-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Using the {{office}} template to tag problem content is a nice idea, but, I would imagine, has a rather serious drawback: Wikitruth.info (amongst other 'helpful' critics) seems to have a sysop working for them. Were we to flag an article that was libellous with {{office}}, you can bet that they would go and dig out the deleted sections, and repost it to their wonderful service. Now Wikimedia has been informed that they are likely to be sued, and in response has done something knowing that it would increase the publication and spread of this libel. - we're then liable for their reposting of the content, and "utterly screwed". I know, I know, "that's not what was intended". Well, tough, that's the way the Real World(tm) works.
So, what does this mean? Well, flagging articles as Office-protected is a legal no-no in that kind of case, and something significantly less high profile has to be done - and, possibly, the existence of this action would be buried for all eternity (or, certainly, several decades, which on the Internet is much the same thing).
This is something that we have to deal with /now/ - the Foundation could possibly be sued out of existence tomorrow. There is no time for us to have a nice chat, or wring our hands about whether it's properly the "wiki way". We're here to build an encyclopædia, above all things, and if you don't care that the Foundation is here to keep everything working, then possibly you need to re-evaluate your priorities and commitment to this project; Distributed Proofreaders could always do with a few more volunteers, for instance.
Please note that this is all conjecture on my part, I'm not the one who makes {{office}} decisions.
Yours sincerely, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
On 4/20/06, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Using the {{office}} template to tag problem content is a nice idea, but, I would imagine, has a rather serious drawback: Wikitruth.info (amongst other 'helpful' critics) seems to have a sysop working for them. Were we to flag an article that was libellous with {{office}}, you can bet that they would go and dig out the deleted sections, and repost it to their wonderful service. Now Wikimedia has been informed that they are likely to be sued, and in response has done something knowing that it would increase the publication and spread of this libel. - we're then liable for their reposting of the content, and "utterly screwed". I know, I know, "that's not what was intended". Well, tough, that's the way the Real World(tm) works.
Maybe a further way of obscuring deleted content would be helpful here? Something where the deleted revisions could not be viewed by all administrators? I have no idea how difficult this would be to implement, though.
Alternately (or in addition to that) we could crack down on whatever admins are leaking removed content; this wouldn't entirely solve the problem, but might decrease the practical risk of something like this happening.
Kirill Lokshin
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but if Wikimedia were found liable for Wikitruth's deliberate and purposeful attempt to re-spread material we removed at request of someone else, wouldn't Wikimedia have standing for suing Wikitruth as attempting to defraud Wikimedia or something like that?
FF
On 4/20/06, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Using the {{office}} template to tag problem content is a nice idea, but, I would imagine, has a rather serious drawback: Wikitruth.info (amongst other 'helpful' critics) seems to have a sysop working for them. Were we to flag an article that was libellous with {{office}}, you can bet that they would go and dig out the deleted sections, and repost it to their wonderful service. Now Wikimedia has been informed that they are likely to be sued, and in response has done something knowing that it would increase the publication and spread of this libel. - we're then liable for their reposting of the content, and "utterly screwed". I know, I know, "that's not what was intended". Well, tough, that's the way the Real World(tm) works.
So, what does this mean? Well, flagging articles as Office-protected is a legal no-no in that kind of case, and something significantly less high profile has to be done - and, possibly, the existence of this action would be buried for all eternity (or, certainly, several decades, which on the Internet is much the same thing).
This is something that we have to deal with /now/ - the Foundation could possibly be sued out of existence tomorrow. There is no time for us to have a nice chat, or wring our hands about whether it's properly the "wiki way". We're here to build an encyclopædia, above all things, and if you don't care that the Foundation is here to keep everything working, then possibly you need to re-evaluate your priorities and commitment to this project; Distributed Proofreaders could always do with a few more volunteers, for instance.
Please note that this is all conjecture on my part, I'm not the one who makes {{office}} decisions.
Yours sincerely,
James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFER6p3d7WnstdBQBkRAt9RAJ40jzTONmoihwNtnrd6mbL/yhveQwCfSWfF 2PwGkHMpPru3l7Giy+h6Sh0= =edGT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 20/04/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but if Wikimedia were found liable for Wikitruth's deliberate and purposeful attempt to re-spread material we removed at request of someone else, wouldn't Wikimedia have standing for suing Wikitruth as attempting to defraud Wikimedia or something like that?
Since apparently we have a real lawyer on this list, we should probably leave the legal speculation to him :)
Steve
On 4/20/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but if Wikimedia were found liable for Wikitruth's deliberate and purposeful attempt to re-spread material we removed at request of someone else, wouldn't Wikimedia have standing for suing Wikitruth as attempting to defraud Wikimedia or something like that?
FF
This is a very good point. I would also strongly suggest that admins be required to agree to a EULA prohibiting them from copying and redistributing information. Give us all ten days to sign it, de-sysop anyone who doesn't, and require all new admins to agree. Any new content posted on Wikitruth that's clearly from admin-only Wikipedia screens would be a clear violation of that EULA. IANAL, but I imagine this would help protect Wikimedia even more, non?
OFFICE-protected articles should have their content locked from view from anyone, including from admins. And I have no problem with a hidden OFFICE block. Let's dump the OFFICE tag. Let the page simply appear as "protected" to non-admins, and un-unlockable to admins. You could potentially even set it up such that Danny does an unlogged OFFICE block of the page, and then requests via email that an administrator block the page in the log. Thus ([[WP:BEANS]]....) it's not possible to simply monitor Danny's contributions to find out what pages are WP:OFFICE locked.
Yes, this is, ostensibly, censorship creep. But I would also argue that these steps are apparently becoming necessary. Concealing WP:OFFICE actions conspiracy style is not necessary, but simply being quiet about it is appropriate. So long as admins don't loudly kvetch about not being in the know on why an OFFICE action has been implemented, and quietly assume that the article will be available for edit at some later point, the profile of this whole thing can be lowered a bit.
It might not be as catchy a tag line, but Wikipedia being "the encyclopedia anyone can edit except in those rare cases where the subjects of articles legitimately threaten to sue because of libelous content posted about them, in which case the article is temporarily unavailable to edit until such problems can be resolved " is fine by me.
