I started a discussion at [[WT:BLP]] on the proposal that we implement a variant of proposed deletion as follows:
It is proposed that this article be deleted as a biography of a living individual which does not cite its references or sources.
If you can improve the article by sourcing it, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you add reliable independent sources. This template should not be removed without first sourcing the article.
The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for 14 days. (This template was added: 26 April 2007.)
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, please improve the article so that it is acceptable according to the policy on biographies of living individuals.
The idea would be to give a bureaucracy-free route to removing *unsourced* biographies. The unsourced condition may be the result of removal of questionable sources for negative statements, that should not make a difference.
There's also a debate at [[WP:AN]] about this.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
I started a discussion at [[WT:BLP]] on the proposal that we implement a variant of proposed deletion as follows:
It is proposed that this article be deleted as a biography of a living individual which does not cite its references or sources.
Based on what I saw when going through some of that {{unreferenced}}-containing BLP list, the rate of false positives could be in the range of 90% or so. Having deletion be the default result of such a tag could result in losing a lot of useful stuff.
The idea would be to give a bureaucracy-free route to removing *unsourced* biographies. The unsourced condition may be the result of removal of questionable sources for negative statements, that should not make a difference.
Why not use {{prod}}?
On 4/26/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
I started a discussion at [[WT:BLP]] on the proposal that we implement a variant of proposed deletion as follows:
It is proposed that this article be deleted as a biography of a living individual which does not cite its references or sources.Based on what I saw when going through some of that {{unreferenced}}-containing BLP list, the rate of false positives could be in the range of 90% or so. Having deletion be the default result of such a tag could result in losing a lot of useful stuff.
Yes, first we need to make sure all false positives and negatives are dealt with. And before we go on a deletion rampage, we need to have a massive sourcing effort to make sure it should be deleted.
The idea would be to give a bureaucracy-free route to removing
*unsourced* biographies. The unsourced condition may be the result of removal of questionable sources for negative statements, that should not make a difference.
Why not use {{prod}}?
PROD is not for a 14 day period.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/26/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Based on what I saw when going through some of that {{unreferenced}}-containing BLP list, the rate of false positives could be in the range of 90% or so. Having deletion be the default result of such a tag could result in losing a lot of useful stuff.
...
Why not use {{prod}}?
As Guy said, this would be a variant of proposed deletion, meant specifically for use on articles with unsourced biographical material. PROD has a number of restrictions on it and is only intended for "articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates that obviously do not belong in the encyclopedia". This would extend to articles on topics that may well belong in the encyclopaedia, but are unsourced.
On 4/26/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/26/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Based on what I saw when going through some of that {{unreferenced}}-containing BLP list, the rate of false positives could be in the range of 90% or so. Having deletion be the default result of such a tag could result in losing a lot of useful stuff.
...
Why not use {{prod}}?
As Guy said, this would be a variant of proposed deletion, meant specifically for use on articles with unsourced biographical material. PROD has a number of restrictions on it and is only intended for "articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates that obviously do not belong in the encyclopedia". This would extend to articles on topics that may well belong in the encyclopaedia, but are unsourced.
Which obviously is not going to be uncontroversial.
Mgm
On 26/04/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
I started a discussion at [[WT:BLP]] on the proposal that we implement a variant of proposed deletion as follows:
It is proposed that this article be deleted as a biography of a living individual which does not cite its references or sources.Based on what I saw when going through some of that {{unreferenced}}-containing BLP list, the rate of false positives could be in the range of 90% or so. Having deletion be the default result of such a tag could result in losing a lot of useful stuff.
Are we planning to tag these automatically from the list generated earlier? I don't think that's the best way to go about it, due to the false positives, but if you do, some suggestions to make it work more smoothly:
* Aim to tag [a fraction] of the unreferenced living bios each week - perhaps one in six? That'll mean the whole set has hit the 14-day limit after two months, a reasonable timeframe for a long cleanup, and avoids completely swamping people in one go.
* Ensure the tag populates an "unsourced biographies marked for deletion" category, which will give people wanting to clean it up a good position to start on and an easy way of seeing the response rate.
* Widely publicise that this is going to happen, so people can help work on it.
* Keep a list of articles tagged and then later detagged, to run a check on later to see how well it worked.
The idea would be to give a bureaucracy-free route to removing *unsourced* biographies. The unsourced condition may be the result of removal of questionable sources for negative statements, that should not make a difference.
