Posted on behalf of Daniel Brandt, at his request:
I feel that Jimmy Wales made the wrong decision when he unbanned me a couple of days ago. I had asked that my article be deleted, along with the Talk pages, and my User and User_talk pages too. I am not interested in editing Wikipedia, and never have been, apart from my desire and need to comment on why I objected to that article on me, in whole and in part.
I ask that Mr. Wales reconsider. If the article still exists several weeks from now, I will formally appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Since Erik is a trustee (at least until June), he may have a chance to cast his vote on this issue at that time. If the Board declines to get involved, then this will introduce an additional level of confusion over the distribution of power and responsibility within Wikipedia.
Since the structure of Wikipedia has a direct bearing on the content offered by Wikipedia, this distribution of power has legal implications. Let me put it bluntly: While it may be true that the Foundation Board of Trustees does not seek to shape content apart from its control over moderation privileges through the software it develops and the servers it owns, it is still true that the Board has the power to summarily delete content. Failure to do so is actionable if the content is illegal, assuming that the Board is made aware of the situation. I don't think anyone seriously disputes this. If it is a matter of dispute, then this is what I hope to clarify someday in a court of law.
Erik thinks very highly of Wikipedia's mission, and feels that the topics it chooses to cover should enjoy sanctuary from outside interference -- Wikipedia exists in the wonderful world of cyberspace, where real-world laws don't apply. The only concession he makes is that the subject's wishes are "one factor": the victim gets to say some final words before execution.
That is not a realistic point of view. It is especially unrealistic given the fact that hordes of anonymous editors, many of them underage, are creating Wikipedia's content, and can change it at any time.
It was pointed out by another that I'm neither powerful enough nor rich enough to give Wikipedia any trouble, and therefore it follows that Wikipedia should ignore me. As pathetic and immoral as this viewpoint may be, it is the logical extension of Erik's position. If Erik is wrong, it's the death of Wikipedia in the short-term. And if Erik is right, it's still the death of Wikipedia, but now perhaps in the longer-term.
I think Mr. Wales should delete my article, with the understanding that in this case he is acting for the Board. It would save everyone a lot of trouble.
-- Daniel Brandt
Fred Bauder wrote:
Posted on behalf of Daniel Brandt, at his request:
I feel that Jimmy Wales made the wrong decision when he unbanned me a couple of days ago. I had asked that my article be deleted, along with the Talk pages, and my User and User_talk pages too. I am not interested in editing Wikipedia, and never have been, apart from my desire and need to comment on why I objected to that article on me, in whole and in part.
Appeasement it was, then.
Stan
On 20/04/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I think Mr. Wales should delete my article, with the understanding that in this case he is acting for the Board. It would save everyone a lot of trouble.
-- Daniel Brandt
Actually, it wouldn't. It would set a very dangerous precedent.
So you run a site that publishes criticism of Wikipedia and such a high profile company as Google and you expect not to be written about yourself. Looks like a double standard to me.
Mgm
On 4/20/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/04/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I think Mr. Wales should delete my article, with the understanding that in this case he is acting for the Board. It would save everyone a lot of trouble.
-- Daniel Brandt
Actually, it wouldn't. It would set a very dangerous precedent.
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 4/20/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Failure to do so is actionable if the content is illegal, assuming that the Board is made aware of the situation.
It would not be wise to discuss legal strategy in public. That said, I think the idea that Brandt's article is "illegal" is preposterous. Brandt does not dispute the accuracy of the information in it; his core argument is that it presents him in a "false light". At the same time, he acknowledges that the distribution of publications about his activities results in a natural bias on the kinds of activities which he was involved in. This makes the entire argument meaningless; there is no evidence whatsoever of an attempt to deliberately give a false impression of who Brandt is and what he is doing. If such claims held any water, virtually any publication about Brandt's work would be similarly defamatory.
Erik thinks very highly of Wikipedia's mission, and feels that the topics it chooses to cover should enjoy sanctuary from outside interference
Not at all. If I actually saw any evidence that Brandt was being deliberately harmed through his article, I would be much more concerned about the legal implications. However, as far as I can tell, all that people have tried to do is write a neutral, well-sourced biography. That is what Wikipedia is for.
Brandt has to figure out what he wants. If he believes he has a moral or legal case because of the text of his biography, he has completely lost touch with reality; this text has been more diligently researched than probably anything that has ever been written about him in his life. If he, on the other hand, argues that _any_ Wikipedia article could _potentially_ contain something negative, he has similarly no legal case (so could any discussion forum, including the ones he posts to); however, I would agree that he has a limited _moral_ case. Wikipedia should do its best to protect the integrity of articles about living persons. We are not a random web forum and should hold our articles to a higher standard.
If Brandt wants to sincerely work with us to achieve that -- fixing any remaining flaws in his biography, and working with us to identify strategies to keep it, and other similar articles, sane -- then he should say so. He should stop his obsessive-compulsive crusade against Wikipedia, including his ridiculous attempts to unmask individual users, and recognize that he is dealing with a group of people who mean him no harm. He could have worked with this group of people a long time ago. But apparently having some enemy to rail against is more satisfying.
On 4/20/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
If Brandt wants to sincerely work with us to achieve that -- fixing any remaining flaws in his biography, and working with us to identify strategies to keep it, and other similar articles, sane -- then he should say so. He should stop his obsessive-compulsive crusade against Wikipedia, including his ridiculous attempts to unmask individual users, and recognize that he is dealing with a group of people who mean him no harm. He could have worked with this group of people a long time ago. But apparently having some enemy to rail against is more satisfying.
Would it be an accceptable compromise to revert the article to the version Brandt declared himself happy with in October 2005, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&oldid=25614242 update it a little, add some citations, then protect it for a longish period until feelings have died down? If Brandt reciprocates by refraining from commenting elsewhere on Wikpedia issues, the excitement over his bio will diminish and most reasonable people will be too bored to start the issue up again when it's unprotected.
Part of the problem with the bio is that it has been unstable -- 2446 edits by 718 unique editors, including 271 IP addresses, which is a lot for a borderline notable page. That is the core of Brandt's objection, namely that there are too many anonymous editors involved in writing it, so that he has to keep on checking it, and he feels this is a burden. The flaw in his position is that Brandt himself caused this situation by stirring up people's interest. If he would stop doing that once the page was protected, the issue would die down, and he'd be left with a brief, factual entry that would do him no harm at all.
Sarah
On 4/20/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Would it be an accceptable compromise to revert the article to the version Brandt declared himself happy with in October 2005, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&oldid=25614242 update it a little, add some citations, then protect it for a longish period until feelings have died down?
Evidently a lot of editors have invested a lot of time since then. Brandt should make a list of complaints he has about the current version. And again, I think he should be permitted to post these complaints to the talk page of the article (not necessarily to edit anything else). OTRS is an easy way to contact us, but it doesn't become part of the public record in the same way talk pages do.
Part of the problem with the bio is that it has been unstable -- 2446 edits by 718 unique editors, including 271 IP addresses,
It's been semi-protected for a while, no? IMHO it can stay that way until we can set it to "show last reviewed version".
On 4/20/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Would it be an accceptable compromise to revert the article to the version Brandt declared himself happy with in October 2005, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&oldid=25614242 update it a little, add some citations, then protect it for a longish period until feelings have died down?