Ben
On 4/20/06, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Using the {{office}} template to tag problem content is a nice idea, but, I would imagine, has a rather serious drawback: Wikitruth.infohttp://wikitruth.info/ (amongst other 'helpful' critics) seems to have a sysop working for them. Were we to flag an article that was libellous with {{office}}, you can bet that they would go and dig out the deleted sections, and repost it to their wonderful service. Now Wikimedia has been informed that they are likely to be sued, and in response has done something knowing that it would increase the publication and spread of this libel. - we're then
liable for their reposting of the content, and "utterly screwed". I know, I know, "that's not what was intended". Well, tough, that's the way the Real World(tm) works.
So, what does this mean? Well, flagging articles as Office-protected is a legal no-no in that kind of case, and something significantly less high profile has to be done - and, possibly, the existence of this action would be buried for all eternity (or, certainly, several decades, which on the Internet is much the same thing).
This is something that we have to deal with /now/ - the Foundation could
possibly be sued out of existence tomorrow. There is no time for us to have a nice chat, or wring our hands about whether it's properly the "wiki way". We're here to build an encyclopædia, above all things, and if you don't care that the Foundation is here to keep everything working, then possibly you need to re-evaluate your priorities and commitment to this project; Distributed Proofreaders could always do with a few more volunteers, for instance.
Please note that this is all conjecture on my part, I'm not the one who makes {{office}} decisions.
Yours sincerely,
James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFER6p3d7WnstdBQBkRAt9RAJ40jzTONmoihwNtnrd6mbL/yhveQwCfSWfF 2PwGkHMpPru3l7Giy+h6Sh0= =edGT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 20/04/06, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
Using the {{office}} template to tag problem content is a nice idea, but, I would imagine, has a rather serious drawback: Wikitruth.info (amongst other 'helpful' critics) seems to have a sysop working for them. Were we to flag an article that was libellous with {{office}}, you can bet that they would go and dig out the deleted sections, and repost it to their wonderful service. Now Wikimedia has been informed that they
Presumably there are ways to totally purge/hide/protect those deleted revisions, even from admins. And if there aren't currently, such ways could be invented.
But that wouldn't really solve the problem. Which is that Wikipedia, a site built purely for the free flow of information, in the real world, occasionally needs to limit the flow of information. And in any practical sense it simply can't. By attempting to stop people looking at information, it simply draws attention to the fact it's missing, and people can get it from other sources.
My only half solution is to use the office flag frequently, to throw people off the scent of the "real" issues.
Steve
On 4/20/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
But that wouldn't really solve the problem. Which is that Wikipedia, a site built purely for the free flow of information, in the real world, occasionally needs to limit the flow of information.
Whoops, what's this? Wikipedia was constructed to write an encyclopedia. It's most definitely not "built purely for the free flow of information" or we wouldn't be deleting stuff off of it on a regular basis.
Kelly
On 20/04/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
Whoops, what's this? Wikipedia was constructed to write an encyclopedia. It's most definitely not "built purely for the free flow of information" or we wouldn't be deleting stuff off of it on a regular basis.
I didn't say "the free flow of all information, no matter how crufty" :) Seriously though, the very fact we use the GFDL, allow unlimited free downloads of our content for third parties, that the histories of articles are readily available etc, all point to the fact that Wikipedia is geared towards free distribution of its content. As far as I am aware, the Wikipedia project has no goals other than creating good content, and disseminating it as widely as possible.
This is totally different to, say, a government ministry, or a corporation, both of which maintain much tighter controls on information flow, because it's contrary to their missions.
Hopefully that makes what I said a bit clearer?
Steve
On 4/20/06, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Using the {{office}} template to tag problem content is a nice idea, but, I would imagine, has a rather serious drawback: Wikitruth.info (amongst other 'helpful' critics) seems to have a sysop working for them. Were we to flag an article that was libellous with {{office}}, you can bet that they would go and dig out the deleted sections, and repost it to their wonderful service.
Doubtful. Have a look at how mauch of the article has been deleted. In any case they could get it from answers.com.
You can't hide WP:OFFICE actions because then people could just watch danny's protection and deletion log. -- geni
On 20/04/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
You can't hide WP:OFFICE actions because then people could just watch danny's protection and deletion log.
IMHO, you can hide absolutely anything, until an admin attempts to unprotect the page. But anyone watching the page will probably notice that it went from 5 pages down to a stub without so much as a whisper.
Steve
On 4/20/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/04/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
You can't hide WP:OFFICE actions because then people could just watch danny's protection and deletion log.
IMHO, you can hide absolutely anything, until an admin attempts to unprotect the page. But anyone watching the page will probably notice that it went from 5 pages down to a stub without so much as a whisper.
How would that matter, though? It's the content being removed that's sensitive, not the fact that *something* is gone; and if the offending revisions are deleted/hidden/whatever, there's no way for someone to get at that content (at least not directly from us).
Kirill Lokshin
On 20/04/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
How would that matter, though? It's the content being removed that's sensitive, not the fact that *something* is gone; and if the offending revisions are deleted/hidden/whatever, there's no way for someone to get at that content (at least not directly from us).
Sure there is, especially if the offending material has been sitting on the site for, oh, say, 4 months? This is where the "free flow of information" thing comes in - it's precisely because we're focused on getting information out there quickly that it's incredibly hard to mop it up suddenly if we need to. After 4 months, there are probably several hundred copies of the material available on the net, possibly even more on various users' hard disks, without mentioning Google's cache, archive.org ....
Steve
On 4/20/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/04/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
How would that matter, though? It's the content being removed that's sensitive, not the fact that *something* is gone; and if the offending revisions are deleted/hidden/whatever, there's no way for someone to get at that content (at least not directly from us).
Sure there is, especially if the offending material has been sitting on the site for, oh, say, 4 months? This is where the "free flow of information" thing comes in - it's precisely because we're focused on getting information out there quickly that it's incredibly hard to mop it up suddenly if we need to. After 4 months, there are probably several hundred copies of the material available on the net, possibly even more on various users' hard disks, without mentioning Google's cache, archive.org ....
I would assume (not being a lawyer) that the possibility of our getting sued and such increases substantially if *we* continue to distribute the information, versus *someone else* distributing it; presumably the people who actually deal with this can comment more concretely.
