With reference to this Craigslist ad:
"I'm looking for an exprienced Wikipedia user/editor who understands thesite's guidelines for Neutral Point of View articles. Judging by someexisting articles on the site, my business is note-worthy but I myselfcannot contibute.
If you fit the description please tell me your Wikipedia username so I can see some of your work. Thanks
Location: Vancouver Compensation: $20/hour"
I couldn't charge you, but would be happy to look at what you want to do. If your business meets Wikipedia guidelines for notability I, and many other Wikipedia editors would be happy to write or edit articles which relate to it. Please keep in mind that if there is negative press coverage regarding your business, that also will probably eventually end up in the article too.
Fred Bauder
User:Fred Bauder
On 24 May 2007 at 13:50, "Bob Jones" <moryathhater(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Come on, let's get him.
>
> http://slashdot.org/~Moryath/
>
> Just mod his posts down wherever you find them. Whatever you need to do.
Yeah, that'll really show those anti-Wikipedians that they're totally
delusional when they claim that Wikipedians act as a cliquish
conspiracy to actively suppress criticism of their site.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
>>The Rachel Marsden article is good example of this problem. The article as now constituted
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&oldid=132306894
>>
>>is a product of long debate regarding such issues. There was great deal of press coverage regarding an incident early in her life, but the coverage of her current situation was rather thin. A long article about her which focused on the earlier situation was a rather nasty piece of work and did not present of fair picture of this person who had moved on long ago from the earlier troubles. I also think some editors were sticking their oar in because they did not like her politics.
>>
>>There was an arbitration:
>>
>>Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden
>>
>>Here is the basic principle applied: 'Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that information which concerns living subjects be verifiable and that biographies "should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."'
>>
>This seems like support for activist judges. I didn't recognize the name
>until I went to the article. The Fox Channel is generally not available
>in the Vancuver area where I live. The incident that led to her criminal
>conviction is certainly well-remembered even if I could not have
>remembered the names of the parties involved. If you want to suggest
>that her opponents were commenting because of her politics, you need to
>admit that her supporters were doing exactly the same thing.
>
>I did not participate in the debate when it happened, and don't
>particularly want to get involved now. I don't see the benefit of
>raising this matter when it would only stir up old wounds.
>
>Ec
There is that danger, but the point is that we have thought deeply about these matters previously and come to certain conclusions.
Fred
I saw ideas tossed about previously of a group of "senior BLP analysts" for
lack of a better term--people that have demonstrated to the community their
fair and common-sense take and approach to BLP matters. OTRS people,
perhaps. The group would need to be a mixed grouping of people. I'll call
them BLP People from here. Administrator status should not be a
requirement--there are plenty of very skilled senior people, for example,
with years of experience who aren't admins. Ideally the group of BLP People
ought to be rather large--perhaps a dozen or three dozen individuals. Set
them up with a simple private mail list, ala ArbCom, that people can submit
to.
Idea for BLP opt out to tie into this:
If the subject of a BLP article demonstrates/illustrates that they have
suffered harm from their article, they can submit it for review by the BLP
group. Note, this means that they demonstrate/illustrate the article itself
has harmed them, they can ask for it be gone. If it's borderline, or their
maybe/maybe not notable, these BLP people can simply do a standard AfD
nomination. If it is determined however by this group that the article HAS
caused this person harm and they meet very simple but precise criteria, the
article is deleted, and the reasons (omitting anything salacious of course
or personally identifying) are publically noted and logged, including who
contacted the BLP People. The methods the BLP People use to positively
identify subjects of BLP articles can be hashed out internally amongst
themselves, with the final methods used posted publically afterwards. A
strict consensus among the BLP People internally would be required to
qualify for this. Note, any of them could still AfD an article--but this
opt-out auto-deletion would be controlled neatly to prevent any abuse,
internal or external.
What could qualify? The person needs to demonstrate or illustrate harm that
Wikipedia has caused them. "I don't want an article on me," doesn't count.
Wikipedia itself in it's role as a Huge Ultra Mega Site With Stuff On You
needs to be causing you harm counts--show us and tell us what happened, and
we'll help you if we can. If you drove drunk, embezzled money, or are a
notable whack-job, and we simple report on that, no, that doesn't count.
