There is yet another deletion debate ongoing about a BLP article, but I think this is by far the highest profile BLP anyone has tried to delete simply because the subject is upset about the content. So far, the hyperbole has focused on how Wikipedia is theoretically causing harm to this individual. I can't see it. This is a high profile guy who seems to consistently angle for an ever higher profile, with a great deal of coverage in the press and a very significant talkpage presence aimed entirely at keeping the article in line with the BLP policy. If we don't report anything that hasn't already been written by a few very mainstream newspapers, how are we causing harm? All of the information is readily available, and anyone who searches for his name will find both the Wikipedia article and every critical article every written about him.
So he's a very wealthy lawyer and today he posted a document that purports to be a letter to the WMF auditing firm, and the letter claims that he has filed cases against a group of editors, the individual members of the Board, Wikimedia Foundation and even Wikia. Let me ask, then. No one who has been editing the article is unaware of the risk in this case, so for whose benefit do we capitulate to his threats? Do we really want to get in the habit of deleting articles of fairly famous individuals based on a threat? You'll note that the current complaint is pretty baseless. He was happy with the article a few weeks back, and hardly a single thing has changed about it since then. It is only the risk of having a group of editors on the page who aim to create a truly representative article that has caused him to step up the pace of intimidation. I think that is what we ought to want, but apparently others disagree. So if there is a new consensus about this, I'd like to see someone add it to WP:BLP.
Nathan
Nathan wrote:
There is yet another deletion debate ongoing about a BLP article, but I think this is by far the highest profile BLP anyone has tried to delete simply because the subject is upset about the content. So far, the hyperbole has focused on how Wikipedia is theoretically causing harm to this individual. I can't see it. This is a high profile guy who seems to consistently angle for an ever higher profile, with a great deal of coverage in the press and a very significant talkpage presence aimed entirely at keeping the article in line with the BLP policy. If we don't report anything that hasn't already been written by a few very mainstream newspapers, how are we causing harm? All of the information is readily available, and anyone who searches for his name will find both the Wikipedia article and every critical article every written about him.
So he's a very wealthy lawyer and today he posted a document that purports to be a letter to the WMF auditing firm, and the letter claims that he has filed cases against a group of editors, the individual members of the Board, Wikimedia Foundation and even Wikia. Let me ask, then. No one who has been editing the article is unaware of the risk in this case, so for whose benefit do we capitulate to his threats? Do we really want to get in the habit of deleting articles of fairly famous individuals based on a threat? You'll note that the current complaint is pretty baseless. He was happy with the article a few weeks back, and hardly a single thing has changed about it since then. It is only the risk of having a group of editors on the page who aim to create a truly representative article that has caused him to step up the pace of intimidation. I think that is what we ought to want, but apparently others disagree. So if there is a new consensus about this, I'd like to see someone add it to WP:BLP.
Nathan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Perhaps we should centralize this comment/discussion on the AFD instead of decentralizing it to the discussion AND list. Would you consider duplicating your comment there? It makes sense, I think it would add to the discussion.
Warmly,
Jon
Well, the discussion at the AfD is ongoing and focuses on this particular article. I think there is a broader issue, though, because this isn't the first time someone has nominated a contested article for deletion based on "IAR for the good of the project." I'm not sure where the most centralised place to discuss the broader issue would be - WT:BLP? WT:AFD? The mailing list makes sense as a place to involve interested folks who may not watch those pages.
Nathan
On 4/19/08, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Nathan wrote:
There is yet another deletion debate ongoing about a BLP article, but I think this is by far the highest profile BLP anyone has tried to delete simply because the subject is upset about the content. So far, the
hyperbole
has focused on how Wikipedia is theoretically causing harm to this individual. I can't see it. This is a high profile guy who seems to consistently angle for an ever higher profile, with a great deal of
coverage
in the press and a very significant talkpage presence aimed entirely at keeping the article in line with the BLP policy. If we don't report
anything
that hasn't already been written by a few very mainstream newspapers,
how
are we causing harm? All of the information is readily available, and
anyone
who searches for his name will find both the Wikipedia article and every critical article every written about him.