Kirill Lokshin
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On 4/20/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/04/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
How would that matter, though? It's the content being removed that's sensitive, not the fact that *something* is gone; and if the offending revisions are deleted/hidden/whatever, there's no way for someone to get at that content (at least not directly from us).
Sure there is, especially if the offending material has been sitting on the site for, oh, say, 4 months? This is where the "free flow of information" thing comes in - it's precisely because we're focused on getting information out there quickly that it's incredibly hard to mop it up suddenly if we need to. After 4 months, there are probably several hundred copies of the material available on the net, possibly even more on various users' hard disks, without mentioning Google's cache, archive.org ....
I would assume (not being a lawyer) that the possibility of our getting sued and such increases substantially if *we* continue to distribute the information, versus *someone else* distributing it; presumably the people who actually deal with this can comment more concretely.
All risks of being sued are a matter of probabilities with no certainty either way.
Ec
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On 4/20/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/04/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
You can't hide WP:OFFICE actions because then people could just watch danny's protection and deletion log.
IMHO, you can hide absolutely anything, until an admin attempts to unprotect the page. But anyone watching the page will probably notice that it went from 5 pages down to a stub without so much as a whisper.
How would that matter, though? It's the content being removed that's sensitive, not the fact that *something* is gone; and if the offending revisions are deleted/hidden/whatever, there's no way for someone to get at that content (at least not directly from us).
One word: mirrors.
Pretty much any Wikipedia content that has been around for more than a day or two has leaked to mirror sites and search engine archives. It's out there for anyone, admin or not, to grab even after it has been deleted from Wikipedia proper.
In short, Jdforrester's argument breaks down, since potentially _any_ deletion, protection or reversion of Wikipedia content may increase the risk of it being copied to sites like WikiTruth, regardless of whether they have admins helping them or not. Given that, we can either stop worrying ourselves sick about it, or give up and shut down the project.
On 4/20/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/04/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
You can't hide WP:OFFICE actions because then people could just watch danny's protection and deletion log.
IMHO, you can hide absolutely anything, until an admin attempts to unprotect the page. But anyone watching the page will probably notice that it went from 5 pages down to a stub without so much as a whisper.
Steve
Other people may notice they can't edit the page.
-- geni
On 20/04/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Other people may notice they can't edit the page.
Sure, but pages being protected isn't in itself suspicious. Page protection being applied by the Foundation, pages not being able to be unprotected, or (sorry) sysops being desysopped for unprotecting...that's suspicious.
Steve
James D. Forrester wrote:
Using the {{office}} template to tag problem content is a nice idea, but, I would imagine, has a rather serious drawback: Wikitruth.info (amongst other 'helpful' critics) seems to have a sysop working for them. Were we to flag an article that was libellous with {{office}}, you can bet that they would go and dig out the deleted sections, and repost it to their wonderful service. Now Wikimedia has been informed that they are likely to be sued, and in response has done something knowing that it would increase the publication and spread of this libel. - we're then liable for their reposting of the content, and "utterly screwed". I know, I know, "that's not what was intended". Well, tough, that's the way the Real World(tm) works.
So, what does this mean? Well, flagging articles as Office-protected is a legal no-no in that kind of case, and something significantly less high profile has to be done - and, possibly, the existence of this action would be buried for all eternity (or, certainly, several decades, which on the Internet is much the same thing).
This is something that we have to deal with /now/ - the Foundation could possibly be sued out of existence tomorrow. There is no time for us to have a nice chat, or wring our hands about whether it's properly the "wiki way". We're here to build an encyclopædia, above all things, and if you don't care that the Foundation is here to keep everything working, then possibly you need to re-evaluate your priorities and commitment to this project; Distributed Proofreaders could always do with a few more volunteers, for instance.
Please note that this is all conjecture on my part, I'm not the one who makes {{office}} decisions.
While I agree with all that you've said, I fear that for practical reasons, it would be impossible to cover up an action. As geni has noted on Wikipedia-l, often what happens instead is that the scandal becomes even bigger once it's revealed a controversial action was kept quiet -- something which, as we've just learnt, probably isn't going to be a rare occurrence. Security through obscurity isn't a very effective mechanism. I suggest creating a special board class of users (as others have proposed), so that ordinary admins can't wheel war with these users, or otherwise do anything liable to get us in trouble (i.e. view deleted revisions of a page deleted by a board user). Confronting the problem head on is a lot more effective than trying to prevent people from finding out about the problem -- with the latter, you either succeed greatly, or fail miserably. Security through obscurity won't work here, not as things stand.
On another note, I find it disturbing that some people (Kelly and Tony, mainly) appear to have missed the greater point here. Yes, we know -- doing something under WP:OFFICE draws trolls and real rouge admins to the article like moths to a flame. However, if due to this, we abandon WP:OFFICE altogether, what's the point? And even assuming that all admins have their heads screwed on the right way, and do ask Danny if he did this because of legal issues, how does this resolve anything? The rouge admins would still have the information they need.
I'm not saying this because of "free speech" or "openness" or all that crap -- you guys know that I'm among the last people who would care about Wikipedia being a social experiment and all that. What's concerning is that this is a very effective way to piss off admins while leaving an apparent loophole for the rouge admins to bulldoze their way through. Apparently the fact that Karmafist, et al made a number of terribly insensible arguments has obscured one of the few things that they got right: anarchism isn't a feasible way to build an encylopaedia.
I'm not a process wonk -- far from it -- but unlike most established [[common law]] policies which trolls were challenging using the "OMG, if we don't know the rules, how can we abide by them?" argument, WP:OFFICE is an established (but new) policy which Danny did not follow in this particular case. He obviously had good reasons for it, and I'm not criticising him for performing one of the most thankless jobs a Wikipedian can have, but I hope we can drive home some lessons from this terrible misunderstanding: If you don't want people to undo something because of an established policy with real-world implications, do make it explicit that this policy is being applied here.
Now, maybe there is a point in just not stepping on Danny's toes and letting him go about his business. However, unlike with most ordinary cabal members, Danny and other editors like Angela, Jimbo, et al can be acting either as ordinary editors/admins or in their capacity as a representative of the Foundation. This presents worrying consequences for the enforcement of policy -- is NPOV really non-negotiable if we can't touch an edit Danny made where he might have inadvertently introduced POV into an article, but nobody dares to correct it?
