubt keep it out" regarding the
source. This is contrary to the way most editors are acting, but this method
of keeping out till proven reliable should be the standard, not the
exception.
* The New Republic, among other reputable, long-standing publications,
> cannot be used as a source because they are "too partisan".
>
>
Field of view again. How far is the politics of a publication too far? Much
of this boils down is way too many articles using PRIMARY sources
rather than secondary ones. Partisan magazines should be used in articles
discussing politics, not in biographies of journalists, authors, etc. This
is a fundamental wikipedia credibility problem. Using primary sources like
these brings up NPOV issues for the entire article. This also brings up
false light problems in BLP articles.
I think The New Republic and The Nation have a place in articles such as US
Political Newspapers, US Politics, Democrats and Republicans, but their use
in a biography of a journalist should be avoided.
Rob forgets to mention a more obvious case....Can Southern Voice, a gay
newspaper with a LGBT audience, be a reliable source for a BLP article? My
assertion is no way can a LGBT newspaper be assumed not to be far left and
too partisan/too advocacy journalism for a wikipedia source. There may be
perception that I have an anti-homosexual agenda, which is false. I don't
find a church bulletin or "Christian newspaper" as an acceptable source
either. 501(3) non profits need careful scrutiny as well.
>* Partisan organizations and publications, even long-standing and
> reputable ones, cannot be used in an article at all, even to
> substantiate the fact that there is partisan criticism of the subject
> of the article. I'm not taking about someone objecting to "John Doe
> did this bad thing", I'm talking about people objecting to the article
> saying "X, Y, and Z criticize John Doe, saying this thing he did may
> have been bad."
>
In this case I think Rob is misreading the talk discussion. I have never
objected to the use of a direct quote, however, I will still bring up use of
that quote versus NPOV:undue, and notability of the person making the
criticism. Once in direct quote form, that won't end discussion on its use.
In this case, there is no "X, Y, Z" more like just X. X is from the Poynter
institute, a journalistic education and ethics think tank. Quite qualified
to criticize a journalist, however, is one criticism enough about one
specific issue worthy of a biography article? How about when the critic is
not directly criticizing the biography subject, just news journalist in
general?
> In addition to well-intentioned people wildly misapplying BLP and RS,
> we may have handed a powerful new weapon to POV warriors, who wish to
> sanitize all the articles about their ideological fellow travelers. A
> well-meaning user has created the "Libel Protection Unit", but this is
> the same person who thinks that you are libeling someone by quoting
> something said by the "unreliable" Financial Times, and among the
> people he's unwittingly recruited for his new group and have eagerly
> signed up are some notorious POV warriors and at least one certified
> troll. I realize that what I'm writing may not show much good faith,
> but based on what I've seen from some of these folks and the
> statements I've noted above, I fear that this LPU will do much to
> remove legitimate material from the encyclopedia and do little to
> protect us from actual libel. Some people have weighed in with
> sensible remarks, like Jmabel at [[Wikipedia talk:Libel-Protection
> Unit]], but I think more people should do so before this gets out of
> hand.
>
Just the nature and framing of this post should be insight into the
defamation potential and problems with Libel on Wikipedia. We obviously
don't worry about NPOV on mailing lists, but you can see without my
perspective, this post and thread has just generated a bunch of "yup yup"
within the metapedian perspective. In short, please don't shoot the
messenger. Concerns about this group getting out of control are unfounded, I
repeatedly am attempting to build consensus before action. All sorts of
people were invited to participate who have concerns about NPOV, Bias, BLP
and Libel...possible "POV warriors" and "trolls" too. Of the initial people
invited, I invited a "POV warrior" by the username of Gamaliel. Gamaliel has
made repeated reversions to pages to versions containing potential libelous
material rather than leaving it out when confronted with BLP policy. I fully
understand the nature and culture of eventualism, hence why I took a bit of
tea, put on the thinking cap and came up with a working group for Libel
issues. Still, there are no innocents here, including admitted acts of bad
faith. No attempts have been made to exclude anyone, the more eyeballs and
consensus the better.
