About the current DRV... is there a reason why the article's history is still obfuscated? Makes it hard for non-admins to judge/evaluate fairly. I see people saying "RS were there" and others saying "No RS was there", but I recall seeing some. However, it's currently just the word of people who can see it against all else...
Shouldn't it be restored?
On 26/03/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
About the current DRV... is there a reason why the article's history is still obfuscated? Makes it hard for non-admins to judge/evaluate fairly. I see people saying "RS were there" and others saying "No RS was there", but I recall seeing some. However, it's currently just the word of people who can see it against all else...
Shouldn't it be restored?
Well, the point of a deletion review is to decide whether or not the article should be undeleted. Surely undeleting it in order to decide to undelete it seems a bit odd...
On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/03/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
About the current DRV... is there a reason why the article's history is still obfuscated? Makes it hard for non-admins to judge/evaluate fairly.
I
see people saying "RS were there" and others saying "No RS was there",
but I
recall seeing some. However, it's currently just the word of people who
can
see it against all else...
Shouldn't it be restored?
Well, the point of a deletion review is to decide whether or not the article should be undeleted. Surely undeleting it in order to decide to undelete it seems a bit odd...
--
- Andrew Gray
I'd seen some DRVs where the article history (but not the article, which stayed locked as that protected stub page) was restored for the duration of the DRV so people could judge. is that an exception then? what makes something qualify for that?
On 26/03/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
Well, the point of a deletion review is to decide whether or not the article should be undeleted. Surely undeleting it in order to decide to undelete it seems a bit odd...
I'd seen some DRVs where the article history (but not the article, which stayed locked as that protected stub page) was restored for the duration of the DRV so people could judge. is that an exception then? what makes something qualify for that?
Most deletion, it doesn't really matter if the history is visible or not - it's not that the article is damaging as such, we just don't want it as part of Wikipedia. In this case, though, the deletion was (asserted to be) because the history was actually defamatory; if this is the case, we actively don't want to continue publishing it. Deleting libellous material, and then undeleting it so lots more people can read it, is conceptually a bit sloppy.
DRV is to determine if we want to undelete it permanently (as far as things can be permanent in a wiki world). It's impossible to judge if something should stay deleted without being able to see it.
The history isn't defamatory. Whatever gave you that idea? I want someone to actually say which source is unreliable. Anyone who knows how the writing business works knows what she did is a scam and calling it that isn't defamatory.
Mgm
On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/03/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
Well, the point of a deletion review is to decide whether or not the article should be undeleted. Surely undeleting it in order to decide to undelete it seems a bit odd...
I'd seen some DRVs where the article history (but not the article, which stayed locked as that protected stub page) was restored for the duration
of
the DRV so people could judge. is that an exception then? what makes something qualify for that?
Most deletion, it doesn't really matter if the history is visible or not - it's not that the article is damaging as such, we just don't want it as part of Wikipedia. In this case, though, the deletion was (asserted to be) because the history was actually defamatory; if this is the case, we actively don't want to continue publishing it. Deleting libellous material, and then undeleting it so lots more people can read it, is conceptually a bit sloppy.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
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 26/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
DRV is to determine if we want to undelete it permanently (as far as things can be permanent in a wiki world). It's impossible to judge if something should stay deleted without being able to see it.
The history isn't defamatory. Whatever gave you that idea? I want someone to
I did not say it was defamatory. I said it was asserted to as defamatory. As there is A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THIS, I can't possibly imagine how anyone got the idea that the content might be dubious.
On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
DRV is to determine if we want to undelete it permanently (as far as
things
can be permanent in a wiki world). It's impossible to judge if something should stay deleted without being able to see it.
The history isn't defamatory. Whatever gave you that idea? I want
someone to
I did not say it was defamatory. I said it was asserted to as defamatory. As there is A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THIS, I can't possibly imagine how anyone got the idea that the content might be dubious.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
So all you have to do to get an article you don't like deleted is file a lawsuit? You probably should keep that a secret or a lot of people are gonna take you up on that.
Mgm
On 26/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I did not say it was defamatory. I said it was asserted to as defamatory. As there is A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THIS, I can't possibly imagine how anyone got the idea that the content might be dubious.
So all you have to do to get an article you don't like deleted is file a lawsuit? You probably should keep that a secret or a lot of people are gonna take you up on that.
I think you will find I did not say that. Please keep your strawmen to yourself.
The lawsuit brought it swiftly to people's attention. Then...
14:56, 25 March 2007 Doc glasgow (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Barbara Bauer" (per WP:BLP article is a bloody disgrace. Full of 'allegations" of who said what on message boards . No mainstream media interest.)
I note the absence of "OMG we're getting sued quick run" as a reason there.
If the lawsuit isn't important, then why did you message mentions it in BIG BAD LETTERS?
On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I did not say it was defamatory. I said it was asserted to as defamatory. As there is A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THIS, I can't possibly imagine how anyone got the idea that the content might be dubious.
So all you have to do to get an article you don't like deleted is file a lawsuit? You probably should keep that a secret or a lot of people are
gonna
take you up on that.
I think you will find I did not say that. Please keep your strawmen to yourself.
The lawsuit brought it swiftly to people's attention. Then...
14:56, 25 March 2007 Doc glasgow (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Barbara Bauer" (per WP:BLP article is a bloody disgrace. Full of 'allegations" of who said what on message boards . No mainstream media interest.)
I note the absence of "OMG we're getting sued quick run" as a reason there.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
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 3/26/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Most deletion, it doesn't really matter if the history is visible or not - it's not that the article is damaging as such, we just don't want it as part of Wikipedia. In this case, though, the deletion was (asserted to be) because the history was actually defamatory; if this is the case, we actively don't want to continue publishing it. Deleting libellous material, and then undeleting it so lots more people can read it, is conceptually a bit sloppy.
This is a circular argument, and one that seems prejudiced toward deletion. And you don't actually give the reason for this prejudice until your next email:
I did not say it was defamatory. I said it was asserted to as defamatory. As there is A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THIS, I can't possibly imagine how anyone got the idea that the content might be dubious.
In this case, because the removal is based on a fear of WP:SUIT, it should be an OFFICE action, and not a deletion. Not that I think office actions are a legitimate way of editing, nor do I think that a fear or SUIT is a healthy attitude, but the point is is that if its a WP process, this notion of sanitizing content in a prejudicial way is unwiki and against the community spirit.
-Stevertigo
On 26/03/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Most deletion, it doesn't really matter if the history is visible or not - it's not that the article is damaging as such, we just don't want it as part of Wikipedia. In this case, though, the deletion was (asserted to be) because the history was actually defamatory; if this is the case, we actively don't want to continue publishing it. Deleting libellous material, and then undeleting it so lots more people can read it, is conceptually a bit sloppy.
This is a circular argument, and one that seems prejudiced toward deletion. And you don't actually give the reason for this prejudice until your next email:
Er. It's not "prejudiced towards deletion", it's prejudiced against *not continuing to publish defamatory material unless we have to*. And I note I said "the deletion was (asserted to be) because the history was actually defamatory"; I'm not sure how this is "hiding my prejudice".