All I'm saying is, we might need to go this far. But there are plenty of other possibilities yet to be explored. Let's accept the fact that trolls will buzz around WP:OFFICE protected articles, spreading their malicious lies. As James has noted, what's important is that we batten down the hatches and prevent any real damage from coming to Wikipedia. One way at least guaranteed to achieve something towards this end is to prevent board actions from being reverted, and to make the information related to them out of bounds to ordinary admins and editors. It's a lot better than being left in a situation where admins aren't even sure whether their next action (be it a simple query about something Danny did, or undoing a very questionable deletion) will get Wikipedia and/or the Foundation in deep shit.
John
G'day John,
While I agree with all that you've said, I fear that for practical reasons, it would be impossible to cover up an action. As geni has noted on Wikipedia-l, often what happens instead is that the scandal becomes even bigger once it's revealed a controversial action was kept quiet -- something which, as we've just learnt, probably isn't going to be a rare occurrence. Security through obscurity isn't a very effective mechanism. I suggest creating a special board class of users (as others have proposed), so that ordinary admins can't wheel war with these users, or otherwise do anything liable to get us in trouble (i.e. view deleted revisions of a page deleted by a board user). Confronting the problem head on is a lot more effective than trying to prevent people from finding out about the problem -- with the latter, you either succeed greatly, or fail miserably. Security through obscurity won't work here, not as things stand.
That can work. Make Dannyisme one of these users, but leave Danny as it is. Make attempts to undo Dannyisme's actions show a message similar to the failed rollback error thingy.
On another note, I find it disturbing that some people (Kelly and Tony, mainly) appear to have missed the greater point here. Yes, we know -- doing something under WP:OFFICE draws trolls and real rouge admins to the article like moths to a flame. However, if due to this, we abandon WP:OFFICE altogether, what's the point? And even assuming that all admins have their heads screwed on the right way, and do ask Danny if he did this because of legal issues, how does this resolve anything? The rouge admins would still have the information they need.
Yes, but you mean "rogue". *You're* a rouge admin, but I'd never call you rouge ... unless the clarion call of McCarthyism grew too strong, of course. Grrrowl.
<snip />
All I'm saying is, we might need to go this far. But there are plenty of other possibilities yet to be explored. Let's accept the fact that trolls will buzz around WP:OFFICE protected articles, spreading their malicious lies. As James has noted, what's important is that we batten down the hatches and prevent any real damage from coming to Wikipedia. One way at least guaranteed to achieve something towards this end is to prevent board actions from being reverted, and to make the information related to them out of bounds to ordinary admins and editors. It's a lot better than being left in a situation where admins aren't even sure whether their next action (be it a simple query about something Danny did, or undoing a very questionable deletion) will get Wikipedia and/or the Foundation in deep shit.
I'm not sure we *can* be held responsible for the behaviour of WikiTruth. On the face of things (and I'm talking common sense here, not legal stuff, because we have a lawyer and he's not me), WikiTruth republishing defamatory or copyvio material is no different from any mirrors doing the same thing, from Wikipedia's point of view. In either case, the material is out there, there's nothing we can do about it, and we've already done our best to satisfy the victim.
'Course, the fact that one of our number (who, I understand, reads this mailing list --- hi, there!) is going out of his way to hurt other people as a perverted way of getting at us might mean something --- we can't even trust our own admins! But I dunno that it's worth panicking about --- anyone can get the info off a mirror, or save likely-to-be-deleted stuff ahead of time, or ... yeah.
I liked Phil Welch's suggestion (I note that WikiTruth don't) that anyone concerned about defamatory material being hosted on WikiTruth should be told to leave us the hell alone and go sue WikiTruth. After all, it's their fault and their problem.
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:36:23 +0100, you wrote:
Using the {{office}} template to tag problem content is a nice idea, but, I would imagine, has a rather serious drawback: Wikitruth.info (amongst other 'helpful' critics) seems to have a sysop working for them. Were we to flag an article that was libellous with {{office}}, you can bet that they would go and dig out the deleted sections, and repost it to their wonderful service.
This is a great idea, and I strongly encourage them to do so. The sooner the better - then they can be shut down by the lawyers who spend their time bugging Danny, and we can get on with building that encyclopaedia. Guy (JzG)
James D. Forrester wrote:
Using the {{office}} template to tag problem content is a nice idea, but, I would imagine, has a rather serious drawback: Wikitruth.info (amongst other 'helpful' critics) seems to have a sysop working for them. Were we to flag an article that was libellous with {{office}}, you can bet that they would go and dig out the deleted sections, and repost it to their wonderful service.
Can stuff be deleted such that sysops are not party to deleted sections? That would perhaps solve the issue.
On 4/20/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
James D. Forrester wrote:
Using the {{office}} template to tag problem content is a nice idea, but, I would imagine, has a rather serious drawback: Wikitruth.info (amongst other 'helpful' critics) seems to have a sysop working for them. Were we to flag an article that was libellous with {{office}}, you can bet that they would go and dig out the deleted sections, and repost it to their wonderful service.
Can stuff be deleted such that sysops are not party to deleted sections? That would perhaps solve the issue.
Currently, that requires developer assistance, or a complicated sequence of deletions, moves, and undeletions that is easy to foul up.
Kelly
James D. Forrester wrote:
Using the {{office}} template to tag problem content is a nice idea, but, I would imagine, has a rather serious drawback: Wikitruth.info (amongst other 'helpful' critics) seems to have a sysop working for them. Were we to flag an article that was libellous with {{office}}, you can bet that they would go and dig out the deleted sections, and repost it to their wonderful service. Now Wikimedia has been informed that they are likely to be sued, and in response has done something knowing that it would increase the publication and spread of this libel. - we're then liable for their reposting of the content, and "utterly screwed". I know, I know, "that's not what was intended". Well, tough, that's the way the Real World(tm) works.
The basic problem with {{office}} is that I don't trust Brad Patrick and Danny to decide between them what's right and wrong. I'm not making a slight on their character. I'm just saying that there needs to be oversight, when something so important as the neutrality of the encyclopedia is at stake. In some cases, we may need to make a tradeoff between NPOV and risk of being sued, and I fear that due to their background, a lawyer may be inclined to automatically choose minimisation of risk over neutrality, even when the risk of a successful lawsuit is very small.
