Jack has a mother Jill, and Jack is wikipedian that believes everything
written, verifiable, and with a high degree of liklihood is encyclopedic,
even when it comes to [[biographies of living persons]]. In a nutshell, if
it is not permanent legacy information that will hav effects beyond the
death of a celebrity and it *is* privileged information, then it is not
encyclopedic.
Jack: Hey ma. I got somethin' real important to write and they won't let me.
(climbing stairs)
Jill: (from upstairs) Aw, c'mon boheh, how many times I tol' you NOT to talk
about no THEY when I don' got no clue who you might name.
Jack: It's about Michael Jackson and it's from a reputable source and I just
gotta get it in his bio.
Jill: Well, you just sit there, get out 'cher pen an paper and write a bio
of Michael Jackson...I'll see what'cha come up with, 'kuz I ain't never seen
the man in person...didn know you had, either, outsid'a that Thriller
concert back in th' eighties.
Jack: (writing) Sara Pratcher, a.k.a. Suzie Gottaknow in a newspaper gossip
column wrote that she has it from reliable sources that Michael Jackson does
Estradiol.
Jill: Mighty short. Now, who won't letcha write that, bohey. You can write
that on any wall of the can and it'll stand for months as high art. It dohn
rhyme, and nobody'll be too quick with the acetone in this neighbourhood.
Jack: Uh...well...ma...I tried to write it on a wikipedia bio and it got
terminated with a {{citation needed}} in about five minutes, and about half
an hour later it was gone, replaced with <!--Privileged information
deleted.--> that don't show to nobody but editors.
Jill: Call me ignernt, son, but what in the bloody blue blazes is a
wikipedia bio?
Jack: I'll show yuh, ma, you just "google wikipedia", yeah...now click on
create account...make up a password...NO, DON'T TELL ME MA...see now there's
your bio and your talk page, it don't get no spam, see, just stuff about
what'cha do on the wiki.
Jill: *My* bio? What the hell'm I gonna do with a no-account biography of
myself...whatcha got me into son...Am I the only one who can write here?
Jack: Uh...no...that's the beauty of it...anybody can confirm or deny
whatcha write and take issue with it on your talk page.
Jill: Are YOU tellin' me your Uncle Marty could come up from his meanderin'
and ramblin to tell folks about MY Hormone Replacement Therapy -- and hav it
lookin' like it's comin' straight from the horse's mouth?
Jack: Hangs head (this jig is going nowhere, fast).
Jill: Lem'me get this straight, kiddo, you want me to use this account to
write in Michael Jackson's bio...you know? I bet he's got a hundred thousand
dollars a year watchin' that thing! Uh...uh...noway...nohow...best thing
that can happen is that this here account go away.
Jack: But, ma, it's a fact!
Jill: Sure, boy, and half a the people watched that scene of Michael feedin'
his baby like it just came out of a fire will believe it, but it don't
b'long here. If I ain't gonna put up with no news about my HRT in yo' uncle
Marty's mouth, this stuff ain't gonna stand fer ten minutes on no
encyclopedia.
Jack: Ma!
Jill: That's the end of it, boheh. Lemme put it this way. How do you suppose
Sara Pratcher got hold of prescriptions for Michael Jackson?
Jack: Uh...they were prob'ly shredded at the drug store...
Jill: That's th'only reliable authority in this case, and he ain allowed to
tell no court of LAW what'ees givin Jackson. Now, If I hear a you tryin' ta
run this jig through yo' Aunt Ruth, I'm tellin' yo fathah 'bout that weed
you bought last week.
In a message dated 12/16/2008 5:28:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
larsen.thomas.h(a)gmail.com writes:
Here's the point: these cases are not *few*, they're *common*; >>
---------
Or *not*.
{{fact}}
Repetition only makes something a fact in church.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
Michael here's the point.
Do we have a problem with the *current* BLP process?
That's the question on the table.
Some people are in a reactionary mode, regarding a *few* issues, and wanting
to change major systems, based on a few issues. That is not a productive
stance.
A more productive stance would be to present , realistically, the problem as
a *major* issue. Not the issue of a few exceptions.
