On Wednesday 27 June 2007 18:28, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 11:01, Phil Sandifer wrote:
*>> I'm not OK with us being the first thing on him his future employers
see when they Google him. He was a kid when he made his mistakes, and we shouldn't be the ones to tar and feather him for life over them.
*> Why should the fact that he's "one of our own" entitle him to special
consideration?
He's not a "kid who made a mistake", he's an adult who knew fully well what he was doing and did it anyway.
It doesn't entitle him to special consideration, Kurt. Wikipedia is becoming increasingly sensitive towards all human beings of borderline notability, whose lives may be adversely affected by the existence of a Wikipedia article about them. I don't think there's anyone who is arguing in favour of deletion who would not argue in favour of deleting a similar article about a non-Wikipedian of similar borderline notability. Certainly Phil Sandifer didn't argue that Essjay deserves special consideration because he's "one of our own"; you read it into his words.
What age was Essjay when he joined? Twenty? Twenty-one? Twenty-two? Many people would consider that he *was* a kid.
Did he invent that persona with the intention of becoming an an administrator, a bureaucrat, a checkuser, an oversighter? I doubt it very much. I doubt if he even knew there were such things when he started.
It sounds to me like an immature kid, just out of his teens, finding it fun, as an insignificant new user, to tell a few whoppers about being a Professor of Theology, then, as a result of some genuinely good qualities, becoming popular on Wikipedia, becoming an administrator, rising still higher, and finding himself trapped in the lies that he had started as before he ever suspected that he was going to rise to power. Obviously it was wrong, but it wasn't a scheming, calculating, plan to gain positions of trust. As far as I know, he gained those positions by being friendly and helpful, not by saying that he had two doctorates.
Like Phil, I'm uncomfortable with having an article that puts Essjay's real name at or near the top of Google. A mention of the event in the article on [[Criticism of Wikipedia]] shows that we're not sweeping it under the carpet. Essjay is only notable (and not even particularly so) because of a single event, and the tendency at Wikipedia is to discourage articles about non-notable people who became notable from being in the news over a single event.
I wonder how many people on this mailing list never told lies between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-four. What Essjay did was wrong, but it seems that his punishment is out of proportion.
ElinorD wrote:
It doesn't entitle him to special consideration, Kurt. Wikipedia is becoming increasingly sensitive towards all human beings of borderline notability, whose lives may be adversely affected by the existence of a Wikipedia article about them. I don't think there's anyone who is arguing in favour of deletion who would not argue in favour of deleting a similar article about a non-Wikipedian of similar borderline notability. Certainly Phil Sandifer didn't argue that Essjay deserves special consideration because he's "one of our own"; you read it into his words.
What age was Essjay when he joined? Twenty? Twenty-one? Twenty-two? Many people would consider that he *was* a kid.
Did he invent that persona with the intention of becoming an an administrator, a bureaucrat, a checkuser, an oversighter? I doubt it very much. I doubt if he even knew there were such things when he started.
It sounds to me like an immature kid, just out of his teens, finding it fun, as an insignificant new user, to tell a few whoppers about being a Professor of Theology, then, as a result of some genuinely good qualities, becoming popular on Wikipedia, becoming an administrator, rising still higher, and finding himself trapped in the lies that he had started as before he ever suspected that he was going to rise to power. Obviously it was wrong, but it wasn't a scheming, calculating, plan to gain positions of trust. As far as I know, he gained those positions by being friendly and helpful, not by saying that he had two doctorates.
Like Phil, I'm uncomfortable with having an article that puts Essjay's real name at or near the top of Google. A mention of the event in the article on [[Criticism of Wikipedia]] shows that we're not sweeping it under the carpet. Essjay is only notable (and not even particularly so) because of a single event, and the tendency at Wikipedia is to discourage articles about non-notable people who became notable from being in the news over a single event.
I wonder how many people on this mailing list never told lies between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-four. What Essjay did was wrong, but it seems that his punishment is out of proportion. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't believe there's any form of "punishment" here. This issue turned out to be a pretty major one, reported on by quite a few reliable sources, so we have an article on it. That's not a punishment, it's what we do.
Why does Wikipedia have to have an entry on everything that is reported by some media source or other?
Yes, the event was covered by a few reliable sources, but it didn't take long for the media to forget all about it. And nobody will even give a rat's behind about the Essjay Controversy in five, ten years, except for maybe a few Wikipedia users who were affected by it. Just because a person or event made some headlines doesn't necessarily mean that that person or event is notable. Oh, it's *verifiable*, to be sure, but verifiability is not the same as notability, or else Wikipedia would have articles on anyone who has ever made their local rag. (Nobody is arguing for that. At least, I hope nobody is...)
Do real encyclopedias devote space to discussing singular events that happened to be reported by some random notable media source? Not generally. Now, granted, real encyclopedias generally don't have lists of episodes in television series as well (and some would argue that having those lists is one of Wikipedia's strong points), and there are quite a few other things that might not be found in traditional encyclopedias due to the fact that Wikipedia is an entirely different medium. However, as for events that just happened to get a flurry of media attention that then died down, isn't that what Wikinews is for?
Todd Allen wrote:
I don't believe there's any form of "punishment" here. This issue turned out to be a pretty major one, reported on by quite a few reliable sources, so we have an article on it. That's not a punishment, it's what we do.
On 6/28/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Why does Wikipedia have to have an entry on everything that is reported by some media source or other?
Gah.
Yes, the event was covered by a few reliable sources, but it didn't take
long for the media to forget all about it. And nobody will even give a rat's behind about the Essjay Controversy in five, ten years, except for maybe a few Wikipedia users who were affected by it.
Oh great Kreskin, please tell me the price of Google stock in 10 years.
Just because a
person or event made some headlines doesn't necessarily mean that that person or event is notable.
Well, yes, it does. It was noted. Remember that "notable" is even a lower bar than "noted".
Oh, it's *verifiable*, to be sure, but
verifiability is not the same as notability, or else Wikipedia would have articles on anyone who has ever made their local rag. (Nobody is arguing for that. At least, I hope nobody is...)
Oh, I have argued for that. Also, that's a straw man. The Essjay controversy was noted in several national papers and on national television.
Do real encyclopedias devote space to discussing singular events that
happened to be reported by some random notable media source? Not generally. Now, granted, real encyclopedias generally don't have lists of episodes in television series as well (and some would argue that having those lists is one of Wikipedia's strong points), and there are quite a few other things that might not be found in traditional encyclopedias due to the fact that Wikipedia is an entirely different medium. However, as for events that just happened to get a flurry of media attention that then died down, isn't that what Wikinews is for?
By "real encyclopedias" I assume you mean "dead-tree for-profit closed-development encyclopedias", since a real encyclopedia in the sense of satisfying the meaning of the wor "encyclopedia" would contain all human knowledge in it.