Evidently a lot of editors have invested a lot of time since then. Brandt should make a list of complaints he has about the current version. And again, I think he should be permitted to post these complaints to the talk page of the article (not necessarily to edit anything else). OTRS is an easy way to contact us, but it doesn't become part of the public record in the same way talk pages do.
Part of the problem with the bio is that it has been unstable -- 2446 edits by 718 unique editors, including 271 IP addresses,
It's been semi-protected for a while, no? IMHO it can stay that way until we can set it to "show last reviewed version".
Semi-protection only means people must have had an account for four days before they can edit it. Brandt's issue (he says) is that he doesn't want to have to keep checking his Wikpedia entry to see whether anything's been added that he needs to deal with. Asking him to draw up a list of complaints misses the point that he doesn't want to have to do this every day, every week, every month, every year. If we could agree on a stable version, then protect it until the heat has gone out of the situation, we'd be meeting him halfway between deletion and the current situation. Being reasonable has to involve compromises on both sides.
Sarah
Semi-protection only means people must have had an account for four days before they can edit it. Brandt's issue (he says) is that he doesn't want to have to keep checking his Wikpedia entry to see whether anything's been added that he needs to deal with. Asking him to draw up a list of complaints misses the point that he doesn't want to have to do this every day, every week, every month, every year. If we could agree on a stable version, then protect it until the heat has gone out of the situation, we'd be meeting him halfway between deletion and the current situation. Being reasonable has to involve compromises on both sides.
One of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is its timeliness. Protecting articles just so the subject doesn't feel the need to constantly monitor them is a bad precedent to set.
Frankly, it would probably be best if he just stopped posturing and sued the foundation. Then we could get a court to say once and for all that the article is legal, and that would (I hope) be the end of it.
On 4/20/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
One of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is its timeliness. Protecting articles just so the subject doesn't feel the need to constantly monitor them is a bad precedent to set.
I've always felt this was Brandt's strongest argument. Let's face it, it's kind of odd that we assume the right to expose a living person to the whims of anyone of any age anywhere in the world, people who don't have to use their real names, don't have to understand the policies, don't even have to be able to spell. It's a lot to ask of that person that they should simply acquiesce and dutifully check their bios every day for the rest of their lives, in case some 10-year-old, or a malicious enemy, has added insults or libel that thousands of people might read before it's fixed, and which Google may continue to distribute anyway.
If that person doesn't get invited for a job interview because the human resources officer didn't like the sound of "John Doe became known locally in 1987 for having slept with three of his neighbors' wives on the same day," when she checked him out on Wikipedia minutes before the vandalism was reverted, well, he'll have to establish that was the reason he didn't get an interview; then he'll have to find the money to sue the Foundation; then he'll have to convince a court that the Foundation is a publisher; and, perhaps most awkwardly, he'll have to hope no evidence emerges that he really did sleep with three neighbors' wives on the same day, even though it had no bearing whatsoever on the job he ended up not getting because someone added it to Wikipedia.
All in all, we ask a lot.
Sarah
On 4/20/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I've always felt this was Brandt's strongest argument. Let's face it, it's kind of odd that we assume the right to expose a living person to the whims of anyone of any age anywhere in the world, people who don't have to use their real names, don't have to understand the policies, don't even have to be able to spell.
We don't, Sarah. In fact, we do our best to protect people from malicious additions -- more so than any user-generated content website I know. Could we do more? Yes, certainly. But not by locking down things. I do not agree with a full-prot. of Brandt's or any other article. But a permanent semi-protection in this case is certainly appropriate, and we should take it from there.
This is somewhat of a contradictory statement. If you are truly doing your "best" to protect people from malicious statements, how can one possibly do "more"?
Now, I do agree that Wikipedia's policies have improved in regards to living persons, but that is insufficient to protect people from malicious additions. Any Joe Shmoe can add anything, and although anyone can undo it as well, it still leaves the risk that someone would fail to undo it. And this has happened in the past on several occasions that were quite embarrassing to Wikipedia and the Foundation.
A permanent semi-protection might keep much of the anon vandalism away, but all one has to do is create a sockpuppet account or six and vandalize it after 4 days have passed. And this offers even greater anonymity (and consequently, less accountability) than being an "anonymous" user, or IP. True, run-of-the-mill vandals don't plan ahead like this, but it's those that *do* that Wikipedia needs to be worried about. Your anonymous school user who replaces a page with "PENIS" isn't a threat to the project, by and large. Your truly anonymous semi-established user who sneaks in defamatory statements and false citations, however...
Erik Moeller wrote:
In fact, we do our best to protect people from malicious additions -- more so than any user-generated content website I know. Could we do more? Yes, certainly. But not by locking down things. I do not agree with a full-prot. of Brandt's or any other article. But a permanent semi-protection in this case is certainly appropriate, and we should take it from there.
On 4/20/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I've always felt this was Brandt's strongest argument. Let's face it, it's kind of odd that we assume the right to expose a living person to the whims of anyone of any age anywhere in the world, people who don't have to use their real names, don't have to understand the policies, don't even have to be able to spell.
This is [[Seth Finkelstein]]'s argument too. And he isn't an abuser, so it's harder to ignore in his case.
On 4/20/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
One of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is its timeliness. Protecting articles just so the subject doesn't feel the need to constantly monitor them is a bad precedent to set.
I've always felt this was Brandt's strongest argument. Let's face it, it's kind of odd that we assume the right to expose a living person to the whims of anyone of any age anywhere in the world, people who don't have to use their real names, don't have to understand the policies, don't even have to be able to spell. It's a lot to ask of that person that they should simply acquiesce and dutifully check their bios every day for the rest of their lives, in case some 10-year-old, or a malicious enemy, has added insults or libel that thousands of people might read before it's fixed, and which Google may continue to distribute anyway.
If that person doesn't get invited for a job interview because the human resources officer didn't like the sound of "John Doe became known locally in 1987 for having slept with three of his neighbors' wives on the same day," when she checked him out on Wikipedia minutes before the vandalism was reverted, well, he'll have to establish that was the reason he didn't get an interview; then he'll have to find the money to sue the Foundation; then he'll have to convince a court that the Foundation is a publisher; and, perhaps most awkwardly, he'll have to hope no evidence emerges that he really did sleep with three neighbors' wives on the same day, even though it had no bearing whatsoever on the job he ended up not getting because someone added it to Wikipedia.
All in all, we ask a lot.
Sarah
All we ask for is for people to be critical of what they read and don't just take it for granted.
On 22/04/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
All we ask for is for people to be critical of what they read and don't just take it for granted.
Then perhaps we should drop the word 'encyclopedia'
[[WP:WIP]]
It's much more like a working draft for an encyclopedia.
In any case, the same proviso applies to Britannica. If you want people to listen to your quite substantive points, snapping at them is unlikely to go far.
- d.
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
All we ask for is for people to be critical of what they read and don't just take it for granted.
The person who gets hurt is not the same person who refuses to be critical enough. It's not right for us to make it easy for person A to hurt person B by refusing to be critical, then say "it's not our fault, it's just A's fault".
