Folks,
>From the Sonora Union Democrat.
http://www.uniondemocrat.com/2009090897749/News/Local-News/Wikipedia-vandal…
*Sonora has entered the debate over the accuracy of Wikipedia. *
*For two days last month, the city’s entry on the user-edited online
encyclopedia described the town as a racist, elitist backwater.
*
*Wikipedia has come under scrutiny over the years for inaccuracies due to
its policy of allowing the public to generate new entries and edit existing
ones. Defenders of the Wikipedia, though, say it utilizes the wisdom of the
masses and is generally no less accurate than print encyclopedias. *
*Whatever the case, Wikipedia is nonetheless currently considering making
its entries harder to edit, possibly by enlisting a number of expert
gatekeepers. *
*Sonora’s entry makes a case for the proposed policy change. *
*From Aug. 23 to 25, according to Wikipedia’s records, less-than-flattering
edits by someone with the user name “Vayne,” who claimed to be a 21-year-old
Sacramento college student named Michael, could be found throughout Sonora’s
Wikipedia page, which dates back to 2002. *
*Vayne said Sonora’s lack of racial and ethnic diversity, non-Christian
places of worship and economic opportunities make it an uninviting place for
some. *
*“Many (Sonorans) are of higher economic standing and tend to be unwelcoming
to visitors without money,” Vayne wrote. “Visitors new to the area or who
might be considered ‘ethnic’ should prepare for the high level of ethnic
disparity by blending as best as possible. ... Most Latinos have sought work
and opportunity elsewhere where they are less likely to be judged due to
economic standing, skin color, or a linguistic barrier.” *
*Vayne also weighed in on homelessness in Sonora, saying, “The local
government literally ignores the homeless problem.” *
*The entry was spotted by a Sonora resident on Aug. 24, who contacted Board
of Supervisors member Liz Bass, who represents the city, and asked her to do
something about it. Bass got some local staffers on the job of restoring
Sonora’s entry. *
*Bass said the unflattering entry amounted to “cyber-vandalism.” *
*“It sounds like a disgruntled person who didn’t get what they wanted out of
this experience,” Bass said. “I’ve lived here 37 years. Obviously, we do
have shopping centers, a homeless shelter downtown, a bypass and people of
color do live here.” *
*Vayne had claimed that Sonora lacked malls, divided highways and homeless
shelters. *
*Monty Youngborg, a retired volunteer for the Tuolumne County History
Museum, who does technical work for the museum, likes the idea of Wikipedia
tweaking its policy, saying its editors “should have some verified
pedigree.” *
*“You get these people, maybe they got into trouble with the cops, who can
really make a mess and put out a lot of untruths,” Youngborg said. “You
never know what sets people off.” *
*Youngborg called Wikipedia a “valuable tool,” which he uses often. *
*He said the more technical the entry, usually the more accurate it is. *
*Because of the plethora of false or biased data available not just on
Wikipedia but throughout the entire Internet, Youngborg recommends that
people use a “jaundiced eye” when surfing the Web. *
*“I think people are going to have to get a little more calloused at the
Internet,” Youngborg said.*
This is our current article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonora,_California
Regards
*Keith Old*
In a message dated 9/10/2009 11:33:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
george.herbert(a)gmail.com writes:
> Of course, that's a 5-metric-ton weapon, which is not militarily
> useful at this point.>>
I can think of a few uses.
Will
Folks,
>From the Huffington Post:
"Last November, David Rohde was kidnapped in Afghanistan and held for
several months, before managing to escape with his interpreter. Media around
the world, at the request of the *Times*, kept silent about the kidnapping,
and later drew criticism for this from some quarters. It has just happened
again -- with my magazine, *Editor & Publisher*, among those not writing
about it -- in the case of another well-known *New York Times*reporter in
Afghanistan, but for a much shorter period of time.
Stephen Farrell, with his aide Sultan Munadi, were seized on Saturday and
freed just hours ago in a daring raid by British commandos. Munadi and a
commando were killed. Farrell is fine.
I saw some indications that Farrell had been snatched in my regular Web
searches for media scoops over the weekend. As in the case of Rohde, a
handful of not prominent blogs, along with very scattered media abroad (in
their original language) reported that something was up, but confirmation
was slight, given the silence of the *Times* and U.S. military.