You're a notable drunk or whack-job already.
Assuming the BLP People (consensus again, this especially needs to be vetted
by more than one person) agree that Wikipedia's article's existence caused
you harm, you may count for an opt-out if "several" of these qualify (again,
the BLP People would need to agree case-by-case, but any of them could
always go the AfD route still):
a) The person illustrates/demonstrates to the satisfaction and consensus of
the BLP People that the article on Wikipedia about them caused them harm.
NOTE: Not "may" cause harm, or they think it "could" cause them harm. We're
not seers. Hammering the point: if any of the BLPers want it gone for the
coulds or maybes, AfD is right there for you outside of this method.
b) If the person is a private person, or semi-private.
c) If their notability/fame/infamy tied into one event.
d) If their notability/fame/infamy happened once, and doesn't appear likely
to occur again. I.e., someone mentioned several times or more in April 1999,
but never talked about again in the media or any notable literature. If the
person shows up in the media year after year, odds are their
notability/fame/infamy is persistent.
e)
f)
g)
I'm sure other qualifiers can be found, and filled in by others, but those
are the main ones. Very Public People obviously are forfeit this option.
Everyone from Tonya Harding level infamy, up through any elected politicians
or higher don't get to do this for obvious reasons--Michael Jackson's public
persona and image aren't going to be really impacted by Wikipedia's article
on him. Either way, he's a public person, so he doesn't qualify here.
NOTES:
* These deletions are emphatically *not* subject to DRV review or general
peanut gallery review for all their details, obviously. The review process
is through the BLP People and their group. If someone is not satisfied with
that, you have ArbCom to judge the actions of the BLP People. This would be
a good use of the idea that Fred posited yesterday of ArbCom overseeing
application of potential BLP deletions, and what gave me the idea for all
this.
* If a representative contacts the BLP People for an opt-out, we need to
know that the rep actually works for/represents the person--we need proof or
evidence. Someone pro-actively being an advocate without the endorsement of
the subject doesn't count. The *subject* has to want the article gone like
this. I need to want my article gone--not you wanting my article gone for my
own potential good.
* Anyone on the BLP People group obviously is going to be seeing some
sensitive information. They don't/should not need to be admins--but they can
and will disclose their real life identities to the Foundation. Won't
disclose? You don't get to participate on this for privacy and security
reasons. At all.
* The BLP Group should include a mixture of veteran non-admins, veteran
admins, and of course Check Users.
Streamlined process:
I believe my article on Wikipedia has caused me harm. I mail the BLP People.
They ask, "What harm? We want to help, please show or tell us," and I do.
They then verify I'm really me. Variety of ways this can be done, and they
can sort that out. If the BLP People collectively agree that I'm me, and
yes, my article did indeed cause me harm, they consider if I meet the
criteria for Opt-Out Deletion. If I don't, they let me know why I don't, and
that's that. If I'm unhappy with that, I can always take it up publicly
on-Wiki, go to Jimbo, ArbCom, whatever. If the BLP People do agree that I
qualify, one of them writes up a neutral public detailing and posts the
following:
1. What article?
2. Who contacted them (name the person--is it me, or a representative? Who's
the rep? Is the subject aware of the representation?). Transparency here is
*essential* in case the BLP People theoretically got it wrong and I really
didn't want it gone, nor did the named representative. The person requesting
the deletion needs to understand and accept that a requirement here is that
we note who asked for the deletion.
3. Why was it deleted? Nothing salacious. Bare bones, skimpy, to the point,
tailored to not hurt the person further.
4. The reasoning of why the person qualified for the BLP opt-out.
One of the admins on the BLP People group then nukes the article, and either
recreates as a protected redirect, a disambig, or salts it as the case
requires. Done. Reposting/recreating such articles is a Seriously Bad
Punishable Thing.
Undoing such an Opt-Out deletion: Simple!