Slim Virgin Let's face it, it's kind of odd that we assume the right to expose a living person to the whims of anyone of any age anywhere in the world, people who don't have to use their real names, don't have to understand the policies, don't even have to be able to spell. It's a lot to ask of that person that they should simply acquiesce and dutifully check their bios every day for the rest of their lives, in case some 10-year-old, or a malicious enemy, has added insults or libel that thousands of people might read before it's fixed, and which Google may continue to distribute anyway.
At the risk of being tedious and repetitive, I strongly endorse the above view:
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1882027,00.html
A Wikipedia biography page is an attractive nuisance and a weapon of asymmetric warfare.
I wish it weren't so, but that's how it works.
On 4/21/07, Seth Finkelstein sethf@sethf.com wrote:
Slim Virgin Let's face it, it's kind of odd that we assume the right to expose a living person to the whims of anyone of any age anywhere in the world, people who don't have to use their real names, don't have to understand the policies, don't even have to be able to spell. It's a lot to ask of that person that they should simply acquiesce and dutifully check their bios every day for the rest of their lives, in case some 10-year-old, or a malicious enemy, has added insults or libel that thousands of people might read before it's fixed, and which Google may continue to distribute anyway.
At the risk of being tedious and repetitive, I stronglyendorse the above view:
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1882027,00.html
A Wikipedia biography page is an attractive nuisance and aweapon of asymmetric warfare.
I wish it weren't so, but that's how it works.
It doesn't have to. One of my first acts on Wikipedia, before I was an administrator and long before I knew much about policy, was to improve and eventually help to get rid of the biography article of a minor Usenet personage placed here by revenge trolls.
In those pre-Seigenthaler days there was no "Biography of living persons" policy and we hadn't really got to grips as a community with the damage we could cause to reputations. Now we're much better organized and more aware. There is more work to do, but attitudes have changed radically over the past couple of years, and I've no doubt that this trend will continue.
Seth Finkelstein wrote:
Slim Virgin Let's face it, it's kind of odd that we assume the right to expose a living person to the whims of anyone of any age anywhere in the world, people who don't have to use their real names, don't have to understand the policies, don't even have to be able to spell. It's a lot to ask of that person that they should simply acquiesce and dutifully check their bios every day for the rest of their lives, in case some 10-year-old, or a malicious enemy, has added insults or libel that thousands of people might read before it's fixed, and which Google may continue to distribute anyway.
At the risk of being tedious and repetitive, I strongly endorse the above view:
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1882027,00.html
A Wikipedia biography page is an attractive nuisance and a weapon of asymmetric warfare.
I wish it weren't so, but that's how it works.
I consider our current attitude to the biographies of living persons to be positively immoral. We know people are being adversely affected, libeled and harassed. We know people are having to check their articles daily because of the danger of malicious attacks. And yet we hide behind the belief that we are legally untouchable and we refuse to take any real steps to reduce the harm, on the basis that 'it isn't how we do things', it might upset our users, or it might inadvertently take out a precious article on a webcomic as collateral. Well, the collateral to real people, in the real world, is now unacceptable.
We greedily insist on retaining as many articles as we can when we evidently cannot properly monitor them. That is immoral. We should not be hosting articles on people that we cannot reasonably service.
When a dreadful article is pointed out - it is kept on the basis that it can be fixed - even if it isn't actually fixed. And even if we fix it, we know we cannot sort all of them. Yet we allow the bios to keep being created. Even when people are hurt, we have no means to say it will not happen again next month.
Daniel Brandt is a bad case study, because he merits no sympathy, and his wiki-notoriety means that his article is well maintained. But, beyond that, he's profoundly correct.
I'm now frankly disgusted. Quantity has triumphed quality at every juncture and this callous community is more bothered with its in-house rules, and myopic power games. We demand our rights, we patriotically denounce 'appeasement' as if we were some little state within a state. Well actually there's a real world out there - and people like Brandt (only nicer) don't want editing rights in our little happy utopia - they want our face out of their lives.
Wikipedia has a tremendous power for good - but I'm fast reaching the point where I think the human costs are just too high.
No, I don't have the panacea, but we need to start by saying 1) the status quo is NOT an option 2) radical solutions must be contemplated - up to and including deleting all biographies of living people who are not in Britannica. No, I don't think that's necessary, but only if we start there and work down to see if anything less drastic will make a significant difference, might we have a hope of getting there.
Yes, I know ethics are POV. But amorality isn't attractive either.
"Attractive nuisance" - not so attractive I fear.
On 4/20/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
I consider our current attitude to the biographies of living persons to be positively immoral. We know people are being adversely affected, libeled and harassed. We know people are having to check their articles daily because of the danger of malicious attacks. And yet we hide behind the belief that we are legally untouchable and we refuse to take any real steps to reduce the harm, on the basis that 'it isn't how we do things', it might upset our users, or it might inadvertently take out a precious article on a webcomic as collateral. Well, the collateral to real people, in the real world, is now unacceptable.
I strongly disagree that we refuse to take any real steps to reduce the harm. There are a lot of good people who watch for bio article changes. We have additional steps and procedure and policy clearly defined for detection and handling of bio article problems.
We are an encyclopedia, and an open source content project. Our objective, as a project, is to create and host content. That includes biographies of people who are alive.
Any open source project, content or code or whatever, is subject to or at risk of attacks. This is a fact of life.
After all the intensive efforts to set and maintain and enforce BLP policies, no outsider can reasonably claim we aren't trying.
No insider is going to claim we're succeeding perfectly, either.
We can't be perfect. To attain our project's goals, we have to balance technology, people's time, and policies. Lacking "approved version" code, we're doing a pretty good approximation of optimally given what our project stands for and the resource constraints.
George Herbert wrote:>
Any open source project, content or code or whatever, is subject to or at risk of attacks. This is a fact of life.
Ah, so tough on the people who are being adversely affected, libeled and attacked? We tell them that it is a risk we (sorry, they?) have to run. A fact of life 9for them)?
After all the intensive efforts to set and maintain and enforce BLP policies, no outsider can reasonably claim we aren't trying.
Sorry, but that's crap. Our 'solutions' are utterly unrealistic.
No insider is going to claim we're succeeding perfectly, either.
We can't be perfect. To attain our project's goals, we have to balance technology, people's time, and policies. Lacking "approved version" code, we're doing a pretty good approximation of optimally given what our project stands for and the resource constraints.
Do we also have to balance the harm done to bystanders? Or does collateral damage not feature in the accounting analysis?
Doc
On 21/04/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:>
Any open source project, content or code or whatever, is subject to or at risk of attacks. This is a fact of life.
Ah, so tough on the people who are being adversely affected, libeled and attacked? We tell them that it is a risk we (sorry, they?) have to run. A fact of life 9for them)?
Well, we could give up, shut down the project, and all go and do something else.
James Farrar wrote:
On 21/04/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:>
Any open source project, content or code or whatever, is subject to or at risk of attacks. This is a fact of life.
Ah, so tough on the people who are being adversely affected, libeled and attacked? We tell them that it is a risk we (sorry, they?) have to run. A fact of life 9for them)?
Well, we could give up, shut down the project, and all go and do something else.
And how does that argument help? We need to admit the real problem and then try to find some real solutions - but unfortunately some people would rather shoot the messenger or assume that any major change would mean the death of wikipedia.
