In a message dated 10/30/2008 11:25:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
I will repeat: unsourced information doesn't *have* to be negative to be
removed from a BLP. It says it *right there in the rules*.>>
-----------
Nobody is arguing that you "must not" remove it.
However you are arguing that you "must" remove it.
Can you see the middle road left out here?
A and Z are not the entire alphabet.
Will Johnson
**************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot
5 Travel Deals!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212416248x1200771803/aol?redir=htt…)
In a message dated 10/29/2008 11:55:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
Okay. Considering that this happened in a BLP, this is one of the stupidest
suggestions I've seen.>>
------------------------------------
You must be fairly new then. When I read BLPs I see tons of statements that
are not sourced. I don't remove them all and claim "not sourced!" I add a
few {{fact}} tags here and there and move on.
You are focused on the fact that some anonymous editor complained about one
issue. But that complaint should be treated as coming from an anonymous
person. The normal course of action, is to fact-tag the clause and move on. No
matter how many times you reply, and no matter how insulting or personal you
become to me, this is still the way I would handle this type of case.
Will Johnson
**************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot
5 Travel Deals!
(http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav00000001)
In a message dated 10/28/2008 5:35:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
# Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons
# whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable
# should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion
Look carefully at that middle line. It does NOT have to be negative in
order
for it to be removed.>>
------------------
"Contentious"
Like "consensus", "contentious" is not defined by a single editor objecting.
**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
In a message dated 10/29/2008 7:46:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
So you're seriously suggesting that the line about him being a director
should *not* have been removed, even though there was no source for it and
he sincerely objected to it?>>
----------------
You're overstating the issue. The entire article has no footnotes. Or
rather, the article has no footnotes.
So we cannot know that "there was no source for it".
The most we can say is that we "do not know certainly which, if any, source
was used for it."
And "HE" did not object. That's the crux of the point.
We do not know who the editor who objected was, simply because we cannot
know.
Self-identified editors get no special priveledges.
Why are we still going in circles here?
We do not, as a matter of course, remove statements simply based on
anonymous objections.
We remove then, consistent with our practice, as stated, under certain
circumstances.
**************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot
5 Travel Deals!
(http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav00000001)
In a message dated 10/28/2008 3:16:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
scs(a)eskimo.com writes:
Suppose that our [[Pope Benedict XVI]] article were found to contain
the sentence "Bennie is a homosexual drug user".>>
----------------
Sure because it's a negative controversial statement.
However called Jaron a "film director" is not a negative statement. It's
neutral at best. Most people would consider it actually sort-of positive.
So maybe you could come up with a situation that would actually work here.
**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
In a message dated 10/17/2008 12:00:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
nawrich(a)gmail.com writes:
If it is an "amazing claim" as Will states, then for
once he's right>>
---------------------
I declare October 17th a day of Independence for all the Munchkins and their
descendants !
**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
In a message dated 10/28/2008 4:56:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
scs(a)eskimo.com writes:
But remember: the *real* burden of proof/disproof is on the
editor who actually makes a change, not on the new, untested
editor who might have been merely the first person to point out
that the change was necessary.>>
--------------------
Exactly how I would have handled it. Add a {{fact}} tag. If I have the
sources to look-up then I will, if I don't, I or we presume that some other
interested editor *will* and will do so, and fix the suspect clause within a
certain amount of time.
You can view the *backlog* of fact tag's to see that there is a great amount
of work yet to do. I find some that are over a year old. Typically if I
were an interested editor, I'd only let it live for a week before removing the
clause.
But again, this case is two years old. I.E. it was settled long ago.
**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
And I Phil, will continue to give a good faith belief that previous editors
have edited conscientiously. The burden of disproof is more on the shoulders
of new untested editors, than it is on the community at-large.
I'm not going to call your opposite position immoral however.
We differ in our approaches. That's all.
Will Johnson
**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
In a message dated 10/28/2008 2:54:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
But on the other hand, Lanier's edits to the wiki should
have been sufficient cause to look at the claims and fix the article.
That the article went un-fixed after his edits is inexcusable.>>
----------------------
No body was stopping you Phil from doing so.
There is no big brother here, who evaluates all unsubstatiated claims made
to talk space or edits to article space. Lanier (or somebody claiming to be
him) made edits, claiming to be him. They were rightly reverted, based on the
Good Faith we give to original editors that they are properly citing their
sources.
His claim to be the subject should not color our view to remove non-negative
claims merely based on unsubstantiated claims that they are inaccurate.
That would be a giant leap in our BLP methodology.
On the other hand, should you wish to form an action-patrol to do just this
thing, then go ahead and see how it goes. I feel no compulsion to act on
unsourced claims (or claims of bad sourcing) by anonymous editors VIS A VIS good
faith that previous editors did a good job writing up their sources.
Will Johnson
**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
In a message dated 10/28/2008 2:35:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
"I want to take away the right for an editor to revert an edit for the
sole reason that we can't verify the person's identity so what they
say doesn't count. I want to mandate actually looking at the sources,
thinking about the issue, and making a decision based on something
other than "The rules say X, period.">>
-----------------
This has absolutely nothing to do with what occurred.
What occurred was that the subject of the BLP made claims and this entire
thread is about whether we can alter an article based on the subject of the BLP
making claims without our ability to identify whether that person is actually
who they claim to be.
That is all it's about. It's not about any thing else.
**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)