So he's a very wealthy lawyer and today he posted a document that
purports
to be a letter to the WMF auditing firm, and the letter claims that he
has
filed cases against a group of editors, the individual members of the
Board,
Wikimedia Foundation and even Wikia. Let me ask, then. No one who has
been
editing the article is unaware of the risk in this case, so for whose benefit do we capitulate to his threats? Do we really want to get in the habit of deleting articles of fairly famous individuals based on a
threat?
You'll note that the current complaint is pretty baseless. He was happy
with
the article a few weeks back, and hardly a single thing has changed
about it
since then. It is only the risk of having a group of editors on the page
who
aim to create a truly representative article that has caused him to step
up
the pace of intimidation. I think that is what we ought to want, but apparently others disagree. So if there is a new consensus about this,
I'd
like to see someone add it to WP:BLP.
Nathan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Perhaps we should centralize this comment/discussion on the AFD instead of decentralizing it to the discussion AND list. Would you consider duplicating your comment there? It makes sense, I think it would add to the discussion.
Warmly,
Jon
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Nathan wrote:
Well, the discussion at the AfD is ongoing and focuses on this particular article. I think there is a broader issue, though, because this isn't the first time someone has nominated a contested article for deletion based on "IAR for the good of the project." I'm not sure where the most centralised place to discuss the broader issue would be - WT:BLP? WT:AFD? The mailing list makes sense as a place to involve interested folks who may not watch those pages.
Nathan
Create [[Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion//Some topic/]], make the discussion there. Then add it to T:CENT, spam the village pump, and this list. That would be my recommendation. :)
Warmly,
Jon
ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion
Ken Arromdee schreef:
I have no idea what article this is talking about.
I had to search for it for it for a few minutes, but I think it is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giovanni_di_Stefano&oldid=2068...
Eugene
2008/4/20 Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl:
Ken Arromdee schreef:
I have no idea what article this is talking about.
I had to search for it for it for a few minutes, but I think it is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giovanni_di_Stefano&oldid=2068...
Ah, I see.
As ever, I shall not comment on the AFD as it's a waste of my time. It's a clear keep, but because there's a legal threat been made, the BLP AFD bullies will push through the harm to the encyclopedia of deleting the article. As usual. Sigh.
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 9:57 AM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/20 Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl:
Ken Arromdee schreef:
I have no idea what article this is talking about.
I had to search for it for it for a few minutes, but I think it is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giovanni_di_Stefano&oldid=2068...
Ah, I see.
As ever, I shall not comment on the AFD as it's a waste of my time. It's a clear keep, but because there's a legal threat been made, the BLP AFD bullies will push through the harm to the encyclopedia of deleting the article. As usual. Sigh.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Actually, it's going toward a pretty overwhelming "keep" right now, as did Don Murphy. I'm glad to see it, though I'm very sorry to see that anyone would even consider deletion of an article like this. I can understand considering "upon-request" deletion of those whose notability is genuinely marginal, but this isn't even close.
2008/4/21 Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
Actually, it's going toward a pretty overwhelming "keep" right now, as did Don Murphy.
Well, it depends who closes it, doesn't it?
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 8:33 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/21 Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
Actually, it's going toward a pretty overwhelming "keep" right now, as did Don Murphy.
Well, it depends who closes it, doesn't it?
Seems unlikely in this case - you'd need a far-infrared/submillimeter admin to close this as "delete" at this point - merely rouge wouldn't cut it. That said, you'd have to be pretty ballsy to close it either way - while many of us would have ironclad legal defences (for instance, mine is "you can't get blood from a stone"), whose really willing to stick their neck out like that.
If the foundation feels the legal threat is legit, they ''should'' step in, anyways.
Cheers WilyD
On 21/04/2008, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Seems unlikely in this case - you'd need a far-infrared/submillimeter admin to close this as "delete" at this point - merely rouge wouldn't cut it. That said, you'd have to be pretty ballsy to close it either way - while many of us would have ironclad legal defences (for instance, mine is "you can't get blood from a stone"), whose really willing to stick their neck out like that. If the foundation feels the legal threat is legit, they ''should'' step in, anyways.
So far it's a talk page message from a username that's made one edit, on an IP that's made one edit (yes, I looked in checkuser when forwarding it to Mike Godwin). That is NOT sufficient reason to play Chicken Little unless and until we have something resembling information.
- d.