I did not say it was defamatory. I said it was asserted to as defamatory. As there is A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THIS, I can't possibly imagine how anyone got the idea that the content might be dubious.
In this case, because the removal is based on a fear of WP:SUIT, it should be an OFFICE action, and not a deletion. Not that I think office actions are a legitimate way of editing, nor do I think that a fear or SUIT is a healthy attitude, but the point is is that if its a WP process, this notion of sanitizing content in a prejudicial way is unwiki and against the community spirit.
I have honestly no idea what that alphabet soup of things meant; as far as I know the Office has no opinion on this and is firmly staying that way, at least until actual papers turn up.
Perhaps I should be crystal clear here. My opinion is that this is a non-objectionable article, on someone who is a) non-notable and b) a scammer pretty much as described in loving detail by TNH et. al. I don't feel we are at any legal risk should we continue to publish it, but I am ambivalent as to whether or not our notability policies say we should keep it. (In short: I don't give a damn. Please note my not participating in the deletion debate)
However, some people are. There have been issues raised with the article; people are arguing in good faith that it was an attack page, potentially libellous, what have you. This is why we don't undelete; because if those people are right, undeleting it would be wilfuly stupid, deliberately continuing publication after initial decision to remove. You can go look at the google cache if you want to see what it looked like - it's still there, IIRC...
On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/03/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Most deletion, it doesn't really matter if the history is visible or not - it's not that the article is damaging as such, we just don't want it as part of Wikipedia. In this case, though, the deletion was (asserted to be) because the history was actually defamatory; if this is the case, we actively don't want to continue publishing it. Deleting libellous material, and then undeleting it so lots more people can read it, is conceptually a bit sloppy.
This is a circular argument, and one that seems prejudiced toward deletion. And you don't actually give the reason for this prejudice until your next email:
Er. It's not "prejudiced towards deletion", it's prejudiced against *not continuing to publish defamatory material unless we have to*. And I note I said "the deletion was (asserted to be) because the history was actually defamatory"; I'm not sure how this is "hiding my prejudice".
I did not say it was defamatory. I said it was asserted to as defamatory. As there is A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THIS, I can't possibly imagine how anyone got the idea that the content might be dubious.
In this case, because the removal is based on a fear of WP:SUIT, it should be an OFFICE action, and not a deletion. Not that I think office actions are a legitimate way of editing, nor do I think that a fear or SUIT is a healthy attitude, but the point is is that if its a WP process, this notion of sanitizing content in a prejudicial way is unwiki and against the community spirit.
I have honestly no idea what that alphabet soup of things meant; as far as I know the Office has no opinion on this and is firmly staying that way, at least until actual papers turn up.
Perhaps I should be crystal clear here. My opinion is that this is a non-objectionable article, on someone who is a) non-notable and b) a scammer pretty much as described in loving detail by TNH et. al. I don't feel we are at any legal risk should we continue to publish it, but I am ambivalent as to whether or not our notability policies say we should keep it. (In short: I don't give a damn. Please note my not participating in the deletion debate)
However, some people are. There have been issues raised with the article; people are arguing in good faith that it was an attack page, potentially libellous, what have you. This is why we don't undelete; because if those people are right, undeleting it would be wilfuly stupid, deliberately continuing publication after initial decision to remove. You can go look at the google cache if you want to see what it looked like - it's still there, IIRC...
There is a good-faith concern here - non-admins can get pretty frustrated if the Google cache and so forth aren't good coverage for a now-deleted, but up for review, article.
It's the one thing which has suprised me about how much happier I am now that I am an admin. The rest of it was work effort reductions I was expecting, for the most part; actually being able to look at normal deleted content as part of the review process made me unexpectedly much happier.
Makes me want to code up a new user permission bit to let people look at deleted edits without having to get full admin rights, in my nonexistent spare time...
George Herbert wrote:
It's the one thing which has suprised me about how much happier I am now that I am an admin. The rest of it was work effort reductions I was expecting, for the most part; actually being able to look at normal deleted content as part of the review process made me unexpectedly much happier.
Trust me, it's the one thing I regret about not being able to get promoted myself.
I've placed the concept of showing deleted edits up for proposal at DRV for non-copyvio, non-defamatory reviews again - it's pretty close to a perennial proposal there as is, but it could be very useful.
-Jeff
On 3/26/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Makes me want to code up a new user permission bit to let people look at deleted edits without having to get full admin rights, in my nonexistent spare time...
And how would it be decided which ordinary mortals get the bit?. A pox on your propeller beanie if you say "edit count". :)
Maybe it could be set for certain articles that are undergoing DRV? And restrict access of articles with the bit set to users past the semi-protection threshold? This would actually be very useful.
Sincerely, Silas Snider
On 3/26/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/26/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Makes me want to code up a new user permission bit to let people look at deleted edits without having to get full admin rights, in my nonexistent spare time...
And how would it be decided which ordinary mortals get the bit?. A pox on your propeller beanie if you say "edit count". :)
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 3/26/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/26/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Makes me want to code up a new user permission bit to let people look at deleted edits without having to get full admin rights, in my nonexistent spare time...
And how would it be decided which ordinary mortals get the bit?. A pox on your propeller beanie if you say "edit count". :)
That would be a policy question, up for normal consensus determination...
My opinion on the topic would be anyone who has been around for a month and wants it, and who doesn't turn out to cause problems with it. "We took the material down and restricted access to staff, administrators, and a small set of other known users...". As long as we restrict access "enough" to deleted info then liability concerns don't really care if a few of the people who can see it aren't wikipedia "Administrators". If it is truly more sensitive than that then it should be oversighted.
Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 3/26/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Makes me want to code up a new user permission bit to let people look at deleted edits without having to get full admin rights, in my nonexistent spare time...
And how would it be decided which ordinary mortals get the bit?. A pox on your propeller beanie if you say "edit count". :)
How about those who ask and give a plausible reason?
It sounds like we hide edits mainly to prevent the average user from coming across things that we'd rather not publish to the whole world. But it seems like there's no big risk as people agree to treat the hidden content appropriately.
William
On 3/26/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
And how would it be decided which ordinary mortals get the bit?. A pox on your propeller beanie if you say "edit count". :)
How about those who ask and give a plausible reason?
Well, in my case sometimes it would be morbid curiosity. Example, I see something in AFD that was firehosed after 3 votes for being WP:BULLSHIT and want to take a look at it just for shits and giggles. Also, I might see something that may be a no no here but would be acceptable on Wikinfo such as well written articles containing some OR.
Ideally a trusted user could see a deleted article without having to ask Mommy for each one but such access could perhaps be logged.
It sounds like we hide edits mainly to prevent the average user from coming across things that we'd rather not publish to the whole world.
I always assumed that it would be because there would be no point "deleting" something if every Tom Dick and Willy on wheels could see it anyway.
But it seems like there's no big risk as people agree to treat the hidden content appropriately.
No argument here.
