Of course we'd have to have a community consensus that no "person with
tools" could edit the meta articles, since we'd be trying to present the actual
history of the project, including all the warts. Problematic. Of course
it may collect all the troublesome persons into one area, so perhaps
overall a good thing for the project.
In a message dated 7/19/2009 12:36:48 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dan(a)tobias.name writes:
On 17 Jul 2009 17:47:49 -0400, wjhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
> {{fact}}
> Can we have a naval-gazing article on the history of the policy??
> Perhaps we'd be able to address questions of how it came to be.
Contact the United States Naval Observatory and get somebody there to
write one.
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:51:10 -0400, wjhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
> Evidently there are some sins which didn't exist when Dante was writing.
That's why I need to create my own "Dan T.'s Inferno" to handle them!
I can corner the market!
--
== 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/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
**************Can love help you live longer? Find out now.
(http://personals.aol.com/articles/2009/02/18/longer-lives-through-relations…
slove00000001)
On 17 Jul 2009 17:47:49 -0400, wjhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
> {{fact}}
> Can we have a naval-gazing article on the history of the policy??
> Perhaps we'd be able to address questions of how it came to be.
Contact the United States Naval Observatory and get somebody there to
write one.
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:51:10 -0400, wjhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
> Evidently there are some sins which didn't exist when Dante was writing.
That's why I need to create my own "Dan T.'s Inferno" to handle them!
I can corner the market!
--
== 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/
[[Wikipedia:Paradoxes]] - just some high-level brainstorming about
the basic sillinesses of wanting stuff to be stuff, even while that
stuff is always changing.
-Stevertigo
Regarding the recent discussion, I have made a draft proposal at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_suppression
The purpose is to codify that Jimbo and other administrators did the
right thing keeping the kidnapping of David Rohde out of his Wikipedia
article. It also aims to define when something should be kept out of
Wikipedia, even if it is covered in a few reliable sources. There can
be no absolute rules for these situations, but some basic principles.
Some would say that we need no rule for this as we have IAR. However,
Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is about ignoring rules when they prevent
you from improving the encyclopedia. The reason to suppress the news
of David Rohde's kidnapping is not mainly to improve Wikipedia, but to
protect Rohde.
It is still a draft, comments are welcome.
/Apoc2400
----
Newspapers sometimes avoid publishing information that could have
severe consequences to individuals if the public interest is small.
While Wikipedia is not a news source it is often updated with the
latest developments, leading to similar concerns.
Therefore, Wikipedia should not include information, even if it can be
reliably sourced, if:
* Spreading it is likely to have very severe direct negative
consequences for one or more individuals.
* It has not been widely published in reliable sources.
* The public interest is small.
* It is withheld only for a limited time.
Whether mainstream news sources are actively suppressing a news report
should be taken into consideration.
Administrators or other editors enforcing this may avoid directly
explaining why or referring to this rule, if doing so would negate the
purpose (see Streissand effect). In those cases it would be prudent to
explain the reasoning later.
The news suppression should be minimal. Deleting or oversighting old
article revisions or discussion about the topic is often not
necessary.
Examples
* When New York Times reporter David Rohde was kidnapped in
Afghanistan in 2008, most news media did not report on it, because it
would put his life in greater risk. Only a few, rather obscure news
sources reported on the kidnapping. After nytimes contacted Jimmy
Wales, he and other Wikipedia andministrators kept any mention of the
kidnapping out of the Wikipedia article on David Rohde. They did the
right thing.
* If there is an other scandal like the [[Abu Ghraib torture and
prisoner abuse]], then it could be argued that publishing it would
lead to more resentment and terrorist attacks against Americans in
Iraq. However, such news is of public interest, the danger is not to
specific individuals and the consequences are not direct. Therefore it
should not be excluded from Wikipedia if published in reliable
sources.
Related
* Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
* Wikipedia is not censored
* Wikipedia:Office actions
* Kidnapping of David Rohde
* Media blackout
* Gag order
I just stumbled on this a bit too late to actually be able to effect it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Gre…
Summary:
-- User is sent to Arbcom for date delinking. The Arbcom remedy, however,
prohibits him from making _any style change_ that is not specified by a
style guideline.
-- Someone edits 4 out of 24 links to remove style. This user changes them
back. Result: user is blocked.
Problems with this:
-- The user was blocked for 24 additional hours because he did this after a
*mistaken* block. (Yes, really.)
-- Banning style changes is like banning use of the letter "Z". It bans a
huge number of things that are not abuse and puts stumbling blocks where normal
activity now turns into violation of an Arbcom remedy.
-- The blocking admin decided that "because Arbitration Committee decisions
are binding, we cannot review this restriction here on its merits, but must
enforce it." The idea of common sense seems to completely escape some admins.
-- This decision apparently runs on the principle that the user must himself
describe the style guideline that his action meets. Lots of people do things
that follow rules without being able to name the rule. The blocking admin
obviously didn't make a good faith effort to determine himself if a style
guideline was involved, rather than saying that the user is guilty because
he hasn't named one. It took me only a few minutes to find a style
guideline that demands consistency and makes this action legal.
Physics cranks drive so much. They were responsible for our "No
Original Research" rule, and now they've forked arXiv.org:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39845viXra.org is for the stuff even arXiv.org doesn't want. It appears to
be driven by cranks getting butthurt at being put into the "General
Physics" category, i.e. where the nutters get put. Note their stuff
still got onto arXiv, they just didn't like the category.
I can hardly wait to see what level of crankery viXra produces ...
- d.