And Wikinews has more in-depth coverage of the Essjay controversy.
I lean towards a deletionist/"wait ten years" approach myself, but I really don't understand why people are so hot to delete this article. The BLP aspect simply doesn't wash, nor the legal, as it is hard to imagine that repeating a accurate story recounted in the mainstream media could possibly be considered libellous. And as for "he was just a kid": does this mean that we are going to put in some sort of "juvenile" limitation on Wikipedia coverage of any topic, for people whom the law of every country that I know of holds to be adults?
On 6/28/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
I lean towards a deletionist/"wait ten years" approach myself, but I really don't understand why people are so hot to delete this article. The BLP aspect simply doesn't wash, nor the legal, as it is hard to imagine that repeating a accurate story recounted in the mainstream media could possibly be considered libellous. And as for "he was just a kid": does this mean that we are going to put in some sort of "juvenile" limitation on Wikipedia coverage of any topic, for people whom the law of every country that I know of holds to be adults?
To be fair (speaking as an inclusionist fanatic), I recognize that there is good reason to be judicious in including content about Wikipedia in the main namespace; it is good to have a check against self-coverage.
And not having a [[Ryan Jordan]] article is a good example of that judiciousness.
But the [[Essjay controversy]] passes the test.
On Thursday 28 June 2007 04:51, Blu Aardvark wrote:
have articles on anyone who has ever made their local rag. (Nobody is arguing for that. At least, I hope nobody is...)
I am.
That's the whole point of an encyclopedia--to provide a compilation of all human knowledge.
Do real encyclopedias devote space to discussing singular events that happened to be reported by some random notable media source? Not generally.
No, but as you explain yourself below, that is a limitation not of the concept of an encyclopedia but rather of the medium most other encyclopedias are published in:
quite a few other things that might not be found in traditional encyclopedias due to the fact that Wikipedia is an entirely different medium.
Blu Aardvark wrote:
Why does Wikipedia have to have an entry on everything that is reported by some media source or other?
Yes, the event was covered by a few reliable sources, but it didn't take long for the media to forget all about it. And nobody will even give a rat's behind about the Essjay Controversy in five, ten years, except for maybe a few Wikipedia users who were affected by it. Just because a person or event made some headlines doesn't necessarily mean that that person or event is notable. Oh, it's *verifiable*, to be sure, but verifiability is not the same as notability, or else Wikipedia would have articles on anyone who has ever made their local rag. (Nobody is arguing for that. At least, I hope nobody is...)
Do real encyclopedias devote space to discussing singular events that happened to be reported by some random notable media source? Not generally. Now, granted, real encyclopedias generally don't have lists of episodes in television series as well (and some would argue that having those lists is one of Wikipedia's strong points), and there are quite a few other things that might not be found in traditional encyclopedias due to the fact that Wikipedia is an entirely different medium. However, as for events that just happened to get a flurry of media attention that then died down, isn't that what Wikinews is for?
Todd Allen wrote:
I don't believe there's any form of "punishment" here. This issue turned out to be a pretty major one, reported on by quite a few reliable sources, so we have an article on it. That's not a punishment, it's what we do.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In general, I'd tend to agree we shouldn't have news-type items, unless they're of lasting significance. I would tend to argue, though, that due to Wikipedia's size, popularity, and stature, Wikipedia itself will certainly be a subject of future study-of encyclopedias, of the Internet, and in relation to many other topics. That will certainly include its triumphs and its tribulations. The Essjay situation might not make headlines ten or twenty years from now, but I'd dare to say it will get looked up. Someone studying the pseudonymous nature of the Internet, and its drawbacks, may very well look up such a situation. It certainly also might be of interest to someone studying the history of The New Yorker, or of notable failures with fact-checking in the media in general, that's not just a name misspelling that gets a quick correction the next day. I don't think it will get buried in dust anytime soon.
Of course, if you think it ought to get merged somewhere, go suggest a merger! Or just do it and go through the [[WP:BRD]] (bold, revert, discuss) cycle. Just don't go through the [[WP:BREW]] (bold, revert, edit war) cycle.
Hrm, maybe that one ought to get written...
The thing is that the Essjay incident is only one of probably thou-- er, hundreds of thousands of "who'll care about this in a decade" articles, and as to probability of not caring, it's more likely to be cared about than most. This is a point where we cannot answer the question of what it means to say we are "encyclopedic", because the only models we have are either (a) the paper enclopedias, whose space limitations answer the question for them, or (b) sports statistics compendiums and other exhaustive catalogs of subject data. Wikipedia has in practice chosen to follow the latter, so the "of interest" threshold is extremely low, and teh Essjay incident clears it with ease.
On 0, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com scribbled:
Why does Wikipedia have to have an entry on everything that is reported by some media source or other?
Yes, the event was covered by a few reliable sources, but it didn't take long for the media to forget all about it. And nobody will even give a rat's behind about the Essjay Controversy in five, ten years, except for maybe a few Wikipedia users who were affected by it. Just because a person or event made some headlines doesn't necessarily mean that that person or event is notable. Oh, it's *verifiable*, to be sure, but verifiability is not the same as notability, or else Wikipedia would have articles on anyone who has ever made their local rag. (Nobody is arguing for that. At least, I hope nobody is...)
...
You know, people made the exact same argument against having the Seigenthaler mess be covered in an article. Yet it is even now, 3(?) years later a staple of articles (both journalistic and scholarly) on Wikipedia and even mentioned in the EB article on Wikipedia. Why should we believe that this argument would be valid for the case of Essjay when it was not for Seigenthaler?
-- gwern HAHO FKS 868 GCHQ DITSA SORT AMEMB NSG HIC EDI benelux SAS SBS SAW UDT EODC GOE
On 6/28/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Why does Wikipedia have to have an entry on everything that is reported by some media source or other?
Yes, the event was covered by a few reliable sources, but it didn't take long for the media to forget all about it.
The media hasn't forgotten about it. In the last three months, the following publications have all mentioned the Essjay fiasco when discussing Wikipedia. -InformationWeek (June 4th) -PC Magazine(May 22) -U.S. Catholic (May) -Sunday Times (apr 22) -LA Times (Apr 9) -Jerusalem Post (Apr 6) -et Cetera magazine (Apr) -The Grand Rapids Press (Apr 1)
Essjay isn't going away any time soon.
Why do you have such a list? - White Cat
On 6/29/07, C.J. Croy cjcroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Why does Wikipedia have to have an entry on everything that is reported by some media source or other?
Yes, the event was covered by a few reliable sources, but it didn't take long for the media to forget all about it.
The media hasn't forgotten about it. In the last three months, the following publications have all mentioned the Essjay fiasco when discussing Wikipedia. -InformationWeek (June 4th) -PC Magazine(May 22) -U.S. Catholic (May) -Sunday Times (apr 22) -LA Times (Apr 9) -Jerusalem Post (Apr 6) -et Cetera magazine (Apr) -The Grand Rapids Press (Apr 1)
Essjay isn't going away any time soon.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh, and the New York Times, today. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/books/29book.html
On 6/29/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Why do you have such a list?