On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/03/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Most deletion, it doesn't really matter if the history is visible or not - it's not that the article is damaging as such, we just don't want it as part of Wikipedia. In this case, though, the deletion was (asserted to be) because the history was actually defamatory; if this is the case, we actively don't want to continue publishing it. Deleting libellous material, and then undeleting it so lots more people can read it, is conceptually a bit sloppy.
This is a circular argument, and one that seems prejudiced toward
deletion.
And you don't actually give the reason for this prejudice until your
next email:
Er. It's not "prejudiced towards deletion", it's prejudiced against *not continuing to publish defamatory material unless we have to*. And I note I said "the deletion was (asserted to be) because the history was actually defamatory"; I'm not sure how this is "hiding my prejudice".
I did not say it was defamatory. I said it was asserted to as defamatory. As there is A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THIS, I can't possibly imagine how anyone got the idea that the content might be dubious.
In this case, because the removal is based on a fear of WP:SUIT, it
should be
an OFFICE action, and not a deletion. Not that I think office actions are a legitimate way of editing, nor do I think that a fear or SUIT is a healthy attitude, but the point is is that if its a WP process, this notion of sanitizing content in a prejudicial way is unwiki and against the community spirit.
I have honestly no idea what that alphabet soup of things meant; as far as I know the Office has no opinion on this and is firmly staying that way, at least until actual papers turn up.
Perhaps I should be crystal clear here. My opinion is that this is a non-objectionable article, on someone who is a) non-notable and b) a scammer pretty much as described in loving detail by TNH et. al. I don't feel we are at any legal risk should we continue to publish it, but I am ambivalent as to whether or not our notability policies say we should keep it. (In short: I don't give a damn. Please note my not participating in the deletion debate)
However, some people are. There have been issues raised with the article; people are arguing in good faith that it was an attack page, potentially libellous, what have you. This is why we don't undelete; because if those people are right, undeleting it would be wilfuly stupid, deliberately continuing publication after initial decision to remove. You can go look at the google cache if you want to see what it looked like - it's still there, IIRC...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
If her notability is questioned by some and this is countered by others, it's on AFD terrain, not speedy deletion.
Mgm
On 3/26/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
If her notability is questioned by some and this is countered by others, it's on AFD terrain, not speedy deletion.
Mgm
Unfortunately since no one but admins can see the stuff in question now, any non-admins have been unfairly (in violation of policy?) removed from any decision making here that is of real value... I "recall" seeing RS on the article before it went away, but if someone challenged me on that--what do I say? "Sorry, can't see it/confirm"?
Basically any non-admin is now excluded from the DRV after Doc Glasgow speedied it unless someone restores the history for us.
On 26/03/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
Basically any non-admin is now excluded from the DRV after Doc Glasgow speedied it unless someone restores the history for us.
Which means that the deleting admin acted far too hastily in speedying it for legal reasons. (No, I don't buy it being deleted not for legal reasons. There is such thing as being too much of a coincidence.)
On 3/26/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/03/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
Basically any non-admin is now excluded from the DRV after Doc Glasgow speedied it unless someone restores the history for us.
Which means that the deleting admin acted far too hastily in speedying it for legal reasons. (No, I don't buy it being deleted not for legal reasons. There is such thing as being too much of a coincidence.)
So, in this case, what do we have to do to get the history restored as the very fact it was a legal/BLP issue is debated?
On 3/26/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Which means that the deleting admin acted far too hastily in speedying it for legal reasons. (No, I don't buy it being deleted not for legal reasons. There is such thing as being too much of a coincidence.)
Perhaps a "why should we keep this lawsuit-attracting crap up here" reaction?
-Matt
Denny Colt wrote:
Unfortunately since no one but admins can see the stuff in question
now, any
non-admins have been unfairly (in violation of policy?) removed from any decision making here that is of real value... I "recall" seeing RS on the article before it went away, but if someone challenged me on that--what do I say? "Sorry, can't see it/confirm"?
Basically any non-admin is now excluded from the DRV after Doc Glasgow speedied it unless someone restores the history for us.
I don't see any particular problem with that. The Admins know what they are doing.
On 3/26/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I don't see any particular problem with that. The Admins know what they are doing.
... woah.
That's quite the statement. We've apparently come quite far from the idea that adminship is no big deal. Not that I have a problem with that, per se, but telling non-admins to trust "the Admins" with policy decisions is something that seems a major departure from previous practice here.
-- Jonel
Nick Wilkins wrote:
On 3/26/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I don't see any particular problem with that. The Admins know what they are doing.
... woah.
That's quite the statement. We've apparently come quite far from the idea that adminship is no big deal. Not that I have a problem with that, per se, but telling non-admins to trust "the Admins" with policy decisions is something that seems a major departure from previous practice here.
We are talking about very rare cases. The particular case in question is quite remarkable.
We have a choice: WP:OFFICE where actions are carried out by single staff members or by me personally (which does not scale, and carries with it enormous risks of bias), or relaxing just a little bit and trusting the community of admins to oversee each other.
What is NOT a choice is keeping vicious crap up on the site while people discuss it. There's no point to that.
--Jimbo
I don't see any particular problem with that. The Admins know what they are doing.
... woah.
That's quite the statement. We've apparently come quite far from the idea that adminship is no big deal. Not that I have a problem with that, per se, but telling non-admins to trust "the Admins" with policy decisions is something that seems a major departure from previous practice here.
We are talking about very rare cases. The particular case in question is quite remarkable.
We have a choice: WP:OFFICE where actions are carried out by single staff members or by me personally (which does not scale, and carries with it enormous risks of bias), or relaxing just a little bit and trusting the community of admins to oversee each other.
What is NOT a choice is keeping vicious crap up on the site while people discuss it. There's no point to that.
I completely agree, however you should probably have phrased it better. Only allowing admins to decide on matters like this *is* a problem, however, it is a lesser problem than that of letter everyone see potentially libellous content. Saying it wasn't a problem at all gave people the wrong impression.
On 3/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
We are talking about very rare cases. The particular case in question is quite remarkable.
We have a choice: WP:OFFICE where actions are carried out by single staff members or by me personally (which does not scale, and carries with it enormous risks of bias), or relaxing just a little bit and trusting the community of admins to oversee each other.
What is NOT a choice is keeping vicious crap up on the site while people discuss it. There's no point to that.
--Jimbo
Do you mean that in this particular instance you don't think the material should be undeleted? Because if so, I'd like to point out that you're a wee bit late. The revision history of the article was restored 10 hours ago.
On 3/27/07, Dycedarg darthvader1219@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
We are talking about very rare cases. The particular case in question is quite remarkable.
We have a choice: WP:OFFICE where actions are carried out by single staff members or by me personally (which does not scale, and carries with it enormous risks of bias), or relaxing just a little bit and trusting the community of admins to oversee each other.
What is NOT a choice is keeping vicious crap up on the site while people discuss it. There's no point to that.
--Jimbo
Do you mean that in this particular instance you don't think the material should be undeleted? Because if so, I'd like to point out that you're a wee bit late. The revision history of the article was restored 10 hours ago.
--
Dycedarg
Temp undeletion aids the discussion. It can always be redeleted later.