This went on for two days, as I kept searching -- and finding that, once
again, the media apparently were not rushing anything into print or online.
Also, as in the case of Rohde, I noticed that Farrell's Wikipedia entry had
been scrubbed -- some user kept trying to post the kidnapping and the "news"
kept getting deleted, before the entry was put under "protected" status and
the cat and mouse game stopped. You can see it in the "history" there along
with complaints of this "censorship crap" occurring again. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/again-media-and-wikipedia_b_280…
Given the lack of reliable sources, the removal of information on the
kidnapping seems justified. His article is here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Farrell_(journalist)
Regards
*Keith*
----- "Tony Sidaway" <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/5/09, Phil Nash <pn007a2145(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > I took a quick look the other day at the categories of unsourced
> > articles, which go back to December 2006; to be honest, I don't currently
> > have the time or will myself to trawl through what is a Sisyphean task. Even
> > limiting that to BLP articles is more than enough to tax the stamina of most
> > volunteer editors. It's easy enough to begin a stub, and as easy to tag as
> > unsourced, but it does take some commitment to take the bricks and fashion a
> > mansion, which I think we should be doing.
>
> I feel strongly that biographies of living people without sources
> should be deleted on sight. They can always be recreated by someone
> who possesses at least one reliable source.
Working with some other editors, I started [1] to go through older unsourced living people biographies (BLPs) and either add references or propose for deletion under the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD), the proposed deletion process (PROD) or the Articles for Deletion process (AfD). Attack pages and pages on people which don't assert notability can be speedy deleted under CSD and PROD can be used for the others if they haven't been PRODed/AfDed before. However, many editors think that neutral unreferenced articles shouldn't be PRODed or AFDed unless the proposer has first made an effort to find sources themselves (see guideline [[WP:BEFORE]]). In my experience being an unreferenced BLPs is not enough to persuade editors that it should be deleted - despite being a clear breach of the BLP policy and hence grounds for deletion; it's more likely to succeed if you can show that it's non-notable.
There are 51,000 unreferenced BLPs at the moment [2] - about 13% of the number of articles in category living people and 2% of all articles. Using Twinkle it takes me about 5-10 seconds to propose CSD, PROD or AFD; checking sources takes me about 5 minutes and adding new sources and improving expanding articles takes about an hour.
Clearly whether we allow "deletion on sight" or require proposers to improve articles first makes a big difference to whether this backlog will ever be cleared.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndrewRT/Unreferenced_BLPs
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unreferenced_BLPs
Andrew
In a message dated 9/10/2009 8:56:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
stvrtg(a)gmail.com writes:
> > Let's suppose you have in your possession exact detailed plans for a
> > small H-bomb. Would you think you could simply put it into Wikipedia?
>
> Only if we have reliable, well-researched, and peer-reviewed sources.>>
Scratch "peer-review". We don't require that on this sort of article.
I'm not even sure we have a policy on "how-to" manuals, do we?
Will
In a message dated 9/10/2009 6:34:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net writes:
> To a certain extent this
> conversation has been about, "Common sense, what's common sense?, I don't
> want no stinking commons sense, I'll work to rule and, if harm results,
> tough!, Harm to Wikipedia?, Public relations? Piss on that!">>
Sorry but no. It's been about "your common sense, isn't my common sense."
Miscasting it as "fire bad" isn't going to win any new converts.
In a message dated 9/10/2009 6:26:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net writes:
> That is what the Foundation does in such cases, they pass information on
> from outside sources that are knowledgeable about the situation.>>
>
Or, at we've seen, outside souces which create false information when it
suits them, and are hypocritical when it doesn't.
Will
In a message dated 9/10/2009 5:48:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net writes:
> We should not publish up-to-date and accurate
> information on how to create great harm whether it is about A-bombs or
> reporters held captive by the Taliban, and we don't, >>
Just to repeat by way of propaganda, there is no credible evidence that
publishing details about reporters held captive by the Taliban would cause any
harm at all, let alone great.
Will
In a message dated 9/10/2009 3:42:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
surreptitious.wikipedian(a)googlemail.com writes:
> I nominate Will as the person making press statements when someone does
> write the how to make a H-Bomb article.>>
I would like to thank all the little people I stepped on, on my climb to
the top.
Will