- White Cat
On 6/29/07, C.J. Croy cjcroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Why does Wikipedia have to have an entry on everything that is
reported
by some media source or other?
Yes, the event was covered by a few reliable sources, but it didn't
take
long for the media to forget all about it.
The media hasn't forgotten about it. In the last three months, the following publications have all mentioned the Essjay fiasco when discussing Wikipedia. -InformationWeek (June 4th) -PC Magazine(May 22) -U.S. Catholic (May) -Sunday Times (apr 22) -LA Times (Apr 9) -Jerusalem Post (Apr 6) -et Cetera magazine (Apr) -The Grand Rapids Press (Apr 1)
Essjay isn't going away any time soon.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
How is that a reliable source for the essjay article?
- White Cat
On 6/30/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, and the New York Times, today. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/books/29book.html
On 6/29/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Why do you have such a list?
- White Cat
On 6/29/07, C.J. Croy cjcroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Why does Wikipedia have to have an entry on everything that is
reported
by some media source or other?
Yes, the event was covered by a few reliable sources, but it didn't
take
long for the media to forget all about it.
The media hasn't forgotten about it. In the last three months, the following publications have all mentioned the Essjay fiasco when discussing Wikipedia. -InformationWeek (June 4th) -PC Magazine(May 22) -U.S. Catholic (May) -Sunday Times (apr 22) -LA Times (Apr 9) -Jerusalem Post (Apr 6) -et Cetera magazine (Apr) -The Grand Rapids Press (Apr 1)
Essjay isn't going away any time soon.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/30/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
How is that a reliable source for the essjay article?
- White CatOn 6/30/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, and the New York Times, today. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/books/29book.html
It wasn't presented as a reliable source for the article (in the sense of supporting any factual assertions). It, like the list Chris provided earlier, was presented as a rebuttal to the claim that the media has completely forgotten about the whole affair. The media clearly hasn't forgotten about it.
-- Jonel
On 6/30/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
How is that a reliable source for the essjay article?
It is incontrovertibly a reliable source for the continuing notability of the incident.
On 6/30/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
It wasn't presented as a reliable source for the article (in the sense of supporting any factual assertions). It, like the list Chris provided earlier, was presented as a rebuttal to the claim that the media has completely forgotten about the whole affair. The media clearly hasn't forgotten about it.
-- Jonel
The media does not forget a lot of things. That does not make them notable enough to be article worthy. Media will repetively remind us useless information. Your argument is perfectly fine for wikinews just not for wikipedia.
- White Cat
On 6/30/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
It is incontrovertibly a reliable source for the continuing notability of the incident.
I do not think thats an accurate assessment. Just because something is covered, doesn't make it notable. Just as something not covered on media is not non-notable.
- White Cat
On 6/30/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/30/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
It is incontrovertibly a reliable source for the continuing notability of the incident.
I do not think thats an accurate assessment. Just because something is covered, doesn't make it notable. Just as something not covered on media is not non-notable.
You imply, in saying this, that media coverage is irrelevant to notability. I say that in general media coverage IS the "noting" that makes notability. That it is noted is prima facie evidence of notability.
Specialized somewhat for living people-- Only if they like what we say.
On 6/30/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/30/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/30/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
It is incontrovertibly a reliable source for the continuing notability of the incident.
I do not think thats an accurate assessment. Just because something is covered, doesn't make it notable. Just as something not covered on media is not non-notable.
You imply, in saying this, that media coverage is irrelevant to notability. I say that in general media coverage IS the "noting" that makes notability. That it is noted is prima facie evidence of notability.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If continuing media coverage doesn't show that something is notable, I'm not sure what you think does. You might consider certain information useless, but that doesn't mean we all do. One of the principles of working in a wiki environment is that we work together, and this means ignoring those things you don't care about.
Personally I think [[2007 State of the Union Address]] is useless. But obviously some people get a kick out of that kind of stuff. So let 'em.
Anthony
News coverage isn't an established notability criteria. Anna Nicole Smith's death is not "more notable" than september 11th. It was given greater coverage than Sep 11th by CNN as well as other networks. See how airtime logic fails?
Where is this continuing media coverage? Are we live on the air about this? There is a mere mention of it only. It doesn't even discusses the fundamentals.
Can anyone argue on notability aside from "its on the news"?
- White Cat
On 7/1/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
If continuing media coverage doesn't show that something is notable, I'm not sure what you think does. You might consider certain information useless, but that doesn't mean we all do. One of the principles of working in a wiki environment is that we work together, and this means ignoring those things you don't care about.
Personally I think [[2007 State of the Union Address]] is useless. But obviously some people get a kick out of that kind of stuff. So let 'em.
Anthony
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/1/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
News coverage isn't an established notability criteria. Anna Nicole Smith's death is not "more notable" than september 11th. It was given greater coverage than Sep 11th by CNN as well as other networks. See how airtime logic fails?
Where is this continuing media coverage? Are we live on the air about this? There is a mere mention of it only. It doesn't even discusses the fundamentals.
Can anyone argue on notability aside from "its on the news"?
Certianly. When people come to write the history of wikipedia the event will be covered.
Agreed! The article should be created then. :)
- White Cat
On 7/1/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/1/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
News coverage isn't an established notability criteria. Anna Nicole
Smith's
death is not "more notable" than september 11th. It was given greater coverage than Sep 11th by CNN as well as other networks. See how airtime logic fails?
Where is this continuing media coverage? Are we live on the air about
this?
There is a mere mention of it only. It doesn't even discusses the fundamentals.
Can anyone argue on notability aside from "its on the news"?
Certianly. When people come to write the history of wikipedia the event will be covered.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/1/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
News coverage isn't an established notability criteria. Anna Nicole Smith's death is not "more notable" than september 11th. It was given greater coverage than Sep 11th by CNN as well as other networks. See how airtime logic fails?
Somehow I don't think you're correct here - yes, there was way too much Anna Nicole Smith on the news channels, but the Sept 11th terrorist attacks got much, much more coverage.
-Matt
Not at all, there was a longer non-stop coverage w/o a commercial break on Anna Nicole Smith than September 11th. The daily show mocked this too. What I really mean is sometimes the media gives undue weight to something insignificant.
- White Cat
On 7/1/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/1/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
News coverage isn't an established notability criteria. Anna Nicole
Smith's
death is not "more notable" than september 11th. It was given greater coverage than Sep 11th by CNN as well as other networks. See how airtime logic fails?
Somehow I don't think you're correct here - yes, there was way too much Anna Nicole Smith on the news channels, but the Sept 11th terrorist attacks got much, much more coverage.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/1/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Not at all, there was a longer non-stop coverage w/o a commercial break on Anna Nicole Smith than September 11th.