If you mean the veracity of the threat (as opposed to whether he will actually follow through)... There is a link to a blog, written by him, and hosted by his law firm. That at least means he's put his name behind it more or less in public.
Nathan
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:53 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
So far it's a talk page message from a username that's made one edit, on an IP that's made one edit (yes, I looked in checkuser when forwarding it to Mike Godwin). That is NOT sufficient reason to play Chicken Little unless and until we have something resembling information.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It gets better - there is a proposal on WT:BLP to change the normal operation of a consensus discussion so that, for BLP articles, its backwards. If this proposal makes its way into policy, the outcome will be this: if an editor nominates a BLP article for deletion, and no consensus for deletion is achieved, it will be deleted. I personally can't see how that makes sense, but apparently a few of the folks on WT:BLP can. Maybe we need a new process - Articles for Keep, where all nominated articles are deleted unless enough people come by to make argue for keeping them.
Nathan
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
If you mean the veracity of the threat (as opposed to whether he will actually follow through)... There is a link to a blog, written by him, and hosted by his law firm. That at least means he's put his name behind it more or less in public.
Nathan
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:53 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
So far it's a talk page message from a username that's made one edit, on an IP that's made one edit (yes, I looked in checkuser when forwarding it to Mike Godwin). That is NOT sufficient reason to play Chicken Little unless and until we have something resembling information.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Nathan wrote:
...there is a proposal on WT:BLP to change the normal operation of a consensus discussion so that, for BLP articles, its backwards. If this proposal makes its way into policy...
Stupid question: I thought practice and consensus were supposed to dictate policy, not the other way around?
On 4/21/08, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Stupid question: I thought practice and consensus were supposed to dictate policy, not the other way around?
Yes, but to every existing policy, BLP is the exception. Read carefully.
—C.W.
Actually, I should revise - practically everyone, including Arbs and a couple of Board members, feel that this change should be made to policy. I must be missing something I guess.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
It gets better - there is a proposal on WT:BLP to change the normal operation of a consensus discussion so that, for BLP articles, its backwards. If this proposal makes its way into policy, the outcome will be this: if an editor nominates a BLP article for deletion, and no consensus for deletion is achieved, it will be deleted. I personally can't see how that makes sense, but apparently a few of the folks on WT:BLP can. Maybe we need a new process - Articles for Keep, where all nominated articles are deleted unless enough people come by to make argue for keeping them.
Nathan
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
If you mean the veracity of the threat (as opposed to whether he will actually follow through)... There is a link to a blog, written by him, and hosted by his law firm. That at least means he's put his name behind it more or less in public.
Nathan
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:53 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
So far it's a talk page message from a username that's made one edit, on an IP that's made one edit (yes, I looked in checkuser when forwarding it to Mike Godwin). That is NOT sufficient reason to play Chicken Little unless and until we have something resembling information.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 21/04/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I should revise - practically everyone, including Arbs and a couple of Board members, feel that this change should be made to policy. I must be missing something I guess.
Yes - BLPs are special.
- d.
Since I brought the proposal up, I should link here to a very persuasive essay by DocG on the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_glasgow/The_BLP_problem
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:35 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/04/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I should revise - practically everyone, including Arbs and a couple of Board members, feel that this change should be made to policy.
I
must be missing something I guess.
Yes - BLPs are special.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Apr 21, 2008, at 11:35 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 21/04/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I should revise - practically everyone, including Arbs and a couple of Board members, feel that this change should be made to policy. I must be missing something I guess.
Yes - BLPs are special.
Though, it should be noted, the policy as currently proposed is a terrible idea. Nothing about AfD has ever demonstrated a skill at not running off half-cocked and engaging in vicious overkill. A blank check of this nature might be appropriate in some cases, but for a process as fundamentally sociopathic as AfD it is a terrible idea.
If I recall correctly, the original version of the change that was floated around limited this to cases where the subject has requested deletion. This seems to me a much, much more reasonable standard that is far less likely to lead to insane collateral damage.
-Phil
It gets better - there is a proposal on WT:BLP to change the normal operation of a consensus discussion so that, for BLP articles, its backwards. If this proposal makes its way into policy, the outcome will be this: if an editor nominates a BLP article for deletion, and no consensus for deletion is achieved, it will be deleted. I personally can't see how that makes sense, but apparently a few of the folks on WT:BLP can. Maybe we need a new process - Articles for Keep, where all nominated articles are deleted unless enough people come by to make argue for keeping them.