On 3/27/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Temp undeletion aids the discussion. It can always be redeleted later.
I'm not debating that. Or anything else, for that matter. But Jimbo's comments could be interpreted to mean that he does not feel that the article in question should be undeleted, so I was merely ensuring that he knew that it had been in case he wants to do anything about it.
On 3/27/07, Dycedarg darthvader1219@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Temp undeletion aids the discussion. It can always be redeleted later.
I'm not debating that. Or anything else, for that matter. But Jimbo's comments could be interpreted to mean that he does not feel that the article in question should be undeleted, so I was merely ensuring that he knew that it had been in case he wants to do anything about it.
--
Daniel
I meant article history, by the way. The article is still blanked, just with the history restored.
On 3/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Nick Wilkins wrote:
On 3/26/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I don't see any particular problem with that. The Admins know what
they
are doing.
... woah.
That's quite the statement. We've apparently come quite far from the
idea
that adminship is no big deal. Not that I have a problem with that, per
se,
but telling non-admins to trust "the Admins" with policy decisions is something that seems a major departure from previous practice here.
We are talking about very rare cases. The particular case in question is quite remarkable.
We have a choice: WP:OFFICE where actions are carried out by single staff members or by me personally (which does not scale, and carries with it enormous risks of bias), or relaxing just a little bit and trusting the community of admins to oversee each other.
What is NOT a choice is keeping vicious crap up on the site while people discuss it. There's no point to that.
--Jimbo
In all of this, no one even addressed what was the BLP violation and which sources are lacking. Deleting something without doing the legwork is a case of bias. I'd rather have actions be taken by people who have all the facts than people who claim there is a BLP violation without clarifying the issue.
Keeping "vicious crap" is an option. Only a handful of admins can now see it, of which only a handful have the knowledge to determine the reliability of the sources. If this history remains hidden, I doubt any more than 10 knowledgeable people can see it. I'm all for open discussion, but deletions should depend on people who have done the research, not on personal opinions after a cursory glance.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 3/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Nick Wilkins wrote:
On 3/26/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I don't see any particular problem with that. The Admins know what
they
are doing.
... woah.
That's quite the statement. We've apparently come quite far from the
idea
that adminship is no big deal. Not that I have a problem with that, per
se,
but telling non-admins to trust "the Admins" with policy decisions is something that seems a major departure from previous practice here.
We are talking about very rare cases. The particular case in question is quite remarkable.
We have a choice: WP:OFFICE where actions are carried out by single staff members or by me personally (which does not scale, and carries with it enormous risks of bias), or relaxing just a little bit and trusting the community of admins to oversee each other.
What is NOT a choice is keeping vicious crap up on the site while people discuss it. There's no point to that.
--Jimbo
In all of this, no one even addressed what was the BLP violation and which sources are lacking. Deleting something without doing the legwork is a case of bias. I'd rather have actions be taken by people who have all the facts than people who claim there is a BLP violation without clarifying the issue.
Keeping "vicious crap" is an option. Only a handful of admins can now see it, of which only a handful have the knowledge to determine the reliability of the sources. If this history remains hidden, I doubt any more than 10 knowledgeable people can see it. I'm all for open discussion, but deletions should depend on people who have done the research, not on personal opinions after a cursory glance.
Mgm
Blog entries are bad sources and BLP violations. They should never be used as source material in a biography. They are not news. A great portion of this article was derived and sourced from blog entries. The history was restored and has been available again for some hours.
Cary --- ~bastique
On 27/03/07, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
Blog entries are bad sources and BLP violations.
See, this is the sort of rule that if applied without thought leads to occasional stupid results.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 27/03/07, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
Blog entries are bad sources and BLP violations.
See, this is the sort of rule that if applied without thought leads to occasional stupid results.
I'm sorry, David, you are right. Let me rephrase that. I've never seen a blog entry that was reliable enough to be used as source material. These blog entries do not meat WP:RS, and any material derived from them should be eliminated.
Cary.
On 27/03/07, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 27/03/07, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
Blog entries are bad sources and BLP violations.
See, this is the sort of rule that if applied without thought leads to occasional stupid results.
I'm sorry, David, you are right. Let me rephrase that. I've never seen a blog entry that was reliable enough to be used as source material. These blog entries do not meat WP:RS, and any material derived from them should be eliminated.
[[Groklaw]] for an example famous to geeks.
The Nielsen-Hayden blog way beats mainstream newspapers for reliability regarding science fiction. WP:RS is a good idea but its present state is the product of obsessives unable to tolerate the concept of editorial judgement being required.
- d.
There are reliable blogs just like there are unreliable websites. If the blog is run by a notable indivual in the field of the article, it's notable.
Mgm
On 3/27/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
There are reliable blogs just like there are unreliable websites. If the blog is run by a notable indivual in the field of the article, it's notable.
Mgm
What if the blog author is a biographer by trade? Why are his books ok, but not the blog--no, scratch that--website entries. We trust his published books, but not his words in general?
On 3/27/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
[[Groklaw]] for an example famous to geeks.
The Nielsen-Hayden blog way beats mainstream newspapers for reliability regarding science fiction. WP:RS is a good idea but its present state is the product of obsessives unable to tolerate the concept of editorial judgement being required.
That's why it's hard to propose a rule based simply on the thing being a blog.
I prefer to look at this by questioning what the blog is being used for, and I think it's much the same as the way hearsay evidence is approached in a court: material in blogs is great for showing what the author thinks, but it's no good as a source for the facts that the material asserts.
On 3/27/07, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 27/03/07, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
Blog entries are bad sources and BLP violations.
See, this is the sort of rule that if applied without thought leads to occasional stupid results.
I'm sorry, David, you are right. Let me rephrase that. I've never seen a blog entry that was reliable enough to be used as source material. These blog entries do not meat WP:RS, and any material derived from them should be eliminated.
Cary.
IMO, most blogs are unreliable for the same reason most personally published sources are unreliable - any old crank can get his views published if he has the moolah (or time to set up a blog).
But there are many blogs that can be cited. In Malaysia, for example, many politicians blog. It seems silly to avoid quoting from their blogs in articles where their views are relevant. Their blogs should be avoided as a source for other things such as facts, but for their opinions, I don't see how you can get any more reliable.
Johnleemk
Cary Bass wrote:
I'm sorry, David, you are right. Let me rephrase that. I've never seen a blog entry that was reliable enough to be used as source material. These blog entries do not meat WP:RS, and any material derived from them should be eliminated.
This is the type of backwards, ten-years-ago thinking that I really wish we'd be able to overcome. I can list off a dozen blogs that are perfectly reliable for the subject matter that they offer up in various areas of culture and information. This idea that "self-published" = "bad" is antiquated thinking.
-Jeff
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Cary Bass wrote:
I'm sorry, David, you are right. Let me rephrase that. I've never seen a blog entry that was reliable enough to be used as source material. These blog entries do not meat WP:RS, and any material derived from them should be eliminated.
This is the type of backwards, ten-years-ago thinking that I really wish we'd be able to overcome. I can list off a dozen blogs that are perfectly reliable for the subject matter that they offer up in various areas of culture and information. This idea that "self-published" = "bad" is antiquated thinking.