Where? Not that a record for the longest non-stop coverage w/o a commercial break implies overall greater coverage, but I would be interested in seeing a cite for that fact.
The daily show mocked this too.
The daily show is not a reliable source for such information.
What I really mean is sometimes the media gives undue weight to something insignificant.
Anna Nicole Smith's death was actually quite significant (at least potentially), due to the large inheritance she might be getting, which is exactly why so many people were fighting about it, and led directly to a lot of the news coverage. It wasn't as significant as 9/11, but it was significant.
Anna Nicole Smith's death does not have an article now does it even though it had more coverage than... say the Essjay Controvercy?
The Daily Show is as reliable as fake news gets.
- White Cat
On 7/2/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/1/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Not at all, there was a longer non-stop coverage w/o a commercial break
on
Anna Nicole Smith than September 11th.
Where? Not that a record for the longest non-stop coverage w/o a commercial break implies overall greater coverage, but I would be interested in seeing a cite for that fact.
The daily show mocked this too.
The daily show is not a reliable source for such information.
What I really mean is sometimes the media gives undue weight to
something
insignificant.
Anna Nicole Smith's death was actually quite significant (at least potentially), due to the large inheritance she might be getting, which is exactly why so many people were fighting about it, and led directly to a lot of the news coverage. It wasn't as significant as 9/11, but it was significant.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/1/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Anna Nicole Smith's death does not have an article now does it even though it had more coverage than... say the Essjay Controvercy?
[[Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case]] has an article.
On 7/1/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
The Daily Show is as reliable as fake news gets.
The best I could find is http://www.niagara-news.com/v37issues/v37i12/oped.shtml?newsstories
"When I turn on the Cable News Network (CNN), I hope that I will see something about what happened in Congress that day, but instead, I see over two hours of commercial free coverage of the Anna Nicole drama. The last time they went that long without a commercial break was 9/11. According to CNN, Anna Nicole's death is right up there with the deaths of 3,000 American citizens."
Which would imply that the length without a commercial break was longer for 9/11 coverage. That fits in with my recollection. Of course, it would also imply that the length without commercial break was less for, say, Katrina coverage.
Here's another link:
"September 11, 2001 CBS News coverage of the terrorist attacks on New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania totals a record 93 hours and 8 minutes. The non-stop, commercial-free coverage begins at 8:55 AM, ET, on Tuesday, September 11, and concludes at 6:00 AM, ET on Saturday, September 15. Dan Rather anchors 53 hours and 35 minutes of that coverage."
93 hours and 8 minutes without a commercial break. I highly doubt any major television stations did that for Anna Nicole Smith. Certainly none of the networks did. I think you got your facts confused.
I do not understand this overindulgence with the details. The point is Anna Nicole Smith was given more coverage than it was worth by FAR. That is why the amount of News coverage is not parallel with notability. They may be parallel but that is not the rule.
I would appreciate if you focused on the "spirit" of the rationale rather than every minor detail. Examples I use are merely for illustration and not intended to be encyclopedic. :P
- White Cat
On 7/2/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/1/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
The Daily Show is as reliable as fake news gets.
The best I could find is http://www.niagara-news.com/v37issues/v37i12/oped.shtml?newsstories
"When I turn on the Cable News Network (CNN), I hope that I will see something about what happened in Congress that day, but instead, I see over two hours of commercial free coverage of the Anna Nicole drama. The last time they went that long without a commercial break was 9/11. According to CNN, Anna Nicole's death is right up there with the deaths of 3,000 American citizens."
Which would imply that the length without a commercial break was longer for 9/11 coverage. That fits in with my recollection. Of course, it would also imply that the length without commercial break was less for, say, Katrina coverage.
Here's another link:
"September 11, 2001 CBS News coverage of the terrorist attacks on New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania totals a record 93 hours and 8 minutes. The non-stop, commercial-free coverage begins at 8:55 AM, ET, on Tuesday, September 11, and concludes at 6:00 AM, ET on Saturday, September 15. Dan Rather anchors 53 hours and 35 minutes of that coverage."
93 hours and 8 minutes without a commercial break. I highly doubt any major television stations did that for Anna Nicole Smith. Certainly none of the networks did. I think you got your facts confused.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/1/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I do not understand this overindulgence with the details. The point is Anna Nicole Smith was given more coverage than it was worth by FAR.
Depends on how you're measuring "worth", I'd say.
That is why the amount of News coverage is not parallel with notability. They may be parallel but that is not the rule.
I don't think the concept of "notability" fits well on a sliding scale, and to the limited extent it does, yes, amount of news coverage doesn't parallel it.
I more think in terms of "notable enough" or "not notable enough", and something which has received ongoing news coverage for an extended period of time generally falls under "notable enough".
I would appreciate if you focused on the "spirit" of the rationale rather than every minor detail. Examples I use are merely for illustration and not intended to be encyclopedic. :P
Sorry. The example you gave just seemed to be so patently untrue. At first I ignored the example, and someone else pointed out that it was probably false, then you repeated it, and I mentioned that it seemed false, and then you repeated it again and we got into this discussion.
Yes notability is a boolean.
If (notability == true) { pass; } else { break; }
:P
I really think certain things that had a very long news coverage are not article worthy.
We are at a level of agreement on notability but we will have to agree to disagree on essjay controversy. I do not feel it is notable enough to have an article. :)
- White Cat
On 7/2/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/1/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I do not understand this overindulgence with the details. The point is
Anna
Nicole Smith was given more coverage than it was worth by FAR.
Depends on how you're measuring "worth", I'd say.
That is why the amount of News coverage is not parallel with notability. They may be parallel but that is not the rule.
I don't think the concept of "notability" fits well on a sliding scale, and to the limited extent it does, yes, amount of news coverage doesn't parallel it.
I more think in terms of "notable enough" or "not notable enough", and something which has received ongoing news coverage for an extended period of time generally falls under "notable enough".
I would appreciate if you focused on the "spirit" of the rationale
rather
than every minor detail. Examples I use are merely for illustration and
not
intended to be encyclopedic. :P
Sorry. The example you gave just seemed to be so patently untrue. At first I ignored the example, and someone else pointed out that it was probably false, then you repeated it, and I mentioned that it seemed false, and then you repeated it again and we got into this discussion.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/1/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Yes notability is a boolean.
Notability is not a boolean; nor for that matter is it even really objective. Oh, once a measure has been set, degree of notability can be assessed with some objectivity; but it is always a matter of degree.
Indeed, this argument is very much a manifestation of this. Evidence for the noting of Essjay and his real name is easy enough to come by, and indeed has been laid before you here. The problem is, you insist on a different measure from the rest of us. There could hardly be a more straightforward demonstration of the subjectivity of the matter.