Nathan
I can certainly understand. We have about 200 folks who want to keep Giovanno di Stefano, a monstrosity that is entirely uncontrollable. I wonder how many of them are willing to spend hours, week, months, years monitoring it.
Fred
Clearly notable folks have articles that stay despite the obvious risk of tendentious editing. Giovanni di Stefano is one of those. I have no problem monitoring this article for uncited and controversial additions, and apparently neither do you and a number of other people. The issue of deleting BLPs on people of marginal notability is separate - clearly the proposal as written (and intended) wouldn't apply to di Stefano at this point. There is no way the AfD can be interpreted as "no consensus." At least its more or less out of the way - there can be no question in the future that this article ought to remain, despite the risks outlined in Doc's essay. Bonus for the project is that the GdS issue provided the impetus to change policy so that many other marginal notability BLPs can be deleted, so no one has to watch them forever.
Nathan
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
It gets better - there is a proposal on WT:BLP to change the normal operation of a consensus discussion so that, for BLP articles, its backwards. If this proposal makes its way into policy, the outcome will be this: if an editor nominates a BLP article for deletion, and no
consensus
for deletion is achieved, it will be deleted. I personally can't see how that makes sense, but apparently a few of the folks on WT:BLP can. Maybe we need a new process - Articles for Keep, where all nominated articles are deleted unless enough people come by to make argue for keeping them.
Nathan
I can certainly understand. We have about 200 folks who want to keep Giovanno di Stefano, a monstrosity that is entirely uncontrollable. I wonder how many of them are willing to spend hours, week, months, years monitoring it.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I can certainly understand. We have about 200 folks who want to keep Giovanno di Stefano, a monstrosity that is entirely uncontrollable. I wonder how many of them are willing to spend hours, week, months, years monitoring it.
Firstly, I haven't seen anyone actually give any reasons to delete other than the subject demanding it. Secondly, this article is no more uncontrollable than any other BLP about a controversial figure, and we manage just fine with those.
Our principles have to take precedence over being nice to people, otherwise we might as well just give up now.
On 21/04/2008, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I can certainly understand. We have about 200 folks who want to keep Giovanno di Stefano, a monstrosity that is entirely uncontrollable. I wonder how many of them are willing to spend hours, week, months, years monitoring it.
What about researching it?
In any case wikipedia currently hosts at least one article that would appear to be in contempt of a UK court ruling which some might feel is more of a concern.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:02 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
In any case wikipedia currently hosts at least one article that would appear to be in contempt of a UK court ruling which some might feel is more of a concern.
In fact the information is spread on several articles. It seems that no English court has attempted to enforce contempt of court on foreign publications (though one Judge seems keen to try it with defamation actions). Would the article talk pages benefit from a reminder that the law on whether British editors are subject to the injunction is as yet untested, or would this just draw attention?
On 21/04/2008, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:02 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
In any case wikipedia currently hosts at least one article that would appear to be in contempt of a UK court ruling which some might feel is more of a concern.
In fact the information is spread on several articles. It seems that no English court has attempted to enforce contempt of court on foreign publications (though one Judge seems keen to try it with defamation actions). Would the article talk pages benefit from a reminder that the law on whether British editors are subject to the injunction is as yet untested, or would this just draw attention?
Could people please provide links when they bring up a specific example?
On 21/04/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/04/2008, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:02 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
In any case wikipedia currently hosts at least one article that would appear to be in contempt of a UK court ruling which some might feel is more of a concern.
In fact the information is spread on several articles. It seems that no English court has attempted to enforce contempt of court on foreign publications (though one Judge seems keen to try it with defamation actions). Would the article talk pages benefit from a reminder that the law on whether British editors are subject to the injunction is as yet untested, or would this just draw attention?
Could people please provide links when they bring up a specific example?
They're in the UK (as are you and I), so I for one don't want to know. And I make a point of not touching the articles of UK-based article subjects with any reputation for litigousness - there's quite enough admins based in the US to deal with that sort of thing.
- d.
They're in the UK (as are you and I), so I for one don't want to know. And I make a point of not touching the articles of UK-based article subjects with any reputation for litigousness - there's quite enough admins based in the US to deal with that sort of thing.