-Jeff
This sort of insulting commentary is entirely inappropriate.
Cary
Cary Bass wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Cary Bass wrote:
I'm sorry, David, you are right. Let me rephrase that. I've never seen a blog entry that was reliable enough to be used as source material. These blog entries do not meat WP:RS, and any material derived from them should be eliminated.
This is the type of backwards, ten-years-ago thinking that I really wish we'd be able to overcome. I can list off a dozen blogs that are perfectly reliable for the subject matter that they offer up in various areas of culture and information. This idea that "self-published" = "bad" is antiquated thinking.
-Jeff
This sort of insulting commentary is entirely inappropriate.
It's about as inappropriate as a blanket statement that you've never seen a blog entry that was reliable enough to be used as source material. I'm not really seeing the problem here. It *is* backwards, it *is* antiquated. When the mainstream media consistently uses blogs as reliable information for their stories, there's absolutely no reason why we can't do the same thing.
-Jeff
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Cary Bass wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Cary Bass wrote:
I'm sorry, David, you are right. Let me rephrase that. I've never seen a blog entry that was reliable enough to be used as source material. These blog entries do not meat WP:RS, and any material derived from them should be eliminated.
This is the type of backwards, ten-years-ago thinking that I really wish we'd be able to overcome. I can list off a dozen blogs that are perfectly reliable for the subject matter that they offer up in various areas of culture and information. This idea that "self-published" = "bad" is antiquated thinking.
-Jeff
This sort of insulting commentary is entirely inappropriate.
It's about as inappropriate as a blanket statement that you've never seen a blog entry that was reliable enough to be used as source material. I'm not really seeing the problem here. It *is* backwards, it *is* antiquated. When the mainstream media consistently uses blogs as reliable information for their stories, there's absolutely no reason why we can't do the same thing.
-Jeff
I've *never* seen a blog entry that was reliable enough to be used as source material, you *are* insulting me by calling my comment backward, and you *are* entirely way out of line here.
Cary
Cary Bass wrote:
I've *never* seen a blog entry that was reliable enough to be used as source material, you *are* insulting me by calling my comment backward, and you *are* entirely way out of line here.
Very well. You're completely incorrect, however, and your belief does not mesh with general mainstream activity. I assume you're unfamiliar with TMZ.com, an entertainment blog that was the main source for the recent Mel Gibson/Britney Spears/Michael Richards fiascos. I know you're unfamiliar with Optical Atlas, which is the de facto reference source these days for a certain type of independent music. There's a signifiant group of editors who view William C. Connoley's RealClimate blog to be a useful resource. Did we forget that a blog, Little Green Footballs, was the one who broke the [[Rathergate]] document scandal?
Yes, it's backward.
-Jeff
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Cary Bass wrote:
I've *never* seen a blog entry that was reliable enough to be used as source material, you *are* insulting me by calling my comment backward, and you *are* entirely way out of line here.
Very well. You're completely incorrect, however, and your belief does not mesh with general mainstream activity. I assume you're unfamiliar with TMZ.com, an entertainment blog that was the main source for the recent Mel Gibson/Britney Spears/Michael Richards fiascos. I know you're unfamiliar with Optical Atlas, which is the de facto reference source these days for a certain type of independent music. There's a signifiant group of editors who view William C. Connoley's RealClimate blog to be a useful resource. Did we forget that a blog, Little Green Footballs, was the one who broke the [[Rathergate]] document scandal?
Yes, it's backward.
-Jeff
You are completely incorrect, however, in calling me completely incorrect. You are insulting and counter-productive.
Furthermore, you are responding to my initial email which I have already modified by saying that there were exceptiosn.
You are also ignoring the underlying issue in which the blogs being used were not reliable sources, and were merely opinion pieces.
Blogs as sources are the exception and not the rule, and each needs to be considered and weighed before it is used, and not after. Blogs are generally unrelaible and non-notable and should not be used as reliable sources.
Jeff, I respectfully request that you stop responding to my posts with insults such as "You're completely incorrect" and "Your thinking is backward". Please, no more commentary on me.
Thank you. Cary
Cary Bass wrote:
You are completely incorrect, however, in calling me completely incorrect. You are insulting and counter-productive.
If it's insulting to call someone incorrect when they're incorrect, then I'm an insulting asshole. I can accept that.
Is it counter-productive to call someone out when they're wrong? I hope not.
Furthermore, you are responding to my initial email which I have already modified by saying that there were exceptiosn.
Very well. So you understand that blogs can often act as reliable sources?
Blogs as sources are the exception and not the rule, and each needs to be considered and weighed before it is used, and not after. Blogs are generally unrelaible and non-notable and should not be used as reliable sources.
Nope, that's where you head off the wrong trail. In many cases, they *should* be the rule based on the subject and the available resources. EVERY source needs to be considered and weighed, and singling blogs out as something inherently different is, again, backwards thinking. They *should* be used as reliable sources whenever appropriate.
Jeff, I respectfully request that you stop responding to my posts with insults such as "You're completely incorrect" and "Your thinking is backward". Please, no more commentary on me.
If it walks like a duck, I suppose.
-Jeff
On Mar 27, 2007, at 10:15 AM, Cary Bass wrote:
Blogs as sources are the exception and not the rule, and each needs to be considered and weighed before it is used, and not after. Blogs are generally unrelaible and non-notable and should not be used as reliable sources.
There's no particular logic or use to saying "blogs" here. Virtually every source needs to be used with care and thought instead of robotically and reflexively - from peer reviewed journals on down.
-Phil
On 3/27/07, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
Furthermore, you are responding to my initial email which I have already modified by saying that there were exceptiosn.
You are also ignoring the underlying issue in which the blogs being used were not reliable sources, and were merely opinion pieces.
Blogs as sources are the exception and not the rule, and each needs to be considered and weighed before it is used, and not after. Blogs are generally unrelaible and non-notable and should not be used as reliable sources.
So far you've stated that blogs should generally not be used as sources but that there are exceptions. This is basically true, but when we go back to the Barbara Bauer thing, we seem to be devided on the reliability of the Writer Beware blog. Written by people with over 20 years of experience in their line of work, and an extension of the website of a notable organization in its field. That, to me, sounds like one of the exceptions.
Then there is for example, Malaysian politicians. If notable people blog, their blogs are perfect sources to cite their opinions.
And then there's journalists who blog as part of their reporting (for example the reporters of CBBC's Newsround in the UK).
They all seem to have in common that their reliability hinge on who's writing it and if their opinion or report of events is relevant to the article it is used in.
Basically they're no different than a regular website. Perhaps we should set up a page where we help people determine the reliability of a blog. It avoid blanket statements like "they're all non-notable" and they avoid people using them without looking at them closely.
Do you agree with me so far, Cary?
On 27/03/07, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
Jeff, I respectfully request that you stop responding to my posts with insults such as "You're completely incorrect" and "Your thinking is backward". Please, no more commentary on me.
I'm sorry, but the phrase "you're completely incorrect" is not an insult; it's not a comment on *you as a person*, it's a comment on *your opinions*.