On 21/04/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
On 21/04/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:>
Any open source project, content or code or whatever, is subject to or at risk of attacks. This is a fact of life.
Ah, so tough on the people who are being adversely affected, libeled and attacked? We tell them that it is a risk we (sorry, they?) have to run. A fact of life 9for them)?
Well, we could give up, shut down the project, and all go and do something else.
And how does that argument help?
It would solve libel issues.
James Farrar wrote:
On 21/04/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
On 21/04/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:>
Any open source project, content or code or whatever, is subject to or at risk of attacks. This is a fact of life.
Ah, so tough on the people who are being adversely affected, libeled and attacked? We tell them that it is a risk we (sorry, they?) have to run. A fact of life 9for them)?
Well, we could give up, shut down the project, and all go and do something else.
And how does that argument help?
It would solve libel issues.
Well, if that's the best colution you can come up with, fine. Me, I'm hoping some blue-sky thinking, flexibility and willingness to change and we can be more imaginative. But if we are not up for that, then perhaps I'll take your option.
Anyway, my concern was ethical not legal. The foundation being successfully sued is not the worst case scenario.
doc wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Well, we could give up, shut down the project, and all go and do something else.
And how does that argument help? We need to admit the real problem and then try to find some real solutions - but unfortunately some people would rather shoot the messenger or assume that any major change would mean the death of wikipedia.
But IMO it's not a "real solution" to delete an article that we would otherwise have if only the subject of the article hadn't asked us to delete it. Adding the exemption for biographies already in Britannica would just make Wikipedia's coverage even more nonsensical and arbitrary. There's nothing magical about Britannica's standards that makes biographies problem-free and it would introduce a whopping great systemic bias.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
doc wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Well, we could give up, shut down the project, and all go and do something else.
And how does that argument help? We need to admit the real problem and then try to find some real solutions - but unfortunately some people would rather shoot the messenger or assume that any major change would mean the death of wikipedia.
But IMO it's not a "real solution" to delete an article that we would otherwise have if only the subject of the article hadn't asked us to delete it. Adding the exemption for biographies already in Britannica would just make Wikipedia's coverage even more nonsensical and arbitrary. There's nothing magical about Britannica's standards that makes biographies problem-free and it would introduce a whopping great systemic bias.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Why is it that folk on this list always simply point out the problems with any change rather then engage constructively in finding working solutions?
There are other criteria we might use, such as we keep all bios on subjects who have had an actual biography published in any mainstream media or encyclopedia, or who are listed in 'Who's who' or equivalent. Yes, this would need a lot more tweeking.
The basic problem is that many people are resisting all change and simply denying that there is a real issue. Find me one OTRS regular who doesn't believe a radical change is both necessary and eventually inevitable.
On 21/04/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Why is it that folk on this list always simply point out the problems with any change rather then engage constructively in finding working solutions?
Trying to make a change without analysing its problems is not the best idea in the world.
On 4/20/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
doc wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Well, we could give up, shut down the project, and all go and do something else.
And how does that argument help? We need to admit the real problem and then try to find some real solutions - but unfortunately some people would rather shoot the messenger or assume that any major change would mean the death of wikipedia.
But IMO it's not a "real solution" to delete an article that we would otherwise have if only the subject of the article hadn't asked us to delete it. Adding the exemption for biographies already in Britannica would just make Wikipedia's coverage even more nonsensical and arbitrary. There's nothing magical about Britannica's standards that makes biographies problem-free and it would introduce a whopping great systemic bias.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Why is it that folk on this list always simply point out the problems with any change rather then engage constructively in finding working solutions?
There are other criteria we might use, such as we keep all bios on subjects who have had an actual biography published in any mainstream media or encyclopedia, or who are listed in 'Who's who' or equivalent. Yes, this would need a lot more tweeking.
The basic problem is that many people are resisting all change and simply denying that there is a real issue. Find me one OTRS regular who doesn't believe a radical change is both necessary and eventually inevitable.
Stable versions is certainly a change which is technical based, has major effects, and could help significantly on a bunch of different fronts. Nobody has had much of anything negative to say about that (a few gripes, but it's very very popular). It's just not live yet.
Structural changes of the "just remove all bios" or "remove any biography that the subject objects to" are counter to the project's core goal of making an encyclopedia.
Someone who has a WP article about them that they percieve negatively may be upset, but it's one thing to say that we sympathize with them being upset, and quite another to suggest that we shouldn't have an article about them, or about large classes of people including them.
The idea that people have a right to not be covered in media reports, encyclopedias, websites, blogs, etc. are not unique to criticisms of Wikipedia's operations, but are rather odd overall. There is generally little to no legal basis for these ideas, and little social basis for these ideas.
Individuals are upset for one or more of three reasons: 1) They think they aren't notable, and don't want to be. 2) They think they're covered inaccurately. 3) They think the coverage presents them negatively.
We have normal processes to deal with truly non-notable subject articles. They go away, relatively reliably. A lot of people who don't want to be notable are by other reasonable standards. People may not like that, but they may not like being covered in a local newspaper or someone's blog or website, etc. The problem is not unique to Wikipedia, and we aren't breaking social or legal norms to cover people who meet some minimum standards of notability. Notability is something they can challenge, but not something they can arbitrarily reset standards on.
If they're covered inaccurately then that's a problem, and we can and should do something about that. BLP says we need to, everyone agrees with BLP, and people are if anything overly vigorous about enforcing it.
If coverage is seen as negative, it's for one or both of the following reasons: The coverage is slanted, or the sourced and accurate facts behind the article are, or tend to be, interpreted in a negative manner. If the article is biased, not-neutral, then BLP applies and other policies apply and we fix it. If the facts don't show a positive light on someone's life or activities, then that's their problem, not ours.
People have a right to be upset about a lot of what gets put up about them in Wikipedia. But the same applies to MySpace, Usenet, IRC, and a zillion Blogs and homepages. Those don't have any sort of editorial policy, charter to be accurate and neutral and have sources, and people who have the power and responsibility to fix things going around dealing with the things that are done wrong here. Wikipedia does not offer a unique technical or social opportunity for internet damage to people's reputations or lives. We are, all things considered, probably uniquely the most reliable non-commercial source on the Internet. We are clearly and unequivocally imperfect, but that's a fact of life to some degree.
We could make a WarmFuzzyPedia. But it would not be accurate, useful, or something that a lot of people would be interested in building and maintaining. It would, in my humble opinion, be the end of Wikipedia to change into a WarmFuzzyPedia, and I will resist you to the last if you insist on going that direction.
George Herbert wrote:
Someone who has a WP article about them that they percieve negatively may be upset, but it's one thing to say that we sympathize with them being upset, and quite another to suggest that we shouldn't have an article about them, or about large classes of people including them.
Gosh, you really don't get it do you?
We're not talking about Brandt and mildly critical stuff on a well-written and highly monitored article. We are talking about downright libels, negative spinning, and outrageous lies. We are talking about biographies that have pulled together every detail of a minor small-town scandal, and ignored any positive information whatsoever. People have an absolute right not to be subjected to that "WarmFuzzyPedia" or not.
