On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
2008/7/3 Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
Quite realistically, I don't think this morphing into a discussion of the ArbCom in general is helpful anyway. We really should be focusing on -this particular bad decision- by the ArbCom. The ArbCom does do a lot of good, and they are as human as the rest of us. The main problem is this specific instance.
Yes, let's get back on topic.
Would you like to summarise what you think is bad about the decision?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Certainly. A brief summary would be that I see this as harmful to NPOV. NPOV is one of our core founding principles, and should trump -all- other concerns, even BLP. This decision seems, instead, to raise something else as more important than that critical, core part of our mission, neutrality. Concerns of harm should be primary when they -do not- impact neutrality, or when neutrality is also harmed by excessive negative information about a living person, but should never be when concerns of "harm" and "neutrality" are in genuine conflict.. Tellingly, the ArbCom decision does not even mention NPOV.
Further, just because an article is a BLP does not mean that there cannot be a legitimate content dispute about what to include or not include. This gives a rather powerful weapon to the hands of the "don't include it" side in any given debate, unbalancing the consensus process. This, again, is harmful to neutrality and our normal community processes of deciding how to best write a good NPOV article. There are threats of severe sanctions against those who -undo- actions taken under this policy, but again quite tellingly, no similar threats against those who use this policy to stifle legitimate disputes rather than to remove blatantly bad material.
I think the problems caused by this policy and previous interpretations much like it are already visible. In many articles, it has been argued that we should not include a real name despite its wide dissemination by highly reliable sources. NPOV and NOR would demand that we -follow- our sources' example, whether we personally agree with it or not. Our goal should be to spread, not suppress, information, provided that it can be verified through reliable sources and follows our other content guidelines. We should never suppress reliable information on the basis of "harm" if it violates no other content policies-if a source has already spread the information, it's already available to the public, and if it can't be sourced or is OR, well, we don't even need BLP to say "That doesn't belong in an article", though it is helpful to say in the case of a BLP, unsourced information should be removed with increased speed and vigor.
Those of us concerned about BLP at its inception were assured that it was mainly intended to prevent another repeat like the Seigenthaler incident, to remove -unsourced or poorly sourced- information about living persons. Despite our concerns about creep, we were assured that a tight leash would be kept on this thing, and so we assented. After all, who could argue anything but that "John Smith is a member of the Nazi Party", with no sourcing, should be removed immediately and, unless sourceable, permanently? However, it is now being used to stifle -legitimate- dissent. Many believe real names should be used when reliable sources provide them. Certainly legitimate disputes can arise over whether -well sourced- negative information can be included in an article. (What if highly reliable sources confirm that our Mr. Smith really is a neo-Nazi?)
It is time for that scope creep to be reined in, not expanded. BLP enforcement should apply to -unsourced or poorly sourced- negative or possibly controversial information. To everything else, where reliable sources do exist, consensus-seeking should be the order of the day, as with any content dispute. We should not tie one side's hand behind their back in a legitimate content dispute backed by reliable sources. In this decision, the ArbCom involves itself directly in policymaking and indirectly in content disputes, two areas it has traditionally and very properly avoided. It should have stayed out. The expanded scope of the BLP policy does not enjoy anything like community consensus, even though its original form did.