So, in fact, is "your thinking is backward"; may I suggest you think about the difference between "your thinking is backward" and "you are backward"?
Frankly, if we can't criticise the opinions of people who happen to be Foundation staff, we might as well give up.
On 3/27/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, if we can't criticise the opinions of people who happen to be Foundation staff, we might as well give up.
Could we please refrain from referring to the fact that Cary / bastique happens to be foundation staff. I think he has made it perfectly clear in one of his last emails that he felt insulted as Wikipedian and not as Wikimedia Foundation staff member.
Feel free to discuss the merits of Jeff's statements and whether they are insulting (although one might argue that this list is not the best place for it...), but please don't build conspiracy theories as "He may not be criticised because he is foundation staff!!!"...
Thank you
Michael
On Mar 27, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Michael Bimmler wrote:
Could we please refrain from referring to the fact that Cary / bastique happens to be foundation staff. I think he has made it perfectly clear in one of his last emails that he felt insulted as Wikipedian and not as Wikimedia Foundation staff member.
In a word... no.
It's incredibly damaging to efforts to create responsible sourcing practices on Wikipedia for someone who, earlier in the thread, spoke as a representative of the Foundation to speak in support of bad policy. I know that Foundation members don't always speak on behalf of the Foundation. Just as Jimbo doesn't always speak ex cathedra.
But we still do take their words seriously, and they need to be more carefully chosen all the time - not just some of it.
-Phil
On 3/27/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Michael Bimmler wrote:
Could we please refrain from referring to the fact that Cary / bastique happens to be foundation staff. I think he has made it perfectly clear in one of his last emails that he felt insulted as Wikipedian and not as Wikimedia Foundation staff member.
In a word... no.
It's incredibly damaging to efforts to create responsible sourcing practices on Wikipedia for someone who, earlier in the thread, spoke as a representative of the Foundation to speak in support of bad policy. I know that Foundation members don't always speak on behalf of the Foundation. Just as Jimbo doesn't always speak ex cathedra.
quoting http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/066725.html which was a reply to my question whether these were statements as foundation staff or as private person:
"These [comments] are made by myself individually. I'm not listed on the WP:OFFICE page and have never been officially recognized as having OFFICE authority.
I am still a volunteer on the Wikimedia project, still work on External Correspondence, and I still have feelings as a human being, and still get insulted just like everyone else."
I agree that people (many people on this list...) need to choose their words more carefully, but please allow Cary to have a voice separate from his foundation activities. Just because he is a foundation staff member, this does not mean that he cannot also speak in his own right. this is not about "is it an official statement or not" but rather "does the fact that he is foundation staff member matter in this respect?". As long as Cary does not "decree" something or officially state something referring to his position als Volunteer Coordinator, his opinion should be taken as the opinion of an interested wikimedian.
Thanks Michael
But we still do take their words seriously, and they need to be more carefully chosen all the time - not just some of it.
-Phil
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 Mar 27, 2007, at 9:56 AM, Cary Bass wrote:
I've *never* seen a blog entry that was reliable enough to be used as source material, you *are* insulting me by calling my comment backward, and you *are* entirely way out of line here.
I'm sorry, but he's really not. Your comment was 100% untrue. It has no value as a guideline on sourcing, and that it came from the Office makes it even more dangerous.
That you're refusing to back down so much as complain that people are being mean makes it even worse.
-Phil
On 3/27/07, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Cary Bass wrote:
I'm sorry, David, you are right. Let me rephrase that. I've never
seen
a blog entry that was reliable enough to be used as source material. These blog entries do not meat WP:RS, and any material derived from
them
should be eliminated.
This is the type of backwards, ten-years-ago thinking that I really wish we'd be able to overcome. I can list off a dozen blogs that are
perfectly
reliable for the subject matter that they offer up in various areas of culture and information. This idea that "self-published" = "bad" is antiquated thinking.
-Jeff
This sort of insulting commentary is entirely inappropriate.
Cary
He could have phrased it more gently, but I agree with the underlying opinion. Blogging is a tool for publication more than it is a form of publication. It's certainly no worse (and often a lot better) than the op-ed pieces you get in newspapers. In addition, it can be a valuable reporting tool - someone pointed out that bloggers covered the Scooter Libby case far better than the mainstream media...but much in the way that reporters did a century ago. If the medium had existed, Mencken would have blogged the Scopes Trial.
Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org writes:
David Gerard wrote:
On 27/03/07, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
Blog entries are bad sources and BLP violations.
See, this is the sort of rule that if applied without thought
leads to
occasional stupid results.
I'm sorry, David, you are right. Let me rephrase that. I've
never seen
a blog entry that was reliable enough to be used as source
material.
These blog entries do not meat WP:RS, and any material derived
from them
should be eliminated.
Cary.
What about blog posts that later get published? IE, Nick Szabo is an academic who often writes "blog posts"http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/ which later get published as papers http://szabo.best.vwh.net/. Previously, I had used some of his financial history essays as sources for starting articles. Should they be deleted now?
On 3/27/07, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 27/03/07, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
Blog entries are bad sources and BLP violations.
See, this is the sort of rule that if applied without thought leads to occasional stupid results.
I'm sorry, David, you are right. Let me rephrase that. I've never seen a blog entry that was reliable enough to be used as source material. These blog entries do not meat WP:RS, and any material derived from them should be eliminated.
I believe you mean "meet".
You might want to take a look at http://www.realclimate.org, http://bonddad.blogspot.com/, http://www.capitalweather.com/, http://www.juancole.com for a random list of reliably authoritative blogs off the top of my head. Their posts are consistently better informed and more accurate than general news reporting.
For example.
On 3/27/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/03/07, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
Blog entries are bad sources and BLP violations.
See, this is the sort of rule that if applied without thought leads to occasional stupid results.
- d.
It's actually, imo, the sort of rule that if thoughtlessly not applied leads to bad results. All the stuff about a published book being posted on a blog is a non-starter, you may link to the blog, but it's the published book that is the source. Blogs are opinion pieces, no matter who is writing the blog, they are under no obligation to support their OPINION in a factual or netural way.
You get around this by quoting the blog if someone else besides its author has decided that what is written in the blog is notable, as I suggested in a prior post. By all means, link to the blog, but don't include the blog at all, unless some other reliable source considers what is said in the blog notable.
KP
And what makes blog entries less reliable than your average website. You're applying too much of a generalization. Newspapers are a good example. Generally reliable, but that doesn't mean they all are.
Mgm
On Mar 27, 2007, at 8:21 AM, Cary Bass wrote:
Blog entries are bad sources and BLP violations. They should never be used as source material in a biography. They are not news. A great portion of this article was derived and sourced from blog entries. The history was restored and has been available again for some hours.
I really wish the Office representatives would stop advocating flagrantly bad sourcing practices.
The blog, in this case, is a blog from one of the most important editors in science fiction and fantasy. Her words do not suddenly become lower quality sources because she typed them through Blogger first.