I would like to see review of these "office actions" by a diverse committee, such as the juriwiki-l mailing list.
-- Tim Starling
On 4/20/06, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
In some cases, we may need to make a tradeoff between NPOV and risk of being sued ...
We have three content policies that are very effective when applied together: NPOV, V, and NOR. When these are strictly adhered to, they produce articles with neutral content and encyclopedic tone (NPOV) that use only reputable sources (V), with the sources being used correctly so that no novel narratives are created (NOR) -- articles that are extremely unlikely ever to cause a problem.
So I'd say it's not a question of sometimes needing to relax NPOV because of a libel problem, but the opposite -- we need to enforce NPOV and the other two policies rigorously, understand how they complement each other, and realize that, jointly, they're our very best protection.
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote in message news:4cc603b0604210218i1e3bda8bk7fc75ac754817a05@mail.gmail.com...
On 4/20/06, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
In some cases, we may need to make a tradeoff between NPOV and risk of being sued ...
We have three content policies that are very effective when applied together: NPOV, V, and NOR. When these are strictly adhered to, they produce articles with neutral content and encyclopedic tone (NPOV) that use only reputable sources (V), with the sources being used correctly so that no novel narratives are created (NOR) -- articles that are extremely unlikely ever to cause a problem.
So I'd say it's not a question of sometimes needing to relax NPOV because of a libel problem, but the opposite -- we need to enforce NPOV and the other two policies rigorously, understand how they complement each other, and realize that, jointly, they're our very best protection.
Yes. There could be an NPOV patrol.
Is an article about a living person? Is an article controversial?
The NPOV patrol would paste the POV to talk, along with an explanation and request for changes. A qualification of admins should require acceptable prior service on the NPOV patrol.
I am suggesting implementation of an NPOV patrol.
Talk is not a good place to put suspected defamation and libel. IMO, it should be completely removed from the article. Other types of questionable content can go on the talk page awaiting verifiable reliable sources. The person removing the content should look for reliable sources. Also they should contact the person that put the content in the article. Reverting the content without the follow up posts is not Best Practice editing. Sydney aka FloNight
Michael Jennings wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote in message news:4cc603b0604210218i1e3bda8bk7fc75ac754817a05@mail.gmail.com...
On 4/20/06, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
In some cases, we may need to make a tradeoff between NPOV and risk of being sued ...
We have three content policies that are very effective when applied together: NPOV, V, and NOR. When these are strictly adhered to, they produce articles with neutral content and encyclopedic tone (NPOV) that use only reputable sources (V), with the sources being used correctly so that no novel narratives are created (NOR) -- articles that are extremely unlikely ever to cause a problem.
So I'd say it's not a question of sometimes needing to relax NPOV because of a libel problem, but the opposite -- we need to enforce NPOV and the other two policies rigorously, understand how they complement each other, and realize that, jointly, they're our very best protection.
Yes. There could be an NPOV patrol.
Is an article about a living person? Is an article controversial?
The NPOV patrol would paste the POV to talk, along with an explanation and request for changes. A qualification of admins should require acceptable prior service on the NPOV patrol.
I am suggesting implementation of an NPOV patrol.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/21/06, Michael Jennings metarhyme@gmail.com wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote in message news:4cc603b0604210218i1e3bda8bk7fc75ac754817a05@mail.gmail.com...
On 4/20/06, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
In some cases, we may need to make a tradeoff between NPOV and risk of being sued ...
We have three content policies that are very effective when applied together: NPOV, V, and NOR. When these are strictly adhered to, they produce articles with neutral content and encyclopedic tone (NPOV) that use only reputable sources (V), with the sources being used correctly so that no novel narratives are created (NOR) -- articles that are extremely unlikely ever to cause a problem.
So I'd say it's not a question of sometimes needing to relax NPOV because of a libel problem, but the opposite -- we need to enforce NPOV and the other two policies rigorously, understand how they complement each other, and realize that, jointly, they're our very best protection.
Yes. There could be an NPOV patrol.
[[Category:NPOV_disputes]] already has over 2000 articles in it.
-- geni
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 19:43:37 +0100, you wrote:
[[Category:NPOV_disputes]] already has over 2000 articles in it.
How many of these are biographies of living people? Maybe we need a separate category. Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 19:43:37 +0100, you wrote:
[[Category:NPOV_disputes]] already has over 2000 articles in it.
How many of these are biographies of living people? Maybe we need a separate category.
<grumble>If the toolserver was working, we wouldn't.</grumble>
"geni" geniice@gmail.com wrote in message news:f80608430604211143n52eff81bufa9c2d97b61d8e28@mail.gmail.com...
On 4/21/06, Michael Jennings metarhyme@gmail.com wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote in message news:4cc603b0604210218i1e3bda8bk7fc75ac754817a05@mail.gmail.com...
On 4/20/06, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
In some cases, we may need to make a tradeoff between NPOV and risk of being sued ...
We have three content policies that are very effective when applied together: NPOV, V, and NOR. When these are strictly adhered to, they produce articles with neutral content and encyclopedic tone (NPOV) that use only reputable sources (V), with the sources being used correctly so that no novel narratives are created (NOR) -- articles that are extremely unlikely ever to cause a problem.
So I'd say it's not a question of sometimes needing to relax NPOV because of a libel problem, but the opposite -- we need to enforce NPOV and the other two policies rigorously, understand how they complement each other, and realize that, jointly, they're our very best protection.
Yes. There could be an NPOV patrol.
[[Category:NPOV_disputes]] already has over 2000 articles in it.
Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:NPOV_disputes is not working. [[User:Jbamb]]'s thermometer top is blown off.
The NPOV policy is not enforced. Sarah thinks it needs to be enforced.
If NPOV patrolmen were showing up they could be enforcing it. Some inducement is required for being a content cop, about as welcome to others as the flashing blues in the rear view mirror. Create a sub-admin class, give 'em a roll back button, explain it, replace Jbamb, and make promotion to admin depend on having 'done good' on NPOV patrol.
Although it's natural to deny that a busted thing it is not working, it's inadvisable to just keep denying - it's better to get it working.