Why not use {{prod}}?
I did a little test on this a while back, taking the worst kind of unsourced biographies - the kind that are absolute libel if they transpire to be untrue - and marking them for prodding unless sourced. The usual response was to source and remove the tag, but a couple of times it ended up being removed with no sourcing and brisk comments about "notable topic, take to afd".
On 26/04/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
- Aim to tag [a fraction] of the unreferenced living bios each week -
perhaps one in six? That'll mean the whole set has hit the 14-day limit after two months, a reasonable timeframe for a long cleanup, and avoids completely swamping people in one go.
- Ensure the tag populates an "unsourced biographies marked for
deletion" category, which will give people wanting to clean it up a good position to start on and an easy way of seeing the response rate.
- Widely publicise that this is going to happen, so people can help work on it.
I like it.
(By the way: people should swing by WT:BLP for discussion on this harsher deletion criterion for the minorly notable.)
- Keep a list of articles tagged and then later detagged, to run a
check on later to see how well it worked.
Measure to see if our ideas actually worked? Gosh!
- d.
On 4/26/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(By the way: people should swing by WT:BLP for discussion on this harsher deletion criterion for the minorly notable.)
I still don't get the idea of minorly notable. I find someone with one lead role in a musical notable. Some people never heard of the person in question respond to debates on such a person with "just one role" comments. Without a set definition this is going to see articles fall prey to personal whims. I prefer harsher deletion criteria for biographies that are primarily about one negative event in a person's life. That's where BLP concerns lie. The obscure but notable people have problems with vandalism to their articles getting noticed, but they don't run any more risk than others. Before we flush those bios down the drain and give up on monitoring them, we should at least try to find an idea to make monitoring better and easier. We can always try deletion later.
Mgm
On 4/26/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
I started a discussion at [[WT:BLP]] on the proposal that we implement a variant of proposed deletion as follows:
It is proposed that this article be deleted as a biography of a living individual which does not cite its references or sources.Based on what I saw when going through some of that {{unreferenced}}-containing BLP list, the rate of false positives could be in the range of 90% or so. Having deletion be the default result of such a tag could result in losing a lot of useful stuff.
My survey of BLPs is only half-completed so far, but from what I've found:
*One article in seven is a biography of a living person, for approximately a quarter-million of them. *90% of these articles have neither footnotes nor references. *About half have only links to official or fan websites. *25% have nothing that could be considered a source under even the most generous definition.
Mark Wagner wrote:
*90% of these articles have neither footnotes nor references. *About half have only links to official or fan websites. *25% have nothing that could be considered a source under even the most generous definition.
You do realize that many of these were likely sourced to the "official" biographies on the official/fan websites, right?
-Jeff
On 4/26/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Mark Wagner wrote:
*90% of these articles have neither footnotes nor references. *About half have only links to official or fan websites. *25% have nothing that could be considered a source under even the most generous definition.
You do realize that many of these were likely sourced to the "official" biographies on the official/fan websites, right?
-Jeff
If the article in question can only be sourced to such websites (university bios, musical group bios, fan websites) or can only be sourced to current newspaper articles, and there are no other sources available, no matter how hard we look (no traditional encyclopedia entries, no who's who, no "music of the 1990s" book entries, no printed bios or interviews in magazines, etc) then that seems like a reasonable point to consider whether we need the bio. Remember that short official bios and newspaper articles rarely give a person's life in complete, npov detail... but without more sources, neither can we. Providing a duplicate of the Internet at large is not our goal here.
Also, remember the historical long-view. If the person does turn out to be truly notable, or recognized as being an innovator in some way, I guarantee we'll get an article on them eventually. There are plenty of respectable reference works who only include people who have passed away; it's much easier to judge what their historical impact was with hindsight.
-- phoebe
phoebe ayers wrote:
If the article in question can only be sourced to such websites (university bios, musical group bios, fan websites) or can only be sourced to current newspaper articles, and there are no other sources available, no matter how hard we look (no traditional encyclopedia entries, no who's who, no "music of the 1990s" book entries, no printed bios or interviews in magazines, etc) then that seems like a reasonable point to consider whether we need the bio.
No one's saying they *should* be, but you can't call an article unreferenced if it can be sourced to those things. The effort was made, after all.
-Jeff
phoebe ayers wrote:
On 4/26/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Mark Wagner wrote:
*90% of these articles have neither footnotes nor references. *About half have only links to official or fan websites. *25% have nothing that could be considered a source under even the most generous definition.