There are a horde of people who will take this statement and attempt to apply it to the letter, and in the process break a bunch of articles. Really, guys. Choose your words more carefully and think. It's like nobody up there has even read the numerous discussions of the problems with citation/sourcing fever we've had here.
-Phil
On 3/27/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 2007, at 8:21 AM, Cary Bass wrote:
Blog entries are bad sources and BLP violations. They should never be used as source material in a biography. They are not news. A great portion of this article was derived and sourced from blog entries. The history was restored and has been available again for some hours.
I really wish the Office representatives would stop advocating flagrantly bad sourcing practices.
While talking about it: Were the statements made by Cary Bass, WMF Volunteers Coordinator or by bastique, Wikipedian? And: Is every statement made by bastique through the @wikimedia.org-address an official statement by the volunteer coordinator? (I would not use the term "office representative" here, rather "foundation-representative")
Michael
Michael
Michael Bimmler wrote:
On 3/27/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 2007, at 8:21 AM, Cary Bass wrote:
Blog entries are bad sources and BLP violations. They should never be used as source material in a biography. They are not news. A great portion of this article was derived and sourced from blog entries. The history was restored and has been available again for some hours.
I really wish the Office representatives would stop advocating flagrantly bad sourcing practices.
While talking about it: Were the statements made by Cary Bass, WMF Volunteers Coordinator or by bastique, Wikipedian? And: Is every statement made by bastique through the @wikimedia.org-address an official statement by the volunteer coordinator? (I would not use the term "office representative" here, rather "foundation-representative")
Michael
Michael
These are made by myself individually. I'm not listed on the WP:OFFICE page and have never been officially recognized as having OFFICE authority.
I am still a volunteer on the Wikimedia project, still work on External Correspondence, and I still have feelings as a human being, and still get insulted just like everyone else.
Cary Bass as Bastique
On 3/27/07, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
Blog entries are bad sources and BLP violations. They should never be used as source material in a biography. They are not news. A great portion of this article was derived and sourced from blog entries. The history was restored and has been available again for some hours.
Cary
If an author writes a book on Jimmy Wales, and gets it published, and it sells a zillion copies, and it's fair, and balanced, and NPOV, and so on... it's a fine source.
If the book is released by the author as an e-book in PDF form, the PDF is still a fine source.
If the book is made into a basic HTML and posted as a website by the author is still a fine source.
If the book is released chapter by chapter in a newspaper, the individual newspaper articles are fine sources.
But if the author posts each chapter of the book as a "blog" entry on a website, it's a bad source.
Huh?
- Denny
On 3/27/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/07, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
Blog entries are bad sources and BLP violations. They should never be used as source material in a biography. They are not news. A great portion of this article was derived and sourced from blog entries. The history was restored and has been available again for some hours.
Cary
If an author writes a book on Jimmy Wales, and gets it published, and it sells a zillion copies, and it's fair, and balanced, and NPOV, and so on... it's a fine source.
If the book is released by the author as an e-book in PDF form, the PDF is still a fine source.
If the book is made into a basic HTML and posted as a website by the author is still a fine source.
If the book is released chapter by chapter in a newspaper, the individual newspaper articles are fine sources.
But if the author posts each chapter of the book as a "blog" entry on a website, it's a bad source.
Huh?
Actually the three examples preceding the blog example would probably not be considered reliable sources either, as they are self-published. Obviously, however, this is ludicrous for, say, people like Jakob Nielsen. If their books are citable, why shouldn't their self-published works (especially on the same topics) be citable as well?
Johnleemk
On 3/27/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
...
Actually the three examples preceding the blog example would probably not be considered reliable sources either, as they are self-published. Obviously, however, this is ludicrous for, say, people like Jakob Nielsen. If their books are citable, why shouldn't their self-published works (especially on the same topics) be citable as well?
Johnleemk
Huh? If the book is published normally, and as a *book* is a fine source, but then the author turns around and just freely releases the SAME book online or via a newspaper or Readers Digest or whatever, why would the SAME material not be a bad source? It's the same material by the same person.
On 3/27/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
...
Actually the three examples preceding the blog example would probably
not
be considered reliable sources either, as they are self-published.
Obviously,
however, this is ludicrous for, say, people like Jakob Nielsen. If their books are citable, why shouldn't their self-published works (especially
on
the same topics) be citable as well?
Johnleemk
Huh? If the book is published normally, and as a *book* is a fine source, but then the author turns around and just freely releases the SAME book online or via a newspaper or Readers Digest or whatever, why would the SAME material not be a bad source? It's the same material by the same person.
Ah, I was thinking of the typical e-book, i.e. something someone typed up in MS Word, converted into PDF format, and then put up on his site. (I've written an ebook myself, but I wouldn't dream of using it as a source for any article...) If what you had in mind is similar to what Philip Greenspun has done (he republishes his books on his website after they hit the bookstores), then there shouldn't be an issue.
The important question is whether the material is self-published, because if it is not subject to editorial vetting, it's no good as a secondary source - and as a tertiary source, WP is not in the business of publishing material from primary sources, unless these sources have been utilised by secondary sources.
Johnleemk
On Mar 27, 2007, at 5:45 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
We are talking about very rare cases. The particular case in question is quite remarkable.
No it's not.
Nor is it vicious crap.
It's a well-sourced article on someone whose only claim to notability is being a famous scam artist. It's sourced to multiple respectable sources each of which gave a non-trivial mention of it. It passes our most stringent sourcing and notability purposes.
The only thing that makes the case remarkable is that the WMF got sued. But this is not a lawsuit about a false, defamatory, or even sloppily done article. This is a lawsuit targeted at WMF on an article where the process had previously worked and worked pretty well. It's a lawsuit targeting us at, if not our best, at least at our pretty darn good.
This is a very important thing to note here - this is very strongly a case where we don't want to give in.
-Phil
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:03:41 -0400, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
The only thing that makes the case remarkable is that the WMF got sued. But this is not a lawsuit about a false, defamatory, or even sloppily done article. This is a lawsuit targeted at WMF on an article where the process had previously worked and worked pretty well. It's a lawsuit targeting us at, if not our best, at least at our pretty darn good.
Well - good in parts. Not all of it was actually *that* well sourced or neutrally written, I'd say. But I don't disagree on principle - there's another disgruntled subject being discussed at the moment, my comment to him was that we could not guarantee that he would /like/ the result, but we should be able to guarantee that he can at least accept that it is fair.
Of course, as far as this woman is concerned, I suspect her "fair" is our hagiography. Scammers tend to lack self-criticism. I remember how upset Alan Ralsky was when people started subscribing him for all kinds of junk mail...
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
[...] there's another disgruntled subject being discussed at the moment, my comment to him was that we could not guarantee that he would /like/ the result, but we should be able to guarantee that he can at least accept that it is fair.
Of course, as far as this woman is concerned, I suspect her "fair" is our hagiography. Scammers tend to lack self-criticism. I remember how upset Alan Ralsky was when people started subscribing him for all kinds of junk mail...
I think that's a great way of stating our real goal. It's not about what's legal; we want subjects of articles to come away feeling that the article is fair, both because it is and because they see us trying to work with them.