We insist on NPOV BLP and V, but we are hosting thousands of biographies that do not comply with these policies and we have structures that have manifestly proven inadequate in dealing with them.
If we host bios - we have a duty of care to the subject. We are clearly in breach of that duty.
Yes, people don't get 'take down rights' in the real media - but real media is produced by writers with real names and by publishers who take legal responsibility, not written by ten year olds or clever anonymous people with a malicious grudge and then published by non-responsible foundation.
People have a absolute right not to have their name googled and find that the highest ranking site (or perhaps only internet information on them) has been written by a silly slanderous schoolkid, their ex-husband's angry girlfriend, or a disgruntled ex-employee or rival out to trash them. And often these subtle attacks are on the face reading well-referenced and seemingly factual. Never spotted as simple vandalism.
People have a right not have to check their own biography for hatchet jobs, and if they they do check it, and there is one, they have an absolute right to expect us to have a means of making sure it never happens again.
If Wikipedia can't reasonable insure that people don't have these rights infringed, then it has no business hosting their biographies in the first place.
On 4/21/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
We insist on NPOV BLP and V,
Sorry to be a nitpicker about this, but I assume you mean the policies "Neutral point of view", "Biographies of living persons", and "Verifiability".
Please let's keep jargon to a minimum. This is a public mailing list on a matter of policy that is of interest to every one of the many, many thousands of people who are the subject of, or are mentioned in, a Wikipedia article. Very, very few of them know what our policies are, still fewer know how we develop them, and you could probably count those who know what "NPOV, BLP and V" means, and are not already involved in Wikipedia, on the fingers of a severely maimed hand.
On 4/20/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
People have a absolute right not to have their name googled and find that the highest ranking site (or perhaps only internet information on them) has been written by a silly slanderous schoolkid, their ex-husband's angry girlfriend, or a disgruntled ex-employee or rival out to trash them. And often these subtle attacks are on the face reading well-referenced and seemingly factual. Never spotted as simple vandalism.
Look around. There are millions of websites (blogs, home pages, YouTube videos, etc) out there with libelous material, much of it blatantly false, out there for anyone to see.
Very few of those have any sort of reasonable feedback mechanism short of a libel/slander lawsuit. Some ISPs have a no-attacks policy; most don't, and those that do often have a nearly impractical hurdle getting through their abuse department.
We have policies with real teeth about what is OK to have here and what isn't. We have people who enforce those policies, vigorously, once we're notified. We have people associated with the project actively looking for them, though I don't presume to suggest that we actually find enough of it ourselves. And we have a stable versions technical upgrade coming sometime.
Again: Wikipedia is not the worst place on the Internet from a perspective of actually protecting people's rights not to be attacked or slandered, or at least to get it fixed if they are. It's arguably close to the best place on the Internet from those perspectives.
It's maddening to see you argue elsewise. Look around you.
If Wikipedia can't reasonable insure that people don't have these rights infringed, then it has no business hosting their biographies in the first place.
You're assigning people a lot of rights that they don't legally or socially have.
They *don't* have a right, in the United States at least, of absolute privacy against any discussion of them.
They don't have a right to sue anyone who runs a website on which libel is posted, just for having hosted it, prior to being notified of it.
Your argument isn't "We can't infringe people's rights". You're using that language, but it's factually incorrect.
Your argument is, "We can't be mean to non-notable people".
That is not legally true. It is to some degree morally true. But we have to keep that in perspective. People don't deserve to be abused. But they don't deserve to hide notable activities from the public, or from the historical record.
We can destroy the encyclopedia to be nice to people. That's insane.
We can keep the encyclopedia within the law and existing societal and internet norms for protecting people against abuse. And we do.
We can protect them better than YouTube, MySpace, and a million other sites. And we do.
We don't have to be perfect. We're an open content system, and an encyclopedia, and an internet project. We're within the norms for such projects. We care a lot about this topic, from the amount of arguing over it that happens. And that's good. But it can be taken too far.
You all, today, are taking it too far.
George Herbert wrote:
On 4/20/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
People have a absolute right not to have their name googled and find that the highest ranking site (or perhaps only internet information on them) has been written by a silly slanderous schoolkid, their ex-husband's angry girlfriend, or a disgruntled ex-employee or rival out to trash them. And often these subtle attacks are on the face reading well-referenced and seemingly factual. Never spotted as simple vandalism.
Look around. There are millions of websites (blogs, home pages, YouTube videos, etc) out there with libelous material, much of it blatantly false, out there for anyone to see.
Very few of those have any sort of reasonable feedback mechanism short of a libel/slander lawsuit. Some ISPs have a no-attacks policy; most don't, and those that do often have a nearly impractical hurdle getting through their abuse department.
We have policies with real teeth about what is OK to have here and what isn't. We have people who enforce those policies, vigorously, once we're notified. We have people associated with the project actively looking for them, though I don't presume to suggest that we actually find enough of it ourselves. And we have a stable versions technical upgrade coming sometime.
Again: Wikipedia is not the worst place on the Internet from a perspective of actually protecting people's rights not to be attacked or slandered, or at least to get it fixed if they are. It's arguably close to the best place on the Internet from those perspectives.
It's maddening to see you argue elsewise. Look around you.
If Wikipedia can't reasonable insure that people don't have these rights infringed, then it has no business hosting their biographies in the first place.
You're assigning people a lot of rights that they don't legally or socially have.
They *don't* have a right, in the United States at least, of absolute privacy against any discussion of them.
They don't have a right to sue anyone who runs a website on which libel is posted, just for having hosted it, prior to being notified of it.
Your argument isn't "We can't infringe people's rights". You're using that language, but it's factually incorrect.
Your argument is, "We can't be mean to non-notable people".
That is not legally true. It is to some degree morally true. But we have to keep that in perspective. People don't deserve to be abused. But they don't deserve to hide notable activities from the public, or from the historical record.
We can destroy the encyclopedia to be nice to people. That's insane.
We can keep the encyclopedia within the law and existing societal and internet norms for protecting people against abuse. And we do.
We can protect them better than YouTube, MySpace, and a million other sites. And we do.
We don't have to be perfect. We're an open content system, and an encyclopedia, and an internet project. We're within the norms for such projects. We care a lot about this topic, from the amount of arguing over it that happens. And that's good. But it can be taken too far.
You all, today, are taking it too far.
I never mentioned law - I am speaking of ethics.
And *'Wikipedia - the best place on the internet to be libeled'* isn't a great tag line.
Frankly, I don't believe that people who are holding the line you are care at all about this subject. You have just set up so many straw men it isn't true.
On 4/20/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
I never mentioned law - I am speaking of ethics.
The law has been repeatedly mentioned. At the very least, you need to clarify "rights" as ethical, legal, moral, social expectations, etc.
And *'Wikipedia - the best place on the internet to be libeled'* isn't a great tag line.
How about "Would you rather be hit by a car out in the middle of a desert, in the middle of a circus, or in front of the hospital?".
Frankly, I don't believe that people who are holding the line you are care at all about this subject. You have just set up so many straw men it isn't true.
You could at least assume good faith here. That's not a nice comment at all. I've been dealing with these problems on the Internet for over 20 years now and don't take any of them lightly.