Since this post, Jossi has renamed the unit BLP Patrol, [[WP:BLPP]]. Before
the group can act, defamation needs to be strictly defined on wikipedia.
Reliable sources have a much more strict definition and are one method I use
for bringing up potential libel issues if NPOV:Undue isn't obvious. There
are severe problems with [[WP:LIBEL]], wikimedia and the legal team, as well
as members of florida bar and wikipedia law project really need to get
involved with the discussion and crafting of [[WP:LIBEL]]. Experts and legal
advice are needed badly.
Action is needed yesterday. See [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:LIBEL]], [[WP:BLPP]].
Jason "Electrawn" Potkanski
On 13/09/06, Nathaniel <spangineer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess I would be hesitant to judge the overall FAC process based on the
> interaction between Francesco and FAC regulars. Rare are FACs that get so
> heated (I recall the GNAA and Bulbasaur FACs, and that's it). In this case,
> it seems both sides (I include myself in this) got defensive when they
> perceived that their opinions were under attack (for Francesco, that his
> writing was poor, and for Tony/Sandy/Me, that the standards we've been
> applying to FACs for months are faulty). In the end (which occurred after
> Francesco's initial complaints on WT:FAC), I think pretty much everyone
> agreed that the article was at least somewhat better than it was when the
> nomination started. And everyone was much more calm, that's for sure.
I think a process which tests Wikipedia content creators to
destruction, and whose advocates actually think this is a good thing
for a process to do, is prima facie pathological and needs removal as
soon as possible. It's way too damaging to the community.
> As for people disappearing and not striking their objections, yes, that
> happens, but in my experience Raul usually ignores these after several days
> if the nominator makes a note under the objection saying that he/she has
> addressed the objection. Of course, sometimes it doesn't work out that way,
> especially for nominations receiving few comments.
I'm wondering if FAC shouldn't be officially deprecated - it could be
preserved as a source of quirkies for the front page, but it certainly
seems less and less like anything to do with general Wikipedia
quality.
- d.
The Daily Telegraph is working on a feature about Wikipedia and asked
me for contact details for 'notable UK Wikipedians'. Anyone here feel
they could reasonably put themselves forward as "notable UK
Wikipedians"? (And you're *so* doing this, Alison.) Please email me
:-)
- d.
Seen on the openrightsgroup.org.uk list:
13 September 2006
http://www.britac.ac.uk/news/release.asp?Newsid=219
A report from the British Academy, to be launched on 18 September,
expresses fears that the copyright system may in important respects be
impeding, rather than stimulating, the prouction of new ideas and new
scholarship in the humanities and social sciences.
It is in the nature of creative activity and scholarship that original
material builds on what has gone before – 'if I have seen further, it is
because I had stood on the shoulders of giants' – therefore provisions
that are overly protective of the rights of existing ideas may inhibit
the development of new ones.
Existing UK law provides exemption from copyright for fair dealing with
material for purposes of private study and non-commercial research, and
for criticism and review. "There is, however, little clarity about the
precise scope of these exemptions, and an absence of case law" said John
Kay, who is Chair of the Working Group which oversaw the Review.
"Publishers are risk-averse, and themselves defensive of existing
copyrights."
The situation is aggravated by the increasingly aggressive defence of
copyright by commercial rights holders, and the growing role – most of
all in music – of media businesses with no interest in or understanding
of the needs of scholarship. It is also aggravated by the unsatisfactory
EU Database Directive, which is at once vague and wide-ranging, and by
the development of digital rights management systems, which may enable
publishers to use technology to circumvent the exceptions to copyright
which are contained in current legislation.
The Academy publishes with the report a draft set of guidelines for
Fellows and scholars on their rights and duties under copyright
legislation. They include
* authors and producers of original creative material should
understand that their interests in copyright are not necessarily
identical with those of publishers and should not rely on publishers to
protect them
* the law should be clarified - statutorily if necessary – to make
clear that the use of copyright material in the normal course of
scholarly research in universities and other public research
institutions is covered by the exemptions from the copyright act.