You do realize that many of these were likely sourced to the "official" biographies on the official/fan websites, right?
If the article in question can only be sourced to such websites (university bios, musical group bios, fan websites) or can only be sourced to current newspaper articles, and there are no other sources available, no matter how hard we look (no traditional encyclopedia entries, no who's who, no "music of the 1990s" book entries, no printed bios or interviews in magazines, etc) then that seems like a reasonable point to consider whether we need the bio. Remember that short official bios and newspaper articles rarely give a person's life in complete, npov detail... but without more sources, neither can we.
For authors we also have dust-jacket bios. They are far from complete, but they are NPOV to the point of blandness.. The result may be a stub, but that at least can put the author in somw kind of historical context and environment.
Ec
On 4/27/07, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/26/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
I started a discussion at [[WT:BLP]] on the proposal that we implement a variant of proposed deletion as follows:
It is proposed that this article be deleted as a biography of a living individual which does not cite its references or sources.Based on what I saw when going through some of that {{unreferenced}}-containing BLP list, the rate of false positives could be in the range of 90% or so. Having deletion be the default result of such a tag could result in losing a lot of useful stuff.
My survey of BLPs is only half-completed so far, but from what I've found:
*One article in seven is a biography of a living person, for approximately a quarter-million of them. *90% of these articles have neither footnotes nor references. *About half have only links to official or fan websites. *25% have nothing that could be considered a source under even the most generous definition.
Obviously I have a rather biased sample, but the BLPs I've worked with have largely turned out to be unattributed copyvios (as in, not even a link to them) from official biographies or press releases published online. Of course, determining how many of our BLPs are actually copyvios is a different question altogether...
Johnleemk
On 4/26/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, determining how many of our BLPs are actually copyvios is a different question altogether...
So far, two out of 50, with a third that feels like a copyvio but which I can't find the source for.
On 4/27/07, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
So far, two out of 50, with a third that feels like a copyvio but which I can't find the source for.
About right. Daniel Brandt came out with a figure of 1% but given the method of his search 2-3% is proably closer.
On 4/27/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/27/07, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
So far, two out of 50, with a third that feels like a copyvio but which I can't find the source for.
About right. Daniel Brandt came out with a figure of 1% but given the method of his search 2-3% is proably closer.
Although sometimes they're a copy of an external site done by the author of that external site, especially if it's the subject themselves.
-Matt
A similar proposal to this was floated earlier - it's still a very damaging idea.
Consider [[Category:Senegalese politicians]]. All very notable, important sorts of people. About half of the articles are unsourced, generally stubs.
Now, yes, we obviously can find sources for articles on all the prime ministers of Senegal. That's not the issue. The issue is that there are very few editors working in this area - often not enough to handle a wave of PRODs on their articles. It's an area of high importance to the project and low participation. To add a rule that allows for deletion in this area makes it far too easy to overwhelm these vital areas with deletions and gut our coverage with no attention to whether or not the articles are actually erroneous.
BLPs and sourcing are a problem, but they need a far more subtle solution than this.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
On Apr 26, 2007, at 2:49 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
I started a discussion at [[WT:BLP]] on the proposal that we implement a variant of proposed deletion as follows:
It is proposed that this article be deleted as a biography of a living individual which does not cite its references or sources.
If you can improve the article by sourcing it, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you add reliable independent sources. This template should not be removed without first sourcing the article.
The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for 14 days. (This template was added: 26 April 2007.)
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, please improve the article so that it is acceptable according to the policy on biographies of living individuals.
The idea would be to give a bureaucracy-free route to removing *unsourced* biographies. The unsourced condition may be the result of removal of questionable sources for negative statements, that should not make a difference.
There's also a debate at [[WP:AN]] about this.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Seems to me you're describing why we -should- prune those back, not why we -shouldn't-. If there are very few people involved in the area, and a ton of unsourced and largely unwatched articles, we're just asking for trouble. No one's saying this process would bar recreation if someone can find a source.
Seraphimblade
On 4/27/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
A similar proposal to this was floated earlier - it's still a very damaging idea.
Consider [[Category:Senegalese politicians]]. All very notable, important sorts of people. About half of the articles are unsourced, generally stubs.
Now, yes, we obviously can find sources for articles on all the prime ministers of Senegal. That's not the issue. The issue is that there are very few editors working in this area - often not enough to handle a wave of PRODs on their articles. It's an area of high importance to the project and low participation. To add a rule that allows for deletion in this area makes it far too easy to overwhelm these vital areas with deletions and gut our coverage with no attention to whether or not the articles are actually erroneous.