On 7/1/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Yes notability is a boolean.
If (notability == true) { pass; } else { break; }
if (notability.defined == true) { head.explode(); ExitToShell(-1); }
—C.W.
Wouldn't that cause system instability?
- White Cat
On 7/3/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/1/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Yes notability is a boolean.
If (notability == true) { pass; } else { break; }
if (notability.defined == true) { head.explode(); ExitToShell(-1); }
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/3/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Wouldn't that cause system instability?
Yes. That is an inherent danger when one attempts to transform the abstract concept of [[Wikipedia:Notability]] into something concrete and actionable (if by "instability" you mean "something akin to the L.A. riots").
—C.W.
On 7/1/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I do not understand this overindulgence with the details. The point is Anna Nicole Smith was given more coverage than it was worth by FAR. That is why the amount of News coverage is not parallel with notability. They may be parallel but that is not the rule.
I would appreciate if you focused on the "spirit" of the rationale rather than every minor detail. Examples I use are merely for illustration and not intended to be encyclopedic. :P
Hear, hear. Why let a good argument get bogged down by facts?
How is that a constructive remark?
- White Cat
On 7/2/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/1/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I do not understand this overindulgence with the details. The point is
Anna
Nicole Smith was given more coverage than it was worth by FAR. That is
why
the amount of News coverage is not parallel with notability. They may be parallel but that is not the rule.
I would appreciate if you focused on the "spirit" of the rationale
rather
than every minor detail. Examples I use are merely for illustration and
not
intended to be encyclopedic. :P
Hear, hear. Why let a good argument get bogged down by facts?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 01/07/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Not at all, there was a longer non-stop coverage w/o a commercial break on Anna Nicole Smith than September 11th...
... in America. I can assure you that worldwide, the september 11th attacks were much more widely covered than anna nicole smith's death.
On 7/1/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
News coverage isn't an established notability criteria.
Reliable third parties sources are an established notability criterion, and most new coverage qualifies as a reliable third party source.
Anna Nicole Smith's death is not "more notable" than september 11th. It was given greater coverage than Sep 11th by CNN as well as other networks. See how airtime logic fails?
As was already pointed out, your assertion that Anna Nicole Smith's death received more news coverage than "Sep 11th" is ridiculously inaccurate. However, both are notable.
On 7/1/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
News coverage isn't an established notability criteria. Anna Nicole Smith's death is not "more notable" than september 11th. It was given greater coverage than Sep 11th by CNN as well as other networks. See how airtime logic fails?
It might feel like that, but that claim is nonsensical.
On 6/28/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Why does Wikipedia have to have an entry on everything that is reported by some media source or other?
Consider that the "evening news" of one's choice, and its accompanying dot-com site, are the source our typical user will be most familiar with. For most of them, it is also the only citable source to which they will ever have more than a sporadic level of exposure.
Saying "go write about something not found in the news" will just alienate people who are trying to help the project.
One might watch the news at home and read the newspaper at work, or vice versa, and even edit Wikipedia in both locations, but most people who have a job aren't going to be spending much time in libraries... unless they are in fact librarians, in which case more power to them.
''This article is a stub. Pay my overdue book fees and I might finish writing it."
—C.W.
Yes. We aren't a news site though. People are more than welcome to write about news on wikinews. Current events is more than welcome on wikipedia provided the covered even is significant enough. This one isn't. It is however significant to be in the news. - White Cat
On 7/1/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Why does Wikipedia have to have an entry on everything that is reported by some media source or other?
Consider that the "evening news" of one's choice, and its accompanying dot-com site, are the source our typical user will be most familiar with. For most of them, it is also the only citable source to which they will ever have more than a sporadic level of exposure.
Saying "go write about something not found in the news" will just alienate people who are trying to help the project.
One might watch the news at home and read the newspaper at work, or vice versa, and even edit Wikipedia in both locations, but most people who have a job aren't going to be spending much time in libraries... unless they are in fact librarians, in which case more power to them.
''This article is a stub. Pay my overdue book fees and I might finish writing it."
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/1/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. We aren't a news site though. People are more than welcome to write about news on wikinews. Current events is more than welcome on wikipedia provided the covered even is significant enough. This one isn't. It is however significant to be in the news. - White Cat
The article meats every notability standard we've ever created.
We are living in an era where simple vandalism on en.wikipedia becomes headline news on CNN not once but twice (that professional wrestler's death). That makes Wikipedia notable not every incident on it that made it's way to the news. - White Cat
On 7/1/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/1/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. We aren't a news site though. People are more than welcome to write about news on wikinews. Current events is more than welcome on wikipedia provided the covered even is significant enough. This one isn't. It is however significant to be in the news. - White Cat
The article meats every notability standard we've ever created.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
White Cat wrote:
We are living in an era where simple vandalism on en.wikipedia becomes headline news on CNN not once but twice (that professional wrestler's death).
I would hardly consider an edit that suggested the editor may have had inside knowledge of a murder to be "simple vandalism." IMO you're gravely misrepresenting it by calling it that.
It was established as simple coincidental vandalism.
- White Cat
On 7/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
White Cat wrote:
We are living in an era where simple vandalism on en.wikipedia becomes headline news on CNN not once but twice (that professional wrestler's death).
I would hardly consider an edit that suggested the editor may have had inside knowledge of a murder to be "simple vandalism." IMO you're gravely misrepresenting it by calling it that.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
White Cat wrote:
It was established as simple coincidental vandalism.
- White CatOn 7/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
White Cat wrote:
We are living in an era where simple vandalism on en.wikipedia becomes headline news on CNN not once but twice (that professional wrestler's death).
I would hardly consider an edit that suggested the editor may have had inside knowledge of a murder to be "simple vandalism." IMO you're gravely misrepresenting it by calling it that.
"Simple vandalism" does not become headline news, unless it happens to become something other than simple vandalism. There is a firehose of simple vandalism that does not make headlines. This was "simple vandalism" that became something else when it turned out to closely coincide with what was at the time recently realized reality.
'Essjay', 'Ryan Jordan' and 'Essjay controversy' got a great deal of publicity in world dailies. Hell, there was a column in the Times of India about the Wiki incident that allegedly shook public trust in the integrity of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information; yada yada yada
OK, so now we've got the article on Wikipedia, which basically does nothing but make a mockery of an individual named Ryan Jordan and reminisces about how he fooled us all.
Call it - "Revenge of the Wiki", but this individual is suffering for his series of bad judgment calls and attributed malice. Call it whatever you want, you cannot dispute the fact that if we were some other encyclopedia, we wouldn't be having this article at all.
Yes, I am well aware of the "paper encyclopedia" argument and the consecutive jabberwocky; about how this passes all the notability tests ever made. The bigger problem (which creates a question of ethics, something probably alien to those who have been defending the article's existence aggressively) is the impact of this article's existence on the subject's life.