You can't avoid something if you're not aware of it. I'd rather know it's there, even if I decide it's safest not to touch it.
On Apr 21, 2008, at 4:02 PM, geni wrote:
On 21/04/2008, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I can certainly understand. We have about 200 folks who want to keep Giovanno di Stefano, a monstrosity that is entirely uncontrollable. I wonder how many of them are willing to spend hours, week, months, years monitoring it.
What about researching it?
In any case wikipedia currently hosts at least one article that would appear to be in contempt of a UK court ruling which some might feel is more of a concern.
The community should not be deciding legal issues like this. If something is clear-cut in its legal issues to a non-lawyer (copyvio, obvious libel) then it should be dealt with on a community level. If "some might feel" something the community has no business making these decisions.
-Phil
This is not a legal issue. The only legal issue is the possibility of libel. If it is not a matter of libel then the question is for the community. I notice that diStefano never claimed libel. He appears to be bringing the action under much vaguer provisions of Italian defamation laws. He knows perfectly well he has no claim under US libel law. IANAL, but this seems fairly obvious. He lso does not appear to be claiming that anything actually in the present article is defamatory.
Revisions to policy taken under the threat of bullying will inevitably be disastrous.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 21, 2008, at 4:02 PM, geni wrote:
On 21/04/2008, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I can certainly understand. We have about 200 folks who want to keep Giovanno di Stefano, a monstrosity that is entirely uncontrollable. I wonder how many of them are willing to spend hours, week, months, years monitoring it.
What about researching it?
In any case wikipedia currently hosts at least one article that would appear to be in contempt of a UK court ruling which some might feel is more of a concern.
The community should not be deciding legal issues like this. If something is clear-cut in its legal issues to a non-lawyer (copyvio, obvious libel) then it should be dealt with on a community level. If "some might feel" something the community has no business making these decisions.
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I can certainly understand. We have about 200 folks who want to keep Giovanno di Stefano, a monstrosity that is entirely uncontrollable. I wonder how many of them are willing to spend hours, week, months, years monitoring it.
I'd rather change our policies to permanently protect a short, baldly factual and uncontroversial stub than change our policies to delete an article on someone of quite unquestioned importance who actively courts press attention and about whom there is much information published by reliable sources.
That said, I am in favor of an easier standard for deleting marginal BLPs - which this is not.
-Matt
2008/4/21 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
It gets better - there is a proposal on WT:BLP to change the normal operation of a consensus discussion so that, for BLP articles, its backwards. If this proposal makes its way into policy, the outcome will be this: if an editor nominates a BLP article for deletion, and no consensus for deletion is achieved, it will be deleted. I personally can't see how that makes sense, but apparently a few of the folks on WT:BLP can. Maybe we need a new process - Articles for Keep, where all nominated articles are deleted unless enough people come by to make argue for keeping them.
Nathan
I can certainly understand. We have about 200 folks who want to keep Giovanno di Stefano, a monstrosity that is entirely uncontrollable.
He is, hence him deserving an article...
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
It gets better - there is a proposal on WT:BLP to change the normal operation of a consensus discussion so that, for BLP articles, its backwards. If this proposal makes its way into policy, the outcome will be this: if an editor nominates a BLP article for deletion, and no consensus for deletion is achieved, it will be deleted. I personally can't see how that makes sense, but apparently a few of the folks on WT:BLP can.
If they're going to do this then it needs to be in a venue besides AFD. Perhaps call it "BLPs for discussion". That way "normal noms" where the issue is notability etc. can proceed with the usual rules.
On 22/04/2008, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
It gets better - there is a proposal on WT:BLP to change the normal operation of a consensus discussion so that, for BLP articles, its backwards. If this proposal makes its way into policy, the outcome will be this: if an editor nominates a BLP article for deletion, and no consensus for deletion is achieved, it will be deleted. I personally can't see how that makes sense, but apparently a few of the folks on WT:BLP can.
If they're going to do this then it needs to be in a venue besides AFD. Perhaps call it "BLPs for discussion". That way "normal noms" where the issue is notability etc. can proceed with the usual rules.
That's actually a really good idea.
- d.