On 4/20/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On 4/20/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
People have a absolute right not to have their name googled and find that the highest ranking site (or perhaps only internet information on them) has been written by a silly slanderous schoolkid, their ex-husband's angry girlfriend, or a disgruntled ex-employee or rival
out
to trash them. And often these subtle attacks are on the face reading well-referenced and seemingly factual. Never spotted as simple
vandalism.
Look around. There are millions of websites (blogs, home pages, YouTube videos, etc) out there with libelous material, much of it blatantly false, out there for anyone to see.
Very few of those have any sort of reasonable feedback mechanism short of a libel/slander lawsuit. Some ISPs have a no-attacks policy; most don't, and those that do often have a nearly impractical hurdle getting through their abuse department.
We have policies with real teeth about what is OK to have here and what isn't. We have people who enforce those policies, vigorously, once we're notified. We have people associated with the project actively looking for them, though I don't presume to suggest that we actually find enough of it ourselves. And we have a stable versions technical upgrade coming sometime.
Again: Wikipedia is not the worst place on the Internet from a perspective of actually protecting people's rights not to be attacked or slandered, or at least to get it fixed if they are. It's arguably close to the best place on the Internet from those perspectives.
It's maddening to see you argue elsewise. Look around you.
If Wikipedia can't reasonable insure that people don't have these
rights
infringed, then it has no business hosting their biographies in the first place.
You're assigning people a lot of rights that they don't legally or socially have.
They *don't* have a right, in the United States at least, of absolute privacy against any discussion of them.
They don't have a right to sue anyone who runs a website on which libel is posted, just for having hosted it, prior to being notified of it.
Your argument isn't "We can't infringe people's rights". You're using that language, but it's factually incorrect.
Your argument is, "We can't be mean to non-notable people".
That is not legally true. It is to some degree morally true. But we have to keep that in perspective. People don't deserve to be abused. But they don't deserve to hide notable activities from the public, or from the historical record.
We can destroy the encyclopedia to be nice to people. That's insane.
We can keep the encyclopedia within the law and existing societal and internet norms for protecting people against abuse. And we do.
We can protect them better than YouTube, MySpace, and a million other sites. And we do.
We don't have to be perfect. We're an open content system, and an encyclopedia, and an internet project. We're within the norms for such projects. We care a lot about this topic, from the amount of arguing over it that happens. And that's good. But it can be taken too far.
You all, today, are taking it too far.
I never mentioned law - I am speaking of ethics.
And *'Wikipedia - the best place on the internet to be libeled'* isn't a great tag line.
Frankly, I don't believe that people who are holding the line you are care at all about this subject. You have just set up so many straw men it isn't true.
Without discussing any specific individual's situation, I would like to strongly endorse Doc's overall approach to these issues.
We are now one of the top ten websites in the world and are often, as has been noted, the leading hit when a semi-notable person is searched for. We have crucial obligations to live up to in this area. Whether we are doing an acceptable job of upholding standards is a topic on which there could be differences of opinion, but that we have an obligation to uphold such standards is not, and making sure that we do so is in my opinion one of the two most pressing issues facing the project today.
Newyorkbrad
On 4/20/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On 4/20/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
People have a absolute right not to have their name googled and find that the highest ranking site (or perhaps only internet information on them) has been written by a silly slanderous schoolkid, their ex-husband's angry girlfriend, or a disgruntled ex-employee or rival
out
to trash them. And often these subtle attacks are on the face reading well-referenced and seemingly factual. Never spotted as simple
vandalism.
Look around. There are millions of websites (blogs, home pages, YouTube videos, etc) out there with libelous material, much of it blatantly false, out there for anyone to see.
Very few of those have any sort of reasonable feedback mechanism short of a libel/slander lawsuit. Some ISPs have a no-attacks policy; most don't, and those that do often have a nearly impractical hurdle getting through their abuse department.
We have policies with real teeth about what is OK to have here and what isn't. We have people who enforce those policies, vigorously, once we're notified. We have people associated with the project actively looking for them, though I don't presume to suggest that we actually find enough of it ourselves. And we have a stable versions technical upgrade coming sometime.
Again: Wikipedia is not the worst place on the Internet from a perspective of actually protecting people's rights not to be attacked or slandered, or at least to get it fixed if they are. It's arguably close to the best place on the Internet from those perspectives.
It's maddening to see you argue elsewise. Look around you.
If Wikipedia can't reasonable insure that people don't have these
rights
infringed, then it has no business hosting their biographies in the first place.
You're assigning people a lot of rights that they don't legally or socially have.
They *don't* have a right, in the United States at least, of absolute privacy against any discussion of them.
They don't have a right to sue anyone who runs a website on which libel is posted, just for having hosted it, prior to being notified of it.
Your argument isn't "We can't infringe people's rights". You're using that language, but it's factually incorrect.
Your argument is, "We can't be mean to non-notable people".
That is not legally true. It is to some degree morally true. But we have to keep that in perspective. People don't deserve to be abused. But they don't deserve to hide notable activities from the public, or from the historical record.
We can destroy the encyclopedia to be nice to people. That's insane.
We can keep the encyclopedia within the law and existing societal and internet norms for protecting people against abuse. And we do.
We can protect them better than YouTube, MySpace, and a million other sites. And we do.
We don't have to be perfect. We're an open content system, and an encyclopedia, and an internet project. We're within the norms for such projects. We care a lot about this topic, from the amount of arguing over it that happens. And that's good. But it can be taken too far.
You all, today, are taking it too far.
I never mentioned law - I am speaking of ethics.
And *'Wikipedia - the best place on the internet to be libeled'* isn't a great tag line.
Frankly, I don't believe that people who are holding the line you are care at all about this subject. You have just set up so many straw men it isn't true.
Without discussing any specific individual's situation, I would like to strongly endorse Doc's overall approach to these issues.
We are now one of the top ten websites in the world and are often, as has been noted, the leading hit when a semi-notable person is searched for. We have crucial obligations to live up to in this area. Whether we are doing an acceptable job of upholding standards is a topic on which there could be differences of opinion, but that we have an obligation to uphold such standards is not, and making sure that we do so is in my opinion one of the two most pressing issues facing the project today.
Newyorkbrad _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I partly agree and partly disagree with Doc's assessment, but also do agree that Wikipedia really is probably the "world's best place to be libelled"-terrible phrasing aside. If someone writes "John Doe eats babies" on Myspace, you're going to have to raise hell with Myspace to get that removed. If someone does it on Wikipedia, it will likely be caught and reverted within seconds, and even if it slips by RC patrol, the minute you notify us of it, it's gone and whoever pulled the stunt gets shown the door. We're actually one of the -most- proactive sites in the world when it comes to preventing harm and libel, as far as sites with any user-generated content go.
Now, of course, I'm not really hot on the idea of having articles that barely five sentences can be written on anyway, for the reasons brought up-they just don't get patrolled well for vandalism or stupidity. I'd generally be very much for merging such bios into a larger, more heavily-patrolled article, or getting rid of them.
That being said, we're talking about people of -marginal- notability. Daniel Brandt (and let's all presume he precipitated this discussion, because, well, he did) is of -unquestionable- notability. He's very voluntarily given interviews to the media and solicited public attention for his endeavors. It's certainly his right to do so. He can't, however, do all that, then turn around and say "Wait, wait, I'm not a public figure now!" when something you don't want published comes up. Brandt's article should receive the same amount of care and demand the same amount of sourcing as we always require in BLP cases, of course. But if -that's- the type of bio that will get deleted, this is a bad idea.