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
So I'd say it's not a question of sometimes needing to relax NPOV because of a libel problem, but the opposite -- we need to enforce NPOV and the other two policies rigorously, understand how they complement each other, and realize that, jointly, they're our very best protection.
I am following up on yet another post in this thread with yet another "me too" primarily to express that what I am seeing is nearly universal and unanimous support for what I am also saying: there is *zero* tension between NPOV and not being sued.
Slim Virgin is pointing out as well that there is zero tension between any of our core editorial policies and not being sued. NPOV, NOR, V.
We can add as well, that WP:OFFICE is in service to those policies, not in opposition to them.
This may annoy people who think that Wikipedia is supposed to be some kind of wild west free speech zone, but that's fine. Those people should find another hobby. Here, we are writing an encyclopedia, and we care a LOT about making sure it is GOOD.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
So I'd say it's not a question of sometimes needing to relax NPOV because of a libel problem, but the opposite -- we need to enforce NPOV and the other two policies rigorously, understand how they complement each other, and realize that, jointly, they're our very best protection.
I am following up on yet another post in this thread with yet another "me too" primarily to express that what I am seeing is nearly universal and unanimous support for what I am also saying: there is *zero* tension between NPOV and not being sued.
There is no problem with this. Nevertheless how it's expressed can make a big difference.
Slim Virgin is pointing out as well that there is zero tension between any of our core editorial policies and not being sued. NPOV, NOR, V.
I think there is a pecking order between these with NPOV being at the top. Verifiability can be relaxed with some subjects where it is still desirable but people will not be misled by its absence. I would probably be more tolerant of Original Research than you, but that depends on which project is being considered.
I do find that some people try to define these principles too tightly. NPOV works because it confounds rigidity. Attempts to define these things in great detail will just create a breeding ground for bugs.
Ec
Tim Starling wrote:
The basic problem with {{office}} is that I don't trust Brad Patrick and Danny to decide between them what's right and wrong. I'm not making a slight on their character. I'm just saying that there needs to be oversight, when something so important as the neutrality of the encyclopedia is at stake. In some cases, we may need to make a tradeoff between NPOV and risk of being sued, and I fear that due to their background, a lawyer may be inclined to automatically choose minimisation of risk over neutrality, even when the risk of a successful lawsuit is very small.
I would like to see review of these "office actions" by a diverse committee, such as the juriwiki-l mailing list.
I think this significantly misapprehends the nature of WP:OFFICE.
The most important counter I would give to this is that WP:OFFICE is always temporary, an emergency action, an action of goodwill, thus far used exclusively (or almost exclusively) for biographies of living persons. The issue is NOT "a tradeoff between NPOV and risk of being sued".
Let me repeat that, the issue is NOT "a tradeoff between NPOV and risk of being used". The issue is responding quickly and effectively to cases where we have a very strong indication from someone that an article is egregiously in violation of NPOV.
If the topic is [[Carbon Tetracholoride]] and we receive a strong complaint that the article is biased, then {{sofixit}} can be a fine response. If the topic is a real live human being about whom someone has written something egregiously false or mean spirited, and the person calls up in hysterics, then the right answer is: stub and rebuild with strong verification. The right answer is: temporary protection of a safe version while good editors take the time to figure out what the heck is going on.
It is very deeply confused to view WP:OFFICE as some kind of rollback of the neutrality policy. It is a means of working towards neutrality. It is the morally right thing to do when we are faced with a serious issue.
Since WP:OFFICE is done publicly and under intense scrutiny from the community and the external world, I hardly see any need for a special narrow committee to be specifically tasked with overseeing it.
What should people do when they see a WP:OFFICE action? Treat it as a call for attention from the absolute best within ourselves, the absolute best within our community. Here we have an article which has gone horribly wrong in some way, and sometimes it can be a mystery as to what exactly the problem is. Why is someone upset? Which claim in the article is false or overstated or biased or hostile? I think dozens of people should swoop in and start working really hard on a temp version (usualy protected or semi-protected, depending on the exact nature of the situation), with extreme hardcore attention paid to sourcing, to neutral phrasing, etc.
In this way, WP:OFFICE articles can become models of good behavior by Wikipedia, can show the world how seriously we take our mission, our responsibility.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Since WP:OFFICE is done publicly and under intense scrutiny from the community and the external world, I hardly see any need for a special narrow committee to be specifically tasked with overseeing it.
Is that indeed intended to be the case? There seems to be some confusion in this discussion over whether WP:OFFICE actions are, or ought to be, always done publicly. In the particular case that spawned this altercation, there was no public tagging of the article, just a silent protection, and indeed someone reverted the addition of the "protected by WP:OFFICE" tag. What's unclear to me is if that whole mess was merely confusion, or intended to be but not yet stated as official policy. Several people have argued that it either is, or should be, official policy, and others have argued that it isn't and shouldn't be.
Basically: Are WP:OFFICE actions supposed to always be publicly announced and scrutinized by the community? It was my impression that they were, but some of the discussion in this set of threads has made the issue more murky.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Basically: Are WP:OFFICE actions supposed to always be publicly announced and scrutinized by the community? It was my impression that they were, but some of the discussion in this set of threads has made the issue more murky.
WP:OFFICE should be done publicly. I am certain that at least old time Wikipedians would have enough of a clue to not act like jerks if we can't explain right away what is going on.
We should be very clear about the distinction between things done under the rubric of WP:OFFICE (which means at the moment Danny and/or Brad for the most part although in some cases I suppose it could go further than that) and things done by me in accordance with our longstanding community traditions.
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:52:15 -0400, you wrote:
WP:OFFICE should be done publicly. I am certain that at least old time Wikipedians would have enough of a clue to not act like jerks if we can't explain right away what is going on.
I think this is a valid point. Many of us new boys see WP in a fundamentally different way from how the old-timers see it. There are two ways this can go: the newbies come to realise that they are not in a free-speech free-for-all, or the policies change. I hope the former prevails. I have learned much from watching old-time Wikipedians at work; if we lose sight of the fact that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, it will become - well, something less.