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Oh, this is so easy in MOO code[1], it's not funny:
>
> {{`tostr(args[1], " + ", args[2], " = ", args[1] + args[2]) ! ANY =>
> "that's an error"'}}
>
> (yes that's a backquote at the start and a normal one at the end.
> Semantics of "+" may differ from what you intended.)
I think it needs more squiggly brackets. And a couple of @ symbols.
Can you sprinkle in some hash marks too, pretty please?
-------------------------------------------
SHELDON RAMPTON
Research director, Center for Media & Democracy
Center for Media & Democracy
520 University Avenue, Suite 227
Madison, WI 53703
phone: 608-260-9713
Subscribe to our free Weekly Spin email:
<http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html>
Subscribe to our Weekly Radio Spin podcasts:
<http://www.prwatch.org/audio/feed>
Read and add to articles on people, issues and groups shaping the
public agenda:
<http://www.sourcewatch.org>
Support independent, public interest reporting:
<http://www.prwatch.org/donate>
G'day Charles,
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> >> I have, interestingly, been noticing it moving in exactly the opposite
> > direction; articles with a couple of paragraphs of text, a reference
> >> or two, an image or an infobox, being marked as "stubs". There's
> >> standards inflation at both ends of the rating system...
> >
> > IMHO, this kind of thing is one of Wikipedia's greatest failings. We
> > still can't even agree on a definition of things like "stub", and it
> > seems to be in everyone's interest not to. People like stuff like that
> > being subjective.
> >
> > (FWIW, I think it's reasonable to have "stub" be relative to the
> > expected content. Two paragraphs on a country would clearly be a
> > "stub". Two paragraphs on an obscure medieval scribe might be the most
> > comprehensive resource possible.)
> >
> The stub business goes back almost forever, though. And the affection
> for grey areas is not the dominant trend: there are people who seem to
> have the MoS and its pickier points as bedtime reading. There has always
> been an adequate definition of stub, which relates to the idea that the
> article as stands has serious missing information, so is incomplete in
> an essential way. So Steve's FWIW is correct (no, I haven't looked up to
> see whether some genius has changed the definition of stub). I've never
> taken much notice of what is and isn't denominated a stub.
In fact (and to return to the original topic ;)), I would argue that Steve's comprehensive two-paragraph article on an obscure-but-important mediaeval scribe could even be considered a Featured Article, if it was Pure Awesome in all other respects.
But, thanks to feature creep ...
* '''Oppose''', too short ~~~~
--
Mark Gallagher
0439 704 975
http://formonelane.net/
"Even potatoes have their bad days, Igor." --- Count Duckula
Many thanks for that reply - very useful to have the facts out in the open and I hope it helps to build trust.
> > When oversight or suppression are used, it's book policy that oversighters
> > almost never discuss or disclose anything, beyond what can be seen openly in
> > the public logs.
In many cases, that makes sense. However, in this case, the sensitive material was only sensitive at the time - once the subject was released there was no continuing risk.
As you mentioned, oversight wasn't necessary in this case. However, it's not inconceivable that another case where oversight is used might also be "temporarily sensitive". Perhaps, for instance, if it has been used in a suspected harassment that turns out to be something else.
In that case, it might make sense for the "book policy" to allow disclosure (or even reversal) of the oversight in these cases.
----- "FT2" <ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: "FT2" <ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com>
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Thursday, 16 July, 2009 21:20:04 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News suppression: Did it use Oversight or RevisionDelete?
>
> Update: I've now checked the case, and yes I had heard of this matter. But
> being on a break for the last few weeks to deal with real-world matters, I
> hadn't made the connection just from the words "Rohde/NYT". I checked which
> article with Rohde in the title, also covered the NYT as well. Luckily there
> was only one.
>
> Quick explanation :)
>
> FT2
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 9:06 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A quick answer.
> >
> > I have no idea which dispute or real-world issue this was about, nor when.
> > I'm assuming following a quick search the page concerned is "David S.
> > Rohde".
> >
> > When oversight or revision delete are used, it's almost without exception
> > for serious reasons, for example where there is a concern over potential
> > defamation or breach of privacy policy in the post. Not mere offensive
> > comments, and not mere undesirability. A significant number of users
> > cross-check each other on it, and there is an audit committee on english
> > wikipedia to investigate any concerns as well. Privacy issues are taken
> > extremely seriously.
> >
> > When oversight or suppression are used, it's book policy that oversighters
> > almost never discuss or disclose anything, beyond what can be seen openly in
> > the public logs. The trust required is why oversighter selection is a big
> > deal. The underlying reason for the policy is that sometimes just having
> > confirmation that a person or topic was targeted can be enough to do serious
> > harm, when genuine cases such as stalking and serious harassment etc are
> > intended by someone, if you think about it. (And if some were answered and
> > others weren't then things might be read into a non-answer.)
> >
> > So the standard answer to all inquiries of this kind by any oversighter is
> > "we don't discuss such matters, but we will look and check nothing untoward
> > has happened, if you would like"
> >
> > However in this case I have discussed the inquiry and can confirm, that no
> > material was or has ever been oversighted or suppressed (using
> > revisiondelete) from the article I think you're referring to, "[[David S.
> > Rohde]]".
> >
> > Hopefully that's enough to put your mind at rest. Don't count on such
> > confirmation another time -- it's exceedingly rare to get it :)
> >
> > FT2
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Joseph Reagle <reagle(a)mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Does anyone know if during the NYT/Rohde case the Oversight function was
> >> used to hide edits? When the story broke, I could see all the edit history,
> >> but I presume the function can be deployed against select revisions and then
> >> removed? Or maybe it was the new RevisionDelete?
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>