You should never code *for* the exceptions, only the mode. Otherwise your
problem-solving never ends. So far I've seen and heard nothing, that would
make me think that the issue on the table, is anything more than a few
exceptions. Which should be dealt with as exceptions, and not be made the cause for
upheavel.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/16/2008 4:17:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
morven(a)gmail.com writes:
The hard case is when Wikipedia is repeating allegations that we can
source to an offsite source. That's where the serious disagreements
about what to do are taking place.>>
-------------------------------
Agreed. And none of the Draconian solutions proposed in this thread would
solve that issue. That issue can only be handled on a case-by-case basis.
And sometimes it's not an "allegation" in that, that something occurred, or
is, is not the issue, but rather whether it should be included on UNDUE
considerations.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/16/2008 12:45:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
I'd think that if the exceptions are human lives, you should code for the
exceptions.>>
-----------------------------------
The exceptions are not "human lives". They are "human discomfort". No one
is dying.
You have to have a rather thin skin, or very little real-world experience to
be greatly annoyed at some vandal calling you a "slimy ass bitch" or
whatever. It should be relatively apparent that our readers can read through
vandalism. Are people going to complain? Sure they are.
That doesn't mean we need to alter any practice. Every large corporation
gets complaints.
K-mart probably gets five thousand a day. You deal with it. It happens.
That doesn't mean you throw your hands in the air and rush about with no
heads trying to prevent complaints.
You cannot prevent all complaints. You code for the 90% cases, and you
leave the 10% cases alone.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/16/2008 2:27:45 PM Pacific Standard Time,
morven(a)gmail.com writes:
WikiEN-l is not the specified place to go if an issue brought to OTRS
or on-Wiki isn't resolved satisfactorily. Thus, I think, nothing can
be gauged about the prevalence of an issue by the level of posting
about it here.
Lots of Wikipedia regulars never post here.>>
-------------------
Sure I agree, we don't see all unresolved issues here.
But we do, on a fairly regular basis, see the media-based complaints (those
that make mass media).
We have procedures in place to handle BLP complaints.
Whether 96% or 23% of them are unfounded, or uncorrectable at least, is
what's on the table.
It's hard to get a handle on that issue, with a few ad-hoc reports. So I'm
open to any other idea about how to actually get a handle on the scope of the
issue. Hyperbole isn't going to address anything however.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/16/2008 12:49:11 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mbimmler(a)gmail.com writes:
Yeah thanks for making my day.... Maybe someone should once give you
some stats of OTRS's quality queue... it's rather in the region of 1-2
issues per hour, at the very least.>>
---------------------------------------
That isn't quite the point.
The issue here is *unresolved* BLP issues.
BLP issues that stick around long enough to be actually noticed by the
public.
OTRS isn't always about things we've done *wrong*. In fact it's probably
mainly simply about people complaining, although we've done nothing wrong.
That's quite a different kettle of fish isn't it? I'm sure there are many
subjects of articles, who wish the article said something different from what
it does. But if what it says is actually based on what evidence we have, and
is presented fairly and impartially, than that's not really a fault is it?
So the mere presence of many OTRS tickets, doesn't tell us much.
What I was referring to, is issues that come *here*, as unresolved, or
problematic. Viewing the history of this mailing-list we have very few *real*
*substantial* BLP issues. So the natural conclusion is that the vast majority
of OTRS tickets and other BLP issues get resolved in the standard fashion.
So once again, the system is fine, and there is no need for any change.
I've yet to see any cogent argument that would lead me to think otherwise. Just
a lot of hoo-hah.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/15/2008 10:24:14 PM Pacific Standard Time,
sarcasticidealist(a)gmail.com writes:
Moreover, this isn't a mosquito: OTRS gets e-mails every day from
victims of defamation. >>
-----------------------------------
That is not a valid counter-argument. A mosquito exists as well.
So the mere fact that OTRS *gets* email, does not create an elephant out of
a mosquito.
It's still a mosquito.
When we have 100,000 BLPs and get one or two issues per month... that's a
mosquito.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/16/2008 12:03:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
sarcasticidealist(a)gmail.com writes:
What part of "as individual contributors" was confusing to you...>>
------------------
The part where you wanted to turn "that particular editor" into "us, the
group of editors".
Your point was that we have a legal duty to....
And my point was that, no, we have no legal duty to do anything.
That person, that individual, has the possibility for legal action based on
what that person has done. The rest of us, have no requirement to do
anything, and we face no legal action based on our not doing anything.
So the entire point is still, we don't need to do anything.
The system is working fine, as it is.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)