But some people indeed aren't reasonable. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try hard to be reasonable with them, just that we can live with them never being satisfied as long as a neutral observer can see both the fairness of our article and our desire to treat even difficult people fairly.
William
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:30:14 -0700, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
But some people indeed aren't reasonable. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try hard to be reasonable with them, just that we can live with them never being satisfied as long as a neutral observer can see both the fairness of our article and our desire to treat even difficult people fairly.
Yes, exactly that. That is good in two ways: first, because it makes a better encyclopaedia, and second, because if it ever *did* get to court the fact that we had done everything in our power to ensure that the article is completely fair would almost certainly result in us winning. Thus far, I don't think any such cases have gone to court, and I suspect that the reason may be tied to Jimbo's tendency to wade in and cut the crap when things get out of hand.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I don't see any particular problem with that. The Admins know what they are doing.
I don't distrust the admins either, but that's not the point. When it comes to influences in discussions, admins have no special position. Their opinions doesn't count extra in an AfD or RfA for instance. They get to judge consensus in a way that normal people can't (i.e. closing AfDs) and they get to manage the community and the encyclopedia (blocking/protecting) but they don't get any extra authority to make editorial decisions of any kind.
I've been a user for almost three years but not an admin, should my opinion not count for anything in this particular discussion?
--Oskar
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
I've been a user for almost three years but not an admin, should my opinion not count for anything in this particular discussion?
The alternative is that we oversight the whole thing and let me decide personally. What I want us to try to do is open up the process of dealing with serious WP:BLP issues in a more open manner, and that means trusting our admins.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Denny Colt wrote:
Unfortunately since no one but admins can see the stuff in question
now, any
non-admins have been unfairly (in violation of policy?) removed from any decision making here that is of real value... I "recall" seeing RS on the article before it went away, but if someone challenged me on that--what do I say? "Sorry, can't see it/confirm"?
Basically any non-admin is now excluded from the DRV after Doc Glasgow speedied it unless someone restores the history for us.
I don't see any particular problem with that. The Admins know what they are doing.
Jimmy,
I am an admin, and I am truly sorry that you feel this way. And even sorrier that you stated that you feel this way.
As a project that was founded on and thrives on cooperation, the last thing we need is an increase in the perceived elitism of admins.
If there are potential legal reasons to keep "hidden" the revision history of certain deleted articles while the deletion is under review, revealed only to a small group, then let's make it clear that it is for legal reasons.
If this is not the case, then let's reveal the revision history.
-Rich Holton user:Rholton
Rich Holton wrote:
I am an admin, and I am truly sorry that you feel this way. And even sorrier that you stated that you feel this way.
As a project that was founded on and thrives on cooperation, the last thing we need is an increase in the perceived elitism of admins.
If there are potential legal reasons to keep "hidden" the revision history of certain deleted articles while the deletion is under review, revealed only to a small group, then let's make it clear that it is for legal reasons.
If this is not the case, then let's reveal the revision history.
Legal reasons are not the whole of our ethical obligations to the world.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Denny Colt wrote:
Unfortunately since no one but admins can see the stuff in question
now, any
non-admins have been unfairly (in violation of policy?) removed from any decision making here that is of real value... I "recall" seeing RS on the article before it went away, but if someone challenged me on that--what do I say? "Sorry, can't see it/confirm"?
Basically any non-admin is now excluded from the DRV after Doc Glasgow speedied it unless someone restores the history for us.
I don't see any particular problem with that. The Admins know what they are doing.
So do a lot of others who have put in a lot of time without ever having bothered to become an admin.
Ec
On 27/03/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I don't see any particular problem with that. The Admins know what they are doing.
So do a lot of others who have put in a lot of time without ever having bothered to become an admin.
Becoming an admin these days is a stupidly big deal. RFA needs an enema in so many ways. Lots of good people don't bother any more - so the process filters for a cross between politicians and semi-humanoid killbots.
Jimbo, this isn't the RFA you remember.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 27/03/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I don't see any particular problem with that. The Admins know what they are doing.
So do a lot of others who have put in a lot of time without ever having bothered to become an admin.
Becoming an admin these days is a stupidly big deal. RFA needs an enema in so many ways. Lots of good people don't bother any more - so the process filters for a cross between politicians and semi-humanoid killbots.
Jimbo, this isn't the RFA you remember.
I know that, and agree about the need for change to RFA, but the point remains: our admins are a good bunch, and in some cases (WP:BLP cases in particular), restricting things to admins to make a decision is a good thing. Sure, other people can help, and not all good people become admins, but the admins do a good job.
--Jimbo
On 27/03/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I know that, and agree about the need for change to RFA, but the point remains: our admins are a good bunch, and in some cases (WP:BLP cases in particular), restricting things to admins to make a decision is a good thing. Sure, other people can help, and not all good people become admins, but the admins do a good job.
This is basically true, yes. And in the present case, Doc glasgow is a very clueful but uncompromising BLP watcher. I disagree with him in the present case - for the subject area, the sources are good IMO - but I wouldn't call his actions *wrong*, which would be quite a different thing.
- d.
On 3/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Denny Colt wrote:
Unfortunately since no one but admins can see the stuff in question
now, any
non-admins have been unfairly (in violation of policy?) removed from any decision making here that is of real value... I "recall" seeing RS on
the
article before it went away, but if someone challenged me on that--what
do I
say? "Sorry, can't see it/confirm"?
Basically any non-admin is now excluded from the DRV after Doc Glasgow speedied it unless someone restores the history for us.
I don't see any particular problem with that. The Admins know what they are doing.
Obviously not. I would've understood and perhaps supported a deletion based on notability concerns, but a BLP violation means facts aren't sourced or sourced badly. The fact that reliable sources are being ignored here is what I have a beef with.
Mgm
On 3/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I don't see any particular problem with that. The Admins know what they are doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brand...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:03:39 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I don't see any particular problem with that. The Admins know what they are doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brand...
... "As a mitigating factor, Doc was participating fully in discussion at WP:DRV and discussion there supported deletion."
Your point was?...
Guy (JzG)
On 3/27/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:03:39 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I don't see any particular problem with that. The Admins know what they are doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brand...
... "As a mitigating factor, Doc was participating fully in discussion at WP:DRV and discussion there supported deletion."
Your point was?...
Guy (JzG)
arbcom thinks this admin makes mistakes with regards to deletion.
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:35:42 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
arbcom thinks this admin makes mistakes with regards to deletion.
No, ArbCom thinks this admin made one defensible bad call in respect of one unusually high profile deletion, of an article which has a particularly sordid and inflamed history.
Guy (JzG)
On 26/03/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
Basically any non-admin is now excluded from the DRV after Doc Glasgow speedied it unless someone restores the history for us.
...which is the way it always has been in such cases. I'm not sure why this is seeming to be a new! remarkable! issue!
On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Well, the point of a deletion review is to decide whether or not the article should be undeleted. Surely undeleting it in order to decide to undelete it seems a bit odd...
It depends. If the decision is pure process based then undeletion would be unusual. If it is content of the article based the undeletion is used from time to time.