* publishers should not be able to use legal or technological
protection through digital rights management systems to circumvent
copyright exemptions
* the growth of digital databases should be monitored to ensure that
ready access continues to be available for the purposes of scholarship
This report parallels a report from the Royal Society, Keeping science
open: the effects of intellectual property on the conduct of science
(2003), which expresses related worries about the ways in which
intellectual property, its interpretation and its use, impact on the
progress of science.
NOTES TO EDITORS
1. Please contact Ms V Hurley at v.hurley(a)britac.ac.uk or call 020
7969 5268 for copies of the report and guidelines.
2. For briefings and interviews please contact Professor John Kay –
Chair of the Review Working Group that produced the report, preferably
on either Wednesday 13 or Thursday 14 September – johnkay(a)johnkay.com or
call 020 7224 8797.
3. For further media enquires relating the Review please contact
Michael Reade, External Relations Department m.reade(a)britac.ac.uk or
telephone 020 7969 5263.
4. The Academy's Review was set up in November 2005 before the
establishment of the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property. The Review
Working Group took the lead in preparing the Academy's response to the
call for evidence that was issued in February 2006 by the Gowers Review
of Intellectual Property, which was established by the government to
examine the UK's in intellectual property framework, and determine
whether improvements can be made to it, especially in the context of
rapid technological change and globalisation. The Academy's submission
to Gowers is available from http://www.britac.ac.uk/reports. The
timetable of the Academy's Review means that this report has been
published before the results of the Gowers Review are known.
5. The British Academy is the National Academy for the Humanities and
Social Sciences. Established by Royal Charter in 1902, the British
Academy is an independent learned society promoting the humanities and
social sciences. It is composed of Fellows elected in recognition of
their distinction as scholars in the humanities and social sciences.
6. Further details about the British Academy may be found at:
http://www.britac.ac.uk
- d.
Hi all,
Huge libraries (large / U.S. Ivy League universities' libraries, public
libraries in world-class cities, Library of Congress, etc.) spend unbelievable
amounts of money on buying books and magazines every year. Books and magazines
are great, but there are certain subjects with no relevant books or magazine
articles available. Example: TV. For any popular TV show, Wikipedia has a main
article and numerous subarticles on characters, episodes, and so on. For some
subjects, Wikipedia is truly the best choice for information.
I propose we band together and start a WikiPrint service. We could somehow make
it easy for schools, corporations and libraries to print out subsets of
Wikipedia: e.g. if they want a PDF of a whole category to send to an online
print-on-demand shop, we compile the PDF for them, add a nice cover page etc.,
and send it to the shop for them if they like. They would pay us for the
service.
I am not sure if this would be a for-profit service or a free service (e.g.
part of the WikiPress system). For-profit would mean we would be able to
promote ourselves more and we would be more motivated to do well.
Would this be a useful / popular service? What kinds of customers would come to
us? For example, a question for you librarians among us: would libraries be
interested in such a service?
Jason Spiro
Computer programming student and Wikipedian
Toronto, Canada
--
Jason Spiro: computer consulting with a smile.
I also do computer training and spyware removal for homes and businesses.
Call or email for a FREE 5-minute consultation. Satisfaction guaranteed.
jasonspiro4(a)gmail.com / 416-781-5938 / Skype ID: jasonspiro
I am curious if there is any factual data about how many clicks per day, on
average, that a run-of-the-mill outbound link receives in the "External
links" section of a typical Wikipedia article? My guess is that it's
somewhere around 3 or 4, but that's just me looking at it as a [[Fermi
problem]].
--
Gregory Kohs
thekohser(a)gmail.com
Cell: 302.463.1354
> So, would something like {{GFDL-self}} be used for this, or is a new
> tag needed? Does Commons have any guidelines on this or is tagging
> images you obviously didn't take yourself {{GFDL-self}} common
> practice? (cc'ing commons-l)
>
I'm not sure if that is the best tag, but at the same time I wouldn't yell at
you for using {{XXX-self}}. The important thing is not so much that you,
yourself, created the work, but that you, yourself, are entitled to release it
under that license (and you hereby do so). Being the sole creator of the work
is, of course, the most common case.
Dan