BLPs and sourcing are a problem, but they need a far more subtle solution than this.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
On Apr 26, 2007, at 2:49 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
I started a discussion at [[WT:BLP]] on the proposal that we implement a variant of proposed deletion as follows:
It is proposed that this article be deleted as a biography of a living individual which does not cite its references or sources. If you can improve the article by sourcing it, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you add reliable independent sources. This template should not be removed without first sourcing the article. The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for 14 days. (This template was added: 26 April 2007.) If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, please improve the article so that it is acceptable according to the policy on biographies of living individuals.The idea would be to give a bureaucracy-free route to removing *unsourced* biographies. The unsourced condition may be the result of removal of questionable sources for negative statements, that should not make a difference.
There's also a debate at [[WP:AN]] about this.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Apr 29, 2007, at 5:10 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
Seems to me you're describing why we -should- prune those back, not why we -shouldn't-. If there are very few people involved in the area, and a ton of unsourced and largely unwatched articles, we're just asking for trouble. No one's saying this process would bar recreation if someone can find a source.
Removing most of our coverage of non-American and British countries seems to me to be trouble as it stands.
-Phil
On 4/27/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Now, yes, we obviously can find sources for articles on all the prime ministers of Senegal. That's not the issue. The issue is that there are very few editors working in this area - often not enough to handle a wave of PRODs on their articles. It's an area of high importance to the project and low participation. To add a rule that allows for deletion in this area makes it far too easy to overwhelm these vital areas with deletions and gut our coverage with no attention to whether or not the articles are actually erroneous.
I share concerns with Phil here, a form of systemic bias I think. If (an estimated 16,000?) articles are marked for deletion at the same time, yes we we will probably end up with a several hundred impeccably referenced articles about Foo-Idol contestants, state senators, professional sports people, porn stars, even webcartoonists... all of whose biographies would otherwise be in poorer shape.
That's all groovy, but not at the price of total loss of biographical coverage outside the English-speaking world, even for a few weeks. Realistically it will probably be much longer than that, with a limited number of people who would have the time and energy help facilitate the reconstruction.
And a limited number of admins willing to act as a liaison between the deleted content and the editors who care to improve it.
And a limited number of people who know where to find Senegal on a map or care what goes on there.
And a limited amount of time before these people quit the project in disgust.
BLPs and sourcing are a problem, but they need a far more subtle solution than this.
Userfy? Perhaps move to a designated area of project space specifically not indexed by Google? I've got some more ideas if this doesn't sound too outlandish yet.
Charlotte
Charlotte Webb wrote:
[snip] That's all groovy, but not at the price of total loss of biographical coverage outside the English-speaking world, even for a few weeks. Realistically it will probably be much longer than that, with a limited number of people who would have the time and energy help facilitate the reconstruction.
Likely a lot longer than "a few weeks", if the "delete any recreation of an article which has already been properly processed and therefore declared 'article non grata' in perpetuity" crew get their teeth into them.
Then try Deletion Review for fun, see how you like it.
On 5/2/07, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Likely a lot longer than "a few weeks", if the "delete any recreation of an article which has already been properly processed and therefore declared 'article non grata' in perpetuity" crew get their teeth into them.
Then try Deletion Review for fun, see how you like it.
Phil
I would not consider this to be proper processing, but for our lovely "*Some ad hoc process was followed (but a process nonetheless!), plus the subject has never been on the cover of multiple english-language magazines, keep deleted. ~~~~" trolls of DRV, just about anything is good enough.
To keep the collateral damage at a minimum, we should at least specify that such an article can be restored by anyone who has made a good faith effort to improve it, or recreated from scratch if the former revisions contained libelous statements (might happen 1 in 500) or copyright-infringing content (probably a lot more common, considering the millions of books that will never be published online for comparison).
Charlotte
On Apr 25, 2007, at 11:49 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
It is proposed that this article be deleted as a biography of a living individual which does not cite its references or sources.
If you can improve the article by sourcing it, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you add reliable independent sources. This template should not be removed without first sourcing the article.
The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for 14 days. (This template was added: 26 April 2007.)
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, please improve the article so that it is acceptable according to the policy on biographies of living individuals.
I like this a lot. I hope there is enough traction for this to get implemented.
-- Josi