On 4/21/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/04/2008, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
If they're going to do this then it needs to be in a venue besides AFD. Perhaps call it "BLPs for discussion". That way "normal noms" where the issue is notability etc. can proceed with the usual rules.
That's actually a really good idea.
Fixing AFD would be better than forking it.
Regardless, it would be trivial for a bot to generate a list of articles belonging to both [[Category:Living people]] and [[Category:Articles for deletion]], and list them on some prominent page in project-space like "Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people", maybe give it a cute little shortcut such as WP:BLPFD (/ˈblɪpfʌd/) that would imply a separate process when in fact it isn't, and add a little note like <small>This debate has been included in the list of living people-related deletion discussions"</small>.
Or not?
—C.W.
Controversial BLPs are often closed as no consensus merely because there are good experienced WP editors with strong views on both sides--the result of this will be to say that ''any article to which there is any strong opposition will be deleted if it is a BLP''. However, some of these good and experienced people at WP do not seem to understand NPOV, and think that all controversial BLPs which have a negative implication towards the subject, however fair, should be deleted. The small cohesive group of editors who do not represent the consensus, but are strong enough to represent a minority, will prevail. In short, this is a backdoor approach to removing negative BLPs from WP, and becoming as far as living people are concerned, Wikipedia, the encyclopedia of articles that praise the subjects.
We have a continual fight against self-promotion, and this will effectively undermine it. There is already a discussion where the same principle, of not saying anything negative, however well sourced, is being asserted with respect to a commercial organisation.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/21/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/04/2008, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
If they're going to do this then it needs to be in a venue besides AFD. Perhaps call it "BLPs for discussion". That way "normal noms" where the issue is notability etc. can proceed with the usual rules.
That's actually a really good idea.
Fixing AFD would be better than forking it.
Regardless, it would be trivial for a bot to generate a list of articles belonging to both [[Category:Living people]] and [[Category:Articles for deletion]], and list them on some prominent page in project-space like "Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people", maybe give it a cute little shortcut such as WP:BLPFD (/ˈblɪpfʌd/) that would imply a separate process when in fact it isn't, and add a little note like <small>This debate has been included in the list of living people-related deletion discussions"</small>.
Or not?
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:18 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Controversial BLPs are often closed as no consensus merely because there are good experienced WP editors with strong views on both sides--the result of this will be to say that ''any article to which there is any strong opposition will be deleted if it is a BLP''. However, some of these good and experienced people at WP do not seem to understand NPOV, and think that all controversial BLPs which have a negative implication towards the subject, however fair, should be deleted. The small cohesive group of editors who do not represent the consensus, but are strong enough to represent a minority, will prevail.
Due to the size of the project and the number of editors, isn't this kinda true for most recent policies? ie who shows up and makes the most noise.
On 22/04/2008, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Fixing AFD would be better than forking it.
Isn't there an Augean stable to clean instead, or a rock to push uphill forever?
Regardless, it would be trivial for a bot to generate a list of articles belonging to both [[Category:Living people]] and [[Category:Articles for deletion]], and list them on some prominent page in project-space like "Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people", maybe give it a cute little shortcut such as WP:BLPFD (/ˈblɪpfʌd/) that would imply a separate process when in fact it isn't, and add a little note like <small>This debate has been included in the list of living people-related deletion discussions"</small>. Or not?
Something like that.
- d.
On 4/22/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Regardless, it would be trivial for a bot to generate a list of articles belonging to both [[Category:Living people]] and [[Category:Articles for deletion]], and list them on some prominent page in project-space like "Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people", maybe give it a cute little shortcut such as WP:BLPFD (/ˈblɪpfʌd/) that would imply a separate process when in fact it isn't, and add a little note like <small>This debate has been included in the list of living people-related deletion discussions"</small>. Or not?
Something like that.
Unfortunately I can't tell whether this is agreement or dismissal.
Regardless of anything else that might be said about it, creating one comprehensive list of BLPs currently on AFD would at least allow people to get a better, broader idea of which pages would be affected by the current proposal. This would be more helpful in personally deciding how good of an idea it really is, much more-so than examples hand-picked to support an already formed opinion.
I am also skeptical of a "trial period" for the current proposal as I doubt enough people will be aware of the "reverse default outcome" soon enough to get meaningful results. A live list would also be helpful in measuring this awareness (and to some extent, obedience) during the "trial period" if there is one, or forever and ever amen otherwise.