I was a researcher on H2G2 for a long time. I became frustrated with the bureaucratic process of publishing and peer review - but actually it was quite good at preventing crap form being published in the edited Guide. It was just frustratingly slow to get updates recognised. WP is much better in that respect, but it's also a lot easier for POV pushers and obsessives like YTMNDers to hijack articles. I wish I had an answer. Guy (JzG)
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
The basic problem with {{office}} is that I don't trust Brad Patrick and Danny to decide between them what's right and wrong. I'm not making a slight on their character. I'm just saying that there needs to be oversight, when something so important as the neutrality of the encyclopedia is at stake. In some cases, we may need to make a tradeoff between NPOV and risk of being sued, and I fear that due to their background, a lawyer may be inclined to automatically choose minimisation of risk over neutrality, even when the risk of a successful lawsuit is very small.
I would like to see review of these "office actions" by a diverse committee, such as the juriwiki-l mailing list.
I think this significantly misapprehends the nature of WP:OFFICE.
The most important counter I would give to this is that WP:OFFICE is always temporary, an emergency action, an action of goodwill, thus far used exclusively (or almost exclusively) for biographies of living persons. The issue is NOT "a tradeoff between NPOV and risk of being sued".
Let me repeat that, the issue is NOT "a tradeoff between NPOV and risk of being used". The issue is responding quickly and effectively to cases where we have a very strong indication from someone that an article is egregiously in violation of NPOV.
If the topic is [[Carbon Tetracholoride]] and we receive a strong complaint that the article is biased, then {{sofixit}} can be a fine response. If the topic is a real live human being about whom someone has written something egregiously false or mean spirited, and the person calls up in hysterics, then the right answer is: stub and rebuild with strong verification. The right answer is: temporary protection of a safe version while good editors take the time to figure out what the heck is going on.
It is very deeply confused to view WP:OFFICE as some kind of rollback of the neutrality policy. It is a means of working towards neutrality. It is the morally right thing to do when we are faced with a serious issue.
Since WP:OFFICE is done publicly and under intense scrutiny from the community and the external world, I hardly see any need for a special narrow committee to be specifically tasked with overseeing it.
What should people do when they see a WP:OFFICE action? Treat it as a call for attention from the absolute best within ourselves, the absolute best within our community. Here we have an article which has gone horribly wrong in some way, and sometimes it can be a mystery as to what exactly the problem is. Why is someone upset? Which claim in the article is false or overstated or biased or hostile? I think dozens of people should swoop in and start working really hard on a temp version (usualy protected or semi-protected, depending on the exact nature of the situation), with extreme hardcore attention paid to sourcing, to neutral phrasing, etc.
In this way, WP:OFFICE articles can become models of good behavior by Wikipedia, can show the world how seriously we take our mission, our responsibility.
If the recent dispute had been guided by these principles it might not have become as heated. When a long-standing editor asks for an explanation, and is told to ask the lawyers we aren't reading the same page anymore. It is quite understandable that people will react with a "Them's fightin' words" attitude. The person wielding the WP:OFFICE cudgel needs to be sensitive to the community as well as the complainant. He needs to know from experience that any hint of secrecy underlying his actions will raise the temperature of flames by several degrees.
Some complaints, even on [[Carbon Tetrachloride]] need immediate action. You would not want somebody arguing what a great high you get from smelling the fumes.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
If the recent dispute had been guided by these principles it might not have become as heated. When a long-standing editor asks for an explanation, and is told to ask the lawyers we aren't reading the same page anymore. It is quite understandable that people will react with a "Them's fightin' words" attitude.
I disagree quite significantly. If a longstanding editor asks for an explanation, and is told to ask the lawyers, I absolutely do NOT think that it is understandable AT ALL that "them's fightin' words" is the attitude in response. That is just silly. We've been working together for a long time now.
I think Erik, in this case, would agree. If the response had been "Actually, Erik, do me a favor and leave this one protected, I can't explain why at the moment, but please ask Brad if you need more information, perhaps he can give it" then there would have been no explosion.
The person wielding the WP:OFFICE cudgel needs to be sensitive to the community as well as the complainant. He needs to know from experience that any hint of secrecy underlying his actions will raise the temperature of flames by several degrees.
No, actually, I think the community understands that temporarily not all information can always be made immediately public.
What got things wound up in this case was not the secrecy, but a wildly disproportionate and unfair blocking and desysopping, when a reprotection with a note of "Please ask me before unprotecting this one, there are important issues here" would have done the job just fine.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
If the recent dispute had been guided by these principles it might not have become as heated. When a long-standing editor asks for an explanation, and is told to ask the lawyers we aren't reading the same page anymore. It is quite understandable that people will react with a "Them's fightin' words" attitude.
I disagree quite significantly. If a longstanding editor asks for an explanation, and is told to ask the lawyers, I absolutely do NOT think that it is understandable AT ALL that "them's fightin' words" is the attitude in response. That is just silly. We've been working together for a long time now.
How you say things makes all the difference. A dismissive attitude can very easily be seen as hostile. People react that way when the person responding does not appear to have assumed good faith.
I think Erik, in this case, would agree. If the response had been "Actually, Erik, do me a favor and leave this one protected, I can't explain why at the moment, but please ask Brad if you need more information, perhaps he can give it" then there would have been no explosion.
Yes, that's my point. Words like "do me a favor" and "please" can go a long way.
The person wielding the WP:OFFICE cudgel needs to be sensitive to the community as well as the complainant. He needs to know from experience that any hint of secrecy underlying his actions will raise the temperature of flames by several degrees.
No, actually, I think the community understands that temporarily not all information can always be made immediately public.
Nobody's even saying that it has to be ALL information. A general explanation like, "The subject of this article has complained about it; it has been temporarily taken offline while we verify the facts." This doesn't even mention the specific points that were complained about.
What got things wound up in this case was not the secrecy, but a wildly disproportionate and unfair blocking and desysopping, when a reprotection with a note of "Please ask me before unprotecting this one, there are important issues here" would have done the job just fine.
Probably, but that's the sort of sensitivity I'm talking about. The perception of secrecy can have a greater effect than the secrecy itself.
Ray
Ray Saintonge wrote: <snip>
Some complaints, even on [[Carbon Tetrachloride]] need immediate action. You would not want somebody arguing what a great high you get from smelling the fumes.
But... I've done it... at least, I /think/ that's what I was sniffing...