Wikipedia IS the world's largest website; it IS the world's largest compendium of knowledge, the biggest encyclopedia. Do we have responsibilities? What about ethics? We are ACTIVELY affecting the lives of various individuals worldwide, and one aspect of those impacts could be easily negative, if we tolerate negative but well-sourced information that clearly says -- "THIS GUY DONE FOUL"
Ryan Jordon is probably going to have a lot of hindrances while applying for employment and placements. Who are we to exacerbate the situation for an individual who is clearly not notable and affluent enough to get over the after-effects of the controversy? Why should we constantly harp about upholding notability guidelines when it does more harm than good to borderline notable subjects?
Our job as the largest encyclopedia in the world is to be the total sum of human knowledge but with certain responsibilities to the society and its members. If getting featured in various publications and dailies of repute does make a person notable enough to get them an encyclopedic entry, then we should get rid of this systematic bias. Wikipedia is not a joke, nor is Ryan's life.
An alternative solution which might appease both the sides would be to remove the name "Ryan Jordon" from the article itself.
--Anirudh
On 7/5/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
White Cat wrote:
It was established as simple coincidental vandalism.
- White CatOn 7/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
White Cat wrote:
We are living in an era where simple vandalism on en.wikipedia becomes headline news on CNN not once but twice (that professional wrestler's death).
I would hardly consider an edit that suggested the editor may have had inside knowledge of a murder to be "simple vandalism." IMO you're gravely misrepresenting it by calling it that.
"Simple vandalism" does not become headline news, unless it happens to become something other than simple vandalism. There is a firehose of simple vandalism that does not make headlines. This was "simple vandalism" that became something else when it turned out to closely coincide with what was at the time recently realized reality.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/5/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia IS the world's largest website;
Myspace would probably beg to differ.
it IS the world's largest compendium of knowledge,
Ah no various astronomy databases are larger.
the biggest encyclopedia. Do we have responsibilities?
Certainly. They are clearly laid out under various laws.
What about ethics?
I hear you can buy all kinds of stuff on ebay.
We are ACTIVELY affecting the lives of various individuals worldwide,
Yes? Strangely it is always an intern acting without orders who then makes the snips (well with one exception).
and one aspect of those impacts could be easily negative, if we tolerate negative but well-sourced information that clearly says -- "THIS GUY DONE FOUL"
What is the ethical issue?
Ryan Jordon is probably going to have a lot of hindrances while applying for employment and placements. Who are we to exacerbate the situation for an individual who is clearly not notable and affluent enough to get over the after-effects of the controversy?
Who are we to make the judgement that employers should be denied useful information?
Why should we constantly harp about upholding notability guidelines when it does more harm than good to borderline notable subjects?
Because Wicca is not the official religion of wikipedia.
harp about upholding notability guidelines would appear to be a strawman.
Our job as the largest encyclopedia in the world is to be the total sum of human knowledge but with certain responsibilities to the society and its members. If getting featured in various publications and dailies of repute does make a person notable enough to get them an encyclopedic entry, then we should get rid of this systematic bias.
Being worked on. Digging through microfilms is a slow process mind.
An alternative solution which might appease both the sides would be to remove the name "Ryan Jordon" from the article itself.
Enough valid stuff has already been removed from the article.
On 7/11/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
Why should we constantly harp about upholding notability guidelines when it does more harm than good to borderline notable subjects?
Because Wicca is not the official religion of wikipedia.
You may have missed principle 3 in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff]].
-- Jonel
Individuals who "make bad judgment calls" involving soundly-based accusations of fraud with respect to management positions with major public media are worthy of coverage, and if a senior editor of the Brittanica can been caught with false credentials, it would have been in the papers also, and certainly in Wikipedia.
As for the removal from the article, please note the proposed policy at WP:PSEUDO calling for the removal of even soundly sourced negative material from bio articles if the person is not thought important enough.
We have gone way too far in the direction of permitting subjects to whitewash their articles, and the sympathy of WP editors for a particular person is worthy of the same opinion we would have to antipathy. Both are COI, and both should be fought against, not pandered to. ~~~~
On 7/11/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/11/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
Why should we constantly harp about upholding notability guidelines when it does more harm than good to borderline notable subjects?
Because Wicca is not the official religion of wikipedia.
You may have missed principle 3 in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff]].
-- Jonel _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/11/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
As for the removal from the article, please note the proposed policy at WP:PSEUDO calling for the removal of even soundly sourced negative material from bio articles if the person is not thought important enough.
Hmm that seems to redirect to "avoiding harm", which reminds me be very careful when shaving my nether-regions or eating dinner with a fork.
Back on topic, let's assume briefly and for the sake of argument that "notability" (or lack of it) is actionable on its own (which it isn't, but this is the Land of Make-Believe, so close your eyes and just listen).
Facts, assuming they are <s>true</s> supported by reliable sources, cannot be positive or negative, only informative. Regardless of the information provided by your sources, a talented writer can make the final product sound positive, or negative, or somewhere in between. Articles generally begin as a mixed bag and other editors come along and make minor adjustments, smoothing out the peaks and valleys in the prose being used to express these facts, until eventually we end up with something that pleases and/or upsets everyone equally.
Notability, ok. Let's suppose that the relevance of certain information is disputed or just not very apparent. It might even be deemed "not notable enough" to mention. This has nothing to do with whether it's "positive information" or "negative information", because on closer inspection, one sees that these labels don't really exist. Either it's verifiable or it's not, and it's either relevant to the article or it's not.
Notability, ok. If that card is to be played it needs to be played fairly and sanity-checking is an absolute must. This assumes that there is anyone still willing to do something other than smile and nod whenever a question related to serious decision-making on Wikipedia is asked. Could I get a show of hands by any chance?
Notability, ok. Your friends say "go for it", not that they paid attention to the question. I can't stress this enough. There is no such thing as "being notable enough for Wikipedia to have a positive article, but not a negative one" because all articles are supposed to be written neutrally. Notability, even in its broadest formulation, does not affect our most basic polices, one of which states that **all articles** are supposed to be written neutrally.
It does not say "due to our disproportionate focus on BLP issues, articles about dead people are now, in practice, given more leeway". It does not say "articles about people (living or dead) who are less notable/important than others should be written more favorably to the subject". And it does not say "information may be added or removed based on the notability of the article's subject, rather than the verifiability and relevance of the content."
A subject wishing to "opt out" is one thing, and controversial in its own right.
A subject wishing to "opt halfway out" or to say "you can print an article, but only if you include this and exclude that" is, in my opinion, completely unacceptable. We are an encyclopedia, not a public relations firm (or as one of our finest editors suggested on his way out the door, a charity case).
How are we going to objectively determine whether one subject is more notable or less notable than another? If they are part of the same field of study, it might be feasible, but in the general case you might as well be comparing Lou Gehrig to Seattle Slew.