Also it would be useful in identifying and correcting "collateral damage" and determining the overall level of it.
If somebody here is good with bots and interested in helping me with this idea, please let me know, publicly, privately, I don't care, but soon.
—C.W.
On 22/04/2008, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/22/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Charlotte Webb wrote:
Regardless, it would be trivial for a bot to generate a list of articles belonging to both [[Category:Living people]] and [[Category:Articles for deletion]], and list them on some prominent
Something like that.
Unfortunately I can't tell whether this is agreement or dismissal.
Agreement :-) The mechanism IMO isn't as important as doing it, though. BLPs are special because we're stupidly popular with a stupidly high Google pagerank, so a Wikipedia article on - or naming - someone is usually the top hit for their name. So bad info about living people can cause actual harm.
If we end up with grey and skimpy living bios, then that's how things are and we can wait for high-quality sources. We've got years to get it all lovely. We're not a source of up-to-the-minute investigative journalism or dirt-digging, after all. While taking care not to slip into doing puff-pieces, either.
(IMO this isn't even about legal issues at all, really.)
Regardless of anything else that might be said about it, creating one comprehensive list of BLPs currently on AFD would at least allow people to get a better, broader idea of which pages would be affected by the current proposal. This would be more helpful in personally deciding how good of an idea it really is, much more-so than examples hand-picked to support an already formed opinion. I am also skeptical of a "trial period" for the current proposal as I doubt enough people will be aware of the "reverse default outcome" soon enough to get meaningful results. A live list would also be helpful in measuring this awareness (and to some extent, obedience) during the "trial period" if there is one, or forever and ever amen otherwise.
Personally I think we should just do it. But anyway.
Also it would be useful in identifying and correcting "collateral damage" and determining the overall level of it.
Mostly terrible public relations I suspect.
If somebody here is good with bots and interested in helping me with this idea, please let me know, publicly, privately, I don't care, but soon.
Over on wikitech-l they're working very hard on making fast category intersections work :-)
- d.
2008/4/22 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
If we end up with grey and skimpy living bios, then that's how things are and we can wait for high-quality sources.
...and for people to not want their own article deleted.
and for people to stop insisting the coverage in multiple international newspapers is not sufficiently noteworthy unless it extends over a period of years. Or anything else in the way of requirements that will keep out of wikipedia that which they personally would rather see excluded. We had a very good policy from the start. NPOV. It only became questionable when we started dealing with people who thought it meant SPOV, Subject's Point of View.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:55 AM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/22 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
If we end up with grey and skimpy living bios, then that's how things are and we can wait for high-quality sources.
...and for people to not want their own article deleted.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 22/04/2008, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
and for people to stop insisting the coverage in multiple international newspapers is not sufficiently noteworthy unless it extends over a period of years.
Actually with di Stefano that isn't a problem. I can find references stretching across close to 2 decades (electronic records mostly stop at 1990) and across 3 continents. Stopping people removing such references is more of a problem.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 7:50 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That's actually a really good idea.
To expand upon the idea. AFD rules would remain the same for BLPs and non BLPs (notable or not notable) with "no consensus" defaulting to "keep". However, if the subject requests deletion or otherwise starts to make trouble for the project, then his article would go to "BLPs for discussion" Where the article would be deleted (or stubified and protected) unless there is a clean consensus to keep.
One thing that should be discussed in a "BLPFD" would be whether or not the subject is "super notable" (a public figure/celebrity) or just an ordinary "marginally notable" shmoe. Not that we should be doing hatchet jobs on celebrities but many of them get slammed in the tabloids just as bad as they can get slammed here. It goes with the territory of being a celebrity.
Ron Ritzman wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 7:50 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That's actually a really good idea.
To expand upon the idea. AFD rules would remain the same for BLPs and non BLPs (notable or not notable) with "no consensus" defaulting to "keep". However, if the subject requests deletion or otherwise starts to make trouble for the project, then his article would go to "BLPs for discussion" Where the article would be deleted (or stubified and protected) unless there is a clean consensus to keep.
I can't express my opposition to this strongly enough. We should under no circumstances *encourage* people to try to damage the encyclopedia by giving them a special process by which to do so.
-Mark