Option 1: An editor(s) on Wikipedia feels the person has now grown in
notability/fame/infamy to the point they no longer qualify. They mail BLP
People. Easy enough to review, yes/no. Done. If the editor(s) disagrees:
there's ArbCom over there. Be a dick about it with them if they politely
disagree as well, there's the Disruption Penalties over there.
Option 2: Ask the person if they don't mind. If they don't mind any longer,
ask them to tell the BLP People on the record. If I tell the BLP People two
years later, "Hey, I changed my mind. Put it back up." It goes back up if it
meets standard notability etc. yadda yadda. If someone (the subject) plays
games with the BLP People process ("put it up! take it down! No don't take
it down!!") the group can simply come to a decision of "Enough, we're now
ignoring you for jerking us around in violation of our Don't Jerk Us Around
Like A Dick policy.
Regards,
Joe
http://www.joeszilagyi.com
I seem to recall a page of requested images but I can't recall where.
Can someone point it out to me?
More specifically, if your favorite hypothetical person were about to be
punished by cruel fate with spending the week of 18-25 June at [[le
Bourget airport]], is there anything in particular would you want him to
try to photograph?
--
Sean Barrett | If we can't say "fuck," how can we say
sean(a)epoptic.com | "fuck the government"? --George Carlin
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Fred Bauder [mailto:fredbaud@waterwiki.info]
>Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:28 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Marc Riddell [mailto:michaeldavid86@comcast.net]
>>Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:26 AM
>>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
>>
>>on 5/25/07 12:22 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert(a)gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> if the only things which are verifyably
>>> known about someone are in the context of a notable event which
>>> included them, perhaps as a rule the person is not themselves notable,
>>> and should only be covered in the article about the event.
>>
>>George,
>>
>>I believe this is an excellent idea.
>>
>>Marc Riddell
>
>The exception would be someone like Monica Lewinsky who successfully parlays their 15 minutes of negative fame into a more well rounded notability.
>
>Fred
The Rachel Marsden article is good example of this problem. The article as now constituted
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&oldid=132306894
is a product of long debate regarding such issues. There was great deal of press coverage regarding an incident early in her life, but the coverage of her current situation was rather thin. A long article about her which focused on the earlier situation was a rather nasty piece of work and did not present of fair picture of this person who had moved on long ago from the earlier troubles. I also think some editors were sticking their oar in because they did not like her politics.
There was an arbitration:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden
Here is the basic principle applied: 'Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that information which concerns living subjects be verifiable and that biographies "should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."'
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Carl Beckhorn [mailto:cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm]
>Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 08:03 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
>
>On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 01:11:35PM +0000, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>Verifiability and No original research are fundamental policies and
>>enforced as such.
>
>Of course they are policies. I only said they are not foundation issues
>and therefore must be the other sort of policy: the type that is
>actionable only because there is consensus to follow it.
>
>I am more intersted in the interplay between
>* your (novel) interpretation of the BLP policy
>* the requirement for "wiki process", which _is_ a foundation issue.
>
>It's clear that they fit together nicely in this case, but not in the
>way you claim.
>
> - Carl
I think my prior interpretation of BLP may have been unduly expansive.
With respect to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view there is firm longstanding consensus dating from the founding of the project. A transient consensus overruling those fundamental policies in a particular case is not valid and will not be effective.
Likewise we will not permit potentially libelous material to remain in an article. We term it poorly sourced controversial information, but bottom line, not only is there potential legal liability, but it is wrong. With respect to articles such as about the complaining witness in the Duke La Cross case, Neutral point of view conflicts with Verifiability as we have no way to round out such an article as the only published material is negative. Resolution of the conflict is difficult and results will vary with the situation.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marc Riddell [mailto:michaeldavid86@comcast.net]
>Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:26 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
>
>on 5/25/07 12:22 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert(a)gmail.com wrote:
>
>> if the only things which are verifyably
>> known about someone are in the context of a notable event which
>> included them, perhaps as a rule the person is not themselves notable,
>> and should only be covered in the article about the event.
>
>George,
>
>I believe this is an excellent idea.
>
>Marc Riddell
The exception would be someone like Monica Lewinsky who successfully parlays their 15 minutes of negative fame into a more well rounded notability.
Fred