(By the way NYBrad, what's the other issue? Now I'm curious.)
Seraphimblade
On 4/20/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On 4/20/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
People have a absolute right not to have their name googled and
find
that the highest ranking site (or perhaps only internet information
on
them) has been written by a silly slanderous schoolkid, their ex-husband's angry girlfriend, or a disgruntled ex-employee or
rival
out
to trash them. And often these subtle attacks are on the face
reading
well-referenced and seemingly factual. Never spotted as simple
vandalism.
Look around. There are millions of websites (blogs, home pages, YouTube videos, etc) out there with libelous material, much of it blatantly false, out there for anyone to see.
Very few of those have any sort of reasonable feedback mechanism
short
of a libel/slander lawsuit. Some ISPs have a no-attacks policy;
most
don't, and those that do often have a nearly impractical hurdle getting through their abuse department.
We have policies with real teeth about what is OK to have here and what isn't. We have people who enforce those policies, vigorously, once we're notified. We have people associated with the project actively looking for them, though I don't presume to suggest that we actually find enough of it ourselves. And we have a stable versions technical upgrade coming sometime.
Again: Wikipedia is not the worst place on the Internet from a perspective of actually protecting people's rights not to be
attacked
or slandered, or at least to get it fixed if they are. It's
arguably
close to the best place on the Internet from those perspectives.
It's maddening to see you argue elsewise. Look around you.
If Wikipedia can't reasonable insure that people don't have these
rights
infringed, then it has no business hosting their biographies in the first place.
You're assigning people a lot of rights that they don't legally or socially have.
They *don't* have a right, in the United States at least, of
absolute
privacy against any discussion of them.
They don't have a right to sue anyone who runs a website on which libel is posted, just for having hosted it, prior to being notified
of
it.
Your argument isn't "We can't infringe people's rights". You're
using
that language, but it's factually incorrect.
Your argument is, "We can't be mean to non-notable people".
That is not legally true. It is to some degree morally true. But
we
have to keep that in perspective. People don't deserve to be
abused.
But they don't deserve to hide notable activities from the public,
or
from the historical record.
We can destroy the encyclopedia to be nice to people. That's
insane.
We can keep the encyclopedia within the law and existing societal
and
internet norms for protecting people against abuse. And we do.
We can protect them better than YouTube, MySpace, and a million
other
sites. And we do.
We don't have to be perfect. We're an open content system, and an encyclopedia, and an internet project. We're within the norms for such projects. We care a lot about this topic, from the amount of arguing over it that happens. And that's good. But it can be taken too far.
You all, today, are taking it too far.
I never mentioned law - I am speaking of ethics.
And *'Wikipedia - the best place on the internet to be libeled'* isn't
a
great tag line.
Frankly, I don't believe that people who are holding the line you are care at all about this subject. You have just set up so many straw men it isn't true.
Without discussing any specific individual's situation, I would like to strongly endorse Doc's overall approach to these issues.
We are now one of the top ten websites in the world and are often, as
has
been noted, the leading hit when a semi-notable person is searched
for. We
have crucial obligations to live up to in this area. Whether we are
doing
an acceptable job of upholding standards is a topic on which there could
be
differences of opinion, but that we have an obligation to uphold such standards is not, and making sure that we do so is in my opinion one of
the
two most pressing issues facing the project today.
Newyorkbrad _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I partly agree and partly disagree with Doc's assessment, but also do agree that Wikipedia really is probably the "world's best place to be libelled"-terrible phrasing aside. If someone writes "John Doe eats babies" on Myspace, you're going to have to raise hell with Myspace to get that removed. If someone does it on Wikipedia, it will likely be caught and reverted within seconds, and even if it slips by RC patrol, the minute you notify us of it, it's gone and whoever pulled the stunt gets shown the door. We're actually one of the -most- proactive sites in the world when it comes to preventing harm and libel, as far as sites with any user-generated content go.
Now, of course, I'm not really hot on the idea of having articles that barely five sentences can be written on anyway, for the reasons brought up-they just don't get patrolled well for vandalism or stupidity. I'd generally be very much for merging such bios into a larger, more heavily-patrolled article, or getting rid of them.
That being said, we're talking about people of -marginal- notability. Daniel Brandt (and let's all presume he precipitated this discussion, because, well, he did) is of -unquestionable- notability. He's very voluntarily given interviews to the media and solicited public attention for his endeavors. It's certainly his right to do so. He can't, however, do all that, then turn around and say "Wait, wait, I'm not a public figure now!" when something you don't want published comes up. Brandt's article should receive the same amount of care and demand the same amount of sourcing as we always require in BLP cases, of course. But if -that's- the type of bio that will get deleted, this is a bad idea.
(By the way NYBrad, what's the other issue? Now I'm curious.) Seraphimblade
I thought you'd never ask. This is the third time I've posted the exact same sentence and the first time someone's been curious (although I have mentioned the issue itself before, including in my RfA). However, I don't want to change the subject of this thread, which is important, so responses to this comment, if any, should go into a new one.
What I view as the other top priority issue facing the project is the extraordinarily high rate of turnover and burnout that we seem to suffer from, especially among top-level administrators and leading contributors. Turnover is part of any Internet project as any other part of life, but when I read the names of the participants in an RfA from say a year ago, or I look at the list of bureaucrats or former arbitrators or top featured article contributors or whoever, I am consistently amazed and saddened by how high a percentage of the names on the list have moved on. Sometimes after a spectacular departure, sometimes after vanishing without a trace. As highly as I think of our collective contributor and administrator base at present (and I do think that we have an incredibly strong talent base on this project, no matter how critical I or anyone might be of some or another aspect from time to time), just imagine how much greater we could be if a percentage of those people were still with us. I believe we need to identify the causes of Wikipedians' stress and burnout -- or in NPOV terms, of departures from the project -- and figure out if there is a way to reduce them.
Newyorkbrad
People with a biography here have a right to force us to fix libel. Only when we fail to do that on a consistent basis *on that article* not due repetitious attempts by vandals, but due to inactivity, should deletion ever come into play.
Mgm
On 4/21/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
I thought you'd never ask. This is the third time I've posted the exact same sentence and the first time someone's been curious (although I have mentioned the issue itself before, including in my RfA). However, I don't want to change the subject of this thread, which is important, so responses to this comment, if any, should go into a new one.
What I view as the other top priority issue facing the project is the extraordinarily high rate of turnover and burnout that we seem to suffer from, especially among top-level administrators and leading contributors. Turnover is part of any Internet project as any other part of life, but when I read the names of the participants in an RfA from say a year ago, or I look at the list of bureaucrats or former arbitrators or top featured article contributors or whoever, I am consistently amazed and saddened by how high a percentage of the names on the list have moved on. Sometimes after a spectacular departure, sometimes after vanishing without a trace. As highly as I think of our collective contributor and administrator base at present (and I do think that we have an incredibly strong talent base on this project, no matter how critical I or anyone might be of some or another aspect from time to time), just imagine how much greater we could be if a percentage of those people were still with us. I believe we need to identify the causes of Wikipedians' stress and burnout -- or in NPOV terms, of departures from the project -- and figure out if there is a way to reduce them.