(stalemate, one triple crown each)
—C.W.
On 7/12/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
You may have missed principle 3 in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff]].
Arbcom does not make policy. I would argue that this is doubly true when the page on which they made the statement has been blanked.
On 7/12/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/12/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
You may have missed principle 3 in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff]].
Arbcom does not make policy. I would argue that this is doubly true when the page on which they made the statement has been blanked.
Oh wow, I missed that decision. It does surprise me that anything on Wikipedia was ever done out of courtesy for Jeff (assuming that is actually is the reason for blanking that page). Having participated in that case myself I can assure everyone that the content of the sub-pages, (particularly the "/Workshop") is considerably more... um... discourteous, so it seems strange that those are all still intact.
—C.W.
On 7/12/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia IS the world's largest website;
Myspace would probably beg to differ.
Erm, alrighty, but you get the point, don't you?
it IS the world's largest
compendium of knowledge,
Ah no various astronomy databases are larger.
...
the biggest encyclopedia. Do we have
responsibilities?
Certainly. They are clearly laid out under various laws.
Laws, schmlaws, I am referring to ethics.
What about ethics?
I hear you can buy all kinds of stuff on ebay.
Your point being...?
We are ACTIVELY affecting the
lives of various individuals worldwide,
Yes? Strangely it is always an intern acting without orders who then makes the snips (well with one exception).
and one aspect of those impacts could be easily negative, if we tolerate negative but well-sourced information that clearly says -- "THIS GUY DONE FOUL"
What is the ethical issue?
As I have already stated, his life is getting affected by the negative publicity. The article does nothing but make a mockery of that individual. We are an encyclopedia and not a web-based newspaper which publishes each and every thing that happens on the planet. I am not against inclusionism, but some articles are better left outside, and for good reasons.
Ryan Jordon is probably going to have a lot of hindrances while
applying for employment and placements. Who are we to exacerbate the situation for an individual who is clearly not notable and affluent enough to get over the after-effects of the controversy?
Who are we to make the judgement that employers should be denied useful information?
They are not being denied information in any manner, but the point of him having an article featuring himself makes the situation even more enormous.
Why should we
constantly harp about upholding notability guidelines when it does more harm than good to borderline notable subjects?
Because Wicca is not the official religion of wikipedia.
harp about upholding notability guidelines would appear to be a strawman.
No, it's about the systematic biases that plague Wiccapedia.
Our job as the largest encyclopedia in the world is to be the total
sum of human knowledge but with certain responsibilities to the society and its members. If getting featured in various publications and dailies of repute does make a person notable enough to get them an encyclopedic entry, then we should get rid of this systematic bias.
Being worked on. Digging through microfilms is a slow process mind.
*cough*
An alternative solution which might appease both the sides would be to
remove the name "Ryan Jordon" from the article itself.
Enough valid stuff has already been removed from the article.
geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/14/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/12/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia IS the world's largest website;
Myspace would probably beg to differ.
Erm, alrighty, but you get the point, don't you?
Not really. The amount of content on a site is not that relevant to your argument.
Laws, schmlaws, I am referring to ethics.
Which ones?
Humans have come up with everything from super restrictive to "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"
As I have already stated, his life is getting affected by the negative publicity. The article does nothing but make a mockery of that individual. We are an encyclopedia and not a web-based newspaper which publishes each and every thing that happens on the planet. I am not against inclusionism, but some articles are better left outside, and for good reasons.
So your argument is noteability based?
They are not being denied information in any manner, but the point of him having an article featuring himself makes the situation even more enormous.
If they are not being denied information in any manner then the article will make no difference.
No, it's about the systematic biases that plague Wiccapedia.
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]]
On 7/14/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/12/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia IS the world's largest website;
Myspace would probably beg to differ.
Erm, alrighty, but you get the point, don't you?
Not really. The amount of content on a site is not that relevant to your argument.
Couple that with the fact that Wikipedia is regularly a top-ten website on most of the search engines.
Laws, schmlaws, I am referring to ethics.
Which ones?
Humans have come up with everything from super restrictive to "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"
Human conscience, the laws of natural justice. We *don't* have names for morals and ethics do we?
As I have already stated, his life is getting affected by the negative
publicity. The article does nothing but make a mockery of that
individual.
We are an encyclopedia and not a web-based newspaper which publishes
each
and every thing that happens on the planet. I am not against
inclusionism,
but some articles are better left outside, and for good reasons.
So your argument is noteability based?
Are you deliberately going around in circles?
They are not being denied information in any manner, but the point of him
having an article featuring himself makes the situation even more
enormous.
If they are not being denied information in any manner then the article will make no difference.
Featuring in an encyclopedia is quite different from getting mentioned on a tabloid. It generally magnifies the predicament of the individual.
No, it's about the systematic biases that plague Wiccapedia.
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]]
Yes, bureaucraticfuckism.
--
geni
--Anirudh
On 7/15/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
Couple that with the fact that Wikipedia is regularly a top-ten website on most of the search engines.
In this case we are only 2 places above telegraph.co.uk
Laws, schmlaws, I am referring to ethics.
Which ones?
Humans have come up with everything from super restrictive to "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"
Human conscience, the laws of natural justice.
Natural justice is a legal concept.
We *don't* have names for morals and ethics do we?
We have names for various ethical systems.
So your argument is noteability based?
Are you deliberately going around in circles?
Only in so far as I'm trying to follow you.
They are not being denied information in any manner, but the point of him
having an article featuring himself makes the situation even more
enormous.
If they are not being denied information in any manner then the article will make no difference.
Featuring in an encyclopedia is quite different from getting mentioned on a tabloid. It generally magnifies the predicament of the individual.
Because it makes the information more available. This does not tie into you claim that you do not wish to deny people information.
No, it's about the systematic biases that plague Wiccapedia.
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]]
Yes, bureaucraticfuckism.
That is not a word normally used to describe Wikiprojects.
On 7/15/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
Couple that with the fact that Wikipedia is regularly a top-ten website on most of the search engines.
I think if we could stop obsessing about our own popularity and how The Whole World Is Watching [us], our moral judgments or "ethics" might begin to carry more weight (and be less readily mistaken for coerced ass-covering).
—C.W.
On 7/15/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
I think if we could stop obsessing about our own popularity and how The Whole World Is Watching [us], our moral judgments or "ethics" might begin to carry more weight (and be less readily mistaken for coerced ass-covering).
I largely agree. We should be doing the right thing for our mission regardless of whether anyone's watching.
-Matt
On 7/15/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
I think if we could stop obsessing about our own popularity and how The Whole World Is Watching [us], our moral judgments or "ethics" might begin to carry more weight (and be less readily mistaken for coerced ass-covering).
on 7/15/07 7:35 AM, Matthew Brown at morven@gmail.com wrote:
I largely agree. We should be doing the right thing for our mission regardless of whether anyone's watching.