James D. Forrester wrote:
Using the {{office}} template to tag problem content is a nice idea, but, I would imagine, has a rather serious drawback: Wikitruth.info (amongst other 'helpful' critics) seems to have a sysop working for them. Were we to flag an article that was libellous with {{office}}, you can bet that they would go and dig out the deleted sections, and repost it to their wonderful service. Now Wikimedia has been informed that they are likely to be sued, and in response has done something knowing that it would increase the publication and spread of this libel. - we're then liable for their reposting of the content, and "utterly screwed". I know, I know, "that's not what was intended". Well, tough, that's the way the Real World(tm) works.
No, that isn't at all how the Real World works. In the Real World, when someone is accused of libel, they do exactly what we do: Take down the content and post a prominent notice that it was taken down. Often the original content is actually republished along with an apology; something like: "We claimed in our issue of November 2 that Dr. Smith was indicted for fraud; in fact, he was merely investigated by a grand jury and never indicted; we regret the error."
As far as I know no media organization has been actually sued (at least not successfully) for that.
-Mark
News organizations make it a point not to repeat the original error that was made; we take pains to state the corrected information only in a correction.
k
On 4/21/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
James D. Forrester wrote:
Using the {{office}} template to tag problem content is a nice idea, but, I would imagine, has a rather serious drawback: Wikitruth.info (amongst other 'helpful' critics) seems to have a sysop working for them. Were we to flag an article that was libellous with {{office}}, you can bet that they would go and dig out the deleted sections, and repost it to their wonderful service. Now Wikimedia has been informed that they are likely to be sued, and in response has done something knowing that it would increase the publication and spread of this libel. - we're then liable for their reposting of the content, and "utterly screwed". I know, I know, "that's not what was intended". Well, tough, that's the way the Real World(tm) works.
No, that isn't at all how the Real World works. In the Real World, when someone is accused of libel, they do exactly what we do: Take down the content and post a prominent notice that it was taken down. Often the original content is actually republished along with an apology; something like: "We claimed in our issue of November 2 that Dr. Smith was indicted for fraud; in fact, he was merely investigated by a grand jury and never indicted; we regret the error."
As far as I know no media organization has been actually sued (at least not successfully) for that.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Katefan0 wrote:
News organizations make it a point not to repeat the original error that was made; we take pains to state the corrected information only in a correction.
Well, simply asserting that's the case doesn't make it so. Here's a representative quote of a recent correction from _The Economist_; their corrections all take basically this form:
"Correction: In 'Open, but not as usual' (March 18th), we said non-registered users could not modify most Wikipedia entries; they can, save for some controversial ones. Also, a chart of Wikipedia's articles and contributors incorrectly showed a downturn in December 2005, because we used incomplete data. We apologise."
Lest you object that isn't potentially libelous, here's an apology for an error that is (from a few months ago):
"In our article last week on the Volcker report on the UN oil-for-food scandal ('Naming names') we mistakenly identified a company cited in the report as being the Taurus Group of New Zealand. In fact, the Taurus Group listed in the report is 'an oil trading consortium based in Europe and the Caribbean'. The Taurus Group in New Zealand and its subsidiaries have had nothing to do with Iraq. Our apologies to all concerned."
In fact I can't recall ever having seen a correction that *didn't* restate (at least in paraphrase) the incorrect statement being corrected, since otherwise the apology would be out of context and make no sense.
-Mark
Perhaps The Economist has a different policy, or magazines might in general, but not repeating the incorrect information is standard practice at newspapers. This is what I do for a living, so I consider myself properly informed on this particular topic.
k
On 4/22/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Katefan0 wrote:
News organizations make it a point not to repeat the original error that
was
made; we take pains to state the corrected information only in a
correction.
Well, simply asserting that's the case doesn't make it so. Here's a representative quote of a recent correction from _The Economist_; their corrections all take basically this form:
"Correction: In 'Open, but not as usual' (March 18th), we said non-registered users could not modify most Wikipedia entries; they can, save for some controversial ones. Also, a chart of Wikipedia's articles and contributors incorrectly showed a downturn in December 2005, because we used incomplete data. We apologise."
Lest you object that isn't potentially libelous, here's an apology for an error that is (from a few months ago):
"In our article last week on the Volcker report on the UN oil-for-food scandal ('Naming names') we mistakenly identified a company cited in the report as being the Taurus Group of New Zealand. In fact, the Taurus Group listed in the report is 'an oil trading consortium based in Europe and the Caribbean'. The Taurus Group in New Zealand and its subsidiaries have had nothing to do with Iraq. Our apologies to all concerned."
In fact I can't recall ever having seen a correction that *didn't* restate (at least in paraphrase) the incorrect statement being corrected, since otherwise the apology would be out of context and make no sense.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
James D. Forrester wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Using the {{office}} template to tag problem content is a nice idea, but, I would imagine, has a rather serious drawback: Wikitruth.info (amongst other 'helpful' critics) seems to have a sysop working for them. Were we to flag an article that was libellous with {{office}}, you can bet that they would go and dig out the deleted sections, and repost it to their wonderful service. Now Wikimedia has been informed that they are likely to be sued, and in response has done something knowing that it would increase the publication and spread of this libel. - we're then liable for their reposting of the content, and "utterly screwed". I know, I know, "that's not what was intended". Well, tough, that's the way the Real World(tm) works.
Do you have legal references to support this, or are you just guessing?
Ec
On 4/20/06, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Using the {{office}} template to tag problem content is a nice idea, but, I would imagine, has a rather serious drawback: Wikitruth.info (amongst other 'helpful' critics) seems to have a sysop working for them. Were we to flag an article that was libellous with {{office}}, you can bet that they would go and dig out the deleted sections, and repost it to their wonderful service. Now Wikimedia has been informed that they are likely to be sued, and in response has done something knowing that it would increase the publication and spread of this libel. - we're then liable for their reposting of the content, and "utterly screwed". I know, I know, "that's not what was intended". Well, tough, that's the way the Real World(tm) works.
A small point, but you don't need to be an admin to access the deleted material. You need to have a finger and be...you know....sentient. For instance here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NewsMax.com&oldid=48758172 is the NewsMax.com article and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Thompson_%28attorney%29&o... is Jack Thompson pre-office. The articles arn't deleted, just blanked.
--Oskar