And for our people! Without them, this Project - and it's mission - would still be someone's fantasy.
Marc
On 7/5/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
'Essjay', 'Ryan Jordan' and 'Essjay controversy' got a great deal of publicity in world dailies. Hell, there was a column in the Times of India about the Wiki incident that allegedly shook public trust in the integrity of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information; yada yada yada
...
--Anirudh
I would mention it's also starting to turn up in books: I was reading ''The Cult of the Amateur'' the other day where it got a good solid paragraph.
-- gwern
On 0, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com scribbled:
'Essjay', 'Ryan Jordan' and 'Essjay controversy' got a great deal of publicity in world dailies. Hell, there was a column in the Times of India about the Wiki incident that allegedly shook public trust in the integrity of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information; yada yada yada
OK, so now we've got the article on Wikipedia, which basically does nothing but make a mockery of an individual named Ryan Jordan and reminisces about how he fooled us all.
...
Can't say I agree. As it has stood for a long time, [[Essjay controversy]] pathologically goes out of its way to only talk about coverage and the coverage's allegations and to avoid any condemnation of his actions, or for that matter any discussion of Jordan as a real human being, not to mention all the pertinent information (like the Wikipedia Review thread) which we as Wikipedians know about and have access to (for this sort of subject, Wikipedians and Wikipedia material obviously are expert and reliable - but that's another thread altogether). It doesn't even include the Freely licensed photo of the person-wot-dunnit which that person uploaded!
-- gwern AOL AOL TOS CIS CBOT AIMSX STARLAN 3B2 BITNET
On 6/28/07, ElinorD elinordf@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 18:28, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 11:01, Phil Sandifer wrote:
*>> I'm not OK with us being the first thing on him his future employers
see when they Google him. He was a kid when he made his mistakes, and we shouldn't be the ones to tar and feather him for life over them.
*> Why should the fact that he's "one of our own" entitle him to special
consideration?
He's not a "kid who made a mistake", he's an adult who knew fully well what he was doing and did it anyway.
It doesn't entitle him to special consideration, Kurt. Wikipedia is becoming increasingly sensitive towards all human beings of borderline notability, whose lives may be adversely affected by the existence of a Wikipedia article about them. I don't think there's anyone who is arguing in favour of deletion who would not argue in favour of deleting a similar article about a non-Wikipedian of similar borderline notability. Certainly Phil Sandifer didn't argue that Essjay deserves special consideration because he's "one of our own"; you read it into his words.
What age was Essjay when he joined? Twenty? Twenty-one? Twenty-two? Many people would consider that he *was* a kid.
Did he invent that persona with the intention of becoming an an administrator, a bureaucrat, a checkuser, an oversighter? I doubt it very much. I doubt if he even knew there were such things when he started.
It sounds to me like an immature kid, just out of his teens, finding it fun, as an insignificant new user, to tell a few whoppers about being a Professor of Theology, then, as a result of some genuinely good qualities, becoming popular on Wikipedia, becoming an administrator, rising still higher, and finding himself trapped in the lies that he had started as before he ever suspected that he was going to rise to power. Obviously it was wrong, but it wasn't a scheming, calculating, plan to gain positions of trust. As far as I know, he gained those positions by being friendly and helpful, not by saying that he had two doctorates.
Like Phil, I'm uncomfortable with having an article that puts Essjay's real name at or near the top of Google. A mention of the event in the article on [[Criticism of Wikipedia]] shows that we're not sweeping it under the carpet. Essjay is only notable (and not even particularly so) because of a single event, and the tendency at Wikipedia is to discourage articles about non-notable people who became notable from being in the news over a single event.
I wonder how many people on this mailing list never told lies between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-four. What Essjay did was wrong, but it seems that his punishment is out of proportion.
Er, is everyone aware that we do *NOT* have any biographical article about Essjay? We only have an article about the [[Essjay controversy]], which is perfectly justified. We *could* merge it into [[Criticism of Wikipedia]], but it'd be a huge part of the article; what is wrong, pray tell, with breaking it out into its own article, which does not even contain his real name in its title? [[Ryan Jordan]] is a disambiguation page which points readers to [[Essjay controversy]].
Please, please don't make assumptions about facts which can easily be checked. We are not discussing a lopsided article on [[Ryan Jordan (former Wikipedia administrator)]], but an article on the controversy which was heavily documented in the news, and will probably feature to some extent in future histories of Wikipedia.
In other words, Wikipedia does not have any article on the non-notable person that is [[Ryan Jordan (former Wikipedia administrator)]]. It does have an article on the notable [[Essjay controversy]].
Some people like Phil make an argument (not one I agree with, but one that gets the basic facts right) that we should not cover the controversy either. That's fine. But why are we debating whether we should have an article on [[Ryan Jordan (former Wikipedia administrator)]] if we don't have one in the first place?
Johnleemk
P.S. Since the definition of a "kid" obviously differs from individual to individual, a reasonable place to draw the line, assuming we want to insert our own moral judgment into writing about "kids" in an encyclopaedia, is the legal age of majority, which is either 18 or 21 in most places.
On 6/28/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
[[Ryan Jordan]] is a disambiguation page which points readers to [[Essjay controversy]].
Perhaps removal of that pointer alone would be enough.
On 28/06/07, ElinorD elinordf@gmail.com wrote:
It sounds to me like an immature kid, just out of his teens, finding it fun, as an insignificant new user, to tell a few whoppers about being a Professor of Theology, then, as a result of some genuinely good qualities, becoming popular on Wikipedia, becoming an administrator, rising still higher, and finding himself trapped in the lies that he had started as before he ever suspected that he was going to rise to power. Obviously it was wrong, but it wasn't a scheming, calculating, plan to gain positions of trust. As far as I know, he gained those positions by being friendly and helpful, not by saying that he had two doctorates.
Yes. Essjay gained all his administrative positions by being good and clueful. You can't fake that.
- d.
On 6/28/07, ElinorD elinordf@gmail.com wrote:
What age was Essjay when he joined? Twenty? Twenty-one? Twenty-two? Many people would consider that he *was* a kid.
Did he invent that persona with the intention of becoming an an administrator, a bureaucrat, a checkuser, an oversighter? I doubt it very much. I doubt if he even knew there were such things when he started.
It sounds to me like an immature kid, just out of his teens, finding it fun, as an insignificant new user, to tell a few whoppers about being a Professor of Theology, then, as a result of some genuinely good qualities, becoming popular on Wikipedia, becoming an administrator, rising still higher, and finding himself trapped in the lies that he had started as before he ever suspected that he was going to rise to power.
Nice story would play okeyish with most juries. Misses a significant fact. He didn't stop.
Remember his statement on wikia? That appears not have been true either:
http://www.kctcs.net/todaysnews/index.cfm?tn_date=2007-03-06#9315