I think this might be time to bring us back to the thread on "Major dysfunction in RfA culture" which died a few days back. RfA is presently only accepting candidates willing to run the gauntlet of participating in certain obligatory things such as vandal patrolling, the deletion process, etc., even if there's no reason to believe the candidate lacks the necessary clue to read relevant policy and/or use common sense should he/she decide to go on vandal patrol or close a deletion debate, and even if the candidate has not expressed any desire to get involved in those areas of the 'pedia.
As a result, the only people accepted are those obsessive enough to do these things - and it's not surprising that there's substantial correlation between obsessiveness and likelihood to burn out, so it should be no surprise either that many admins are likely to burn out. I think if I ran for RfA today, I would be rejected because I simply haven't shown the requisite obsessiveness. I've tried before, but I'm just not the type to stay focused on something for too long - I totally understand why so many people get burned out. (Those who don't are normally...not exactly normal. Some just snap and start forgetting why they are here in the first place, as RickK did.)
As I've said before, we're relying too much on these powerhorses and not enough on the "long tail". WP relies on the thousands of editors who anonymously make one edit and never come back. Why can't we rely on thousands of admins to make one admin action and never come back (to exaggerate a little)? What's wrong with tolerating admins who don't really use the tools except when they come across a situation warranting tool usage in their normal course of using WP? (That's basically what I do these days, avoiding the drudgery of focused obsessive admin work.)
If someone can be trusted not to abuse the tools, and to have a clue about using them, there's really no reason to deny them adminship. That's the whole point behind adminship not being a big deal. If this was actually practiced, I think we might see a little less burnout than we do now. Spreading the load makes a lot of sense.
Johnleemk
On 4/23/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I think this might be time to bring us back to the thread on "Major dysfunction in RfA culture" which died a few days back. RfA is presently only accepting candidates willing to run the gauntlet of participating in certain obligatory things such as vandal patrolling, the deletion process, etc., even if there's no reason to believe the candidate lacks the necessary clue to read relevant policy and/or use common sense should he/she decide to go on vandal patrol or close a deletion debate, and even if the candidate has not expressed any desire to get involved in those areas of the 'pedia.
As a result, the only people accepted are those obsessive enough to do these things - and it's not surprising that there's substantial correlation between obsessiveness and likelihood to burn out, so it should be no surprise either that many admins are likely to burn out. I think if I ran for RfA today, I would be rejected because I simply haven't shown the requisite obsessiveness. I've tried before, but I'm just not the type to stay focused on something for too long - I totally understand why so many people get burned out. (Those who don't are normally...not exactly normal. Some just snap and start forgetting why they are here in the first place, as RickK did.)
As I've said before, we're relying too much on these powerhorses and not enough on the "long tail". WP relies on the thousands of editors who anonymously make one edit and never come back. Why can't we rely on thousands of admins to make one admin action and never come back (to exaggerate a little)? What's wrong with tolerating admins who don't really use the tools except when they come across a situation warranting tool usage in their normal course of using WP? (That's basically what I do these days, avoiding the drudgery of focused obsessive admin work.)
If someone can be trusted not to abuse the tools, and to have a clue about using them, there's really no reason to deny them adminship. That's the whole point behind adminship not being a big deal. If this was actually practiced, I think we might see a little less burnout than we do now. Spreading the load makes a lot of sense.
Johnleemk
Yes.
I would like to see candidates knowledgeable and willing to take on one particular admin task. If they want to work in another, they need to do the required legwork to know how things work. I still haven't applied a range block, because I know I'd mess it up. It's pointless to force someone to work in every possible admin workfield. There's so much people who are clueless about copyright that if people need to know everything, we'd need to oppose adminship of pretty much everyone when it comes to their WP:PUI and copyright speedy work.
Mgm
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Yes.
I would like to see candidates knowledgeable and willing to take on one particular admin task. If they want to work in another, they need to do the required legwork to know how things work. I still haven't applied a range block, because I know I'd mess it up. It's pointless to force someone to work in every possible admin workfield. There's so much people who are clueless about copyright that if people need to know everything, we'd need to oppose adminship of pretty much everyone when it comes to their WP:PUI and copyright speedy work.
That is pretty much how my (self-nom) RfA passed, in fact. There was some mildly heated debate about my lack of WP-space edits (aside from AIV), and about how I didn't really contribute to the writing of articles but only did RC patrol. But as I explained on that page, that's kind of the point:
"After reading my comments through, I notice that there is one common thread across the votes I am citing: I don't do enough /different/ things. But I ask what the value is of requiring candidates to be competent at everything -- my time is better spent doing things that I am good at. I get the feeling that there is a lot of worry that I will misapply policies in other areas. But generally speaking I don't /want/ to be involved in a lot of things. I want to get out my mop and polish one or two areas of Wikipedia until they shine. I want to focus my energy where it is best applied. We have other admins who are good at dispute resolution (for example) and the like, but not great at RC patrol. Generally, RC patrol doesn't require a whole lot of debate, discussion, and 'process.' The application of these requirements in this department will be very difficult to pass. --Chris (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)" [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crazycomputers]]
Examining the oppose votes, there is not one that claims that I would abuse the tools, just that I'm "unfamiliar with process", "low WP:-space editcount", etc. All of which are fundamentally irrelevant to blocking vandals, which was my reason for nominating myself in the first place.
We don't need more admins who can juggle knives while riding a unicycle on a tightrope. Not to equate admins who can do a lot with a circus show (though their talk pages are usually good reading :) ). But the RfA criteria are generally way too strict. Being an admin is not about being able to recite every policy page in WP: by heart and being able to bring an article up to FA status while voting on every AfD in sight. It's about not abusing the extra tools, and that's it.
It's been over eight months since the nomination passed, and I've never stopped acting in what I believe are the best interests of the community. I still RC patrol on a regular basis and occasionally clean out WP:AIV or CAT:CSD. I can say with absolute certainty that I've never abused the admin tools.
I'm not saying this to parade my admin-level contributions and make a big deal out of it, but think for a second:
My RfA came pretty darn close to failing, for objections in areas that I have not, nor ever intended to use the admin tools.
How many RfAs have failed for the same reason, when the nominee was in the same boat as me? How much help with these backlogs have we turned away?
Scary.
On 4/21/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Look around. There are millions of websites (blogs, home pages, YouTube videos, etc) out there with libelous material, much of it blatantly false, out there for anyone to see.
...
Again: Wikipedia is not the worst place on the Internet from a perspective of actually protecting people's rights not to be attacked or slandered, or at least to get it fixed if they are. It's arguably close to the best place on the Internet from those perspectives.
Wikipedia is dramatically different from those other sites and types of sites. Not only are Wikipedia pages about a subject far, far more prominent than some random blog post or homepage about a subject, but the Wikipedia pages are presented as fact, and not just the opinion of some random guy with a Myspace.
doc wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
Someone who has a WP article about them that they percieve negatively may be upset, but it's one thing to say that we sympathize with them being upset, and quite another to suggest that we shouldn't have an article about them, or about large classes of people including them.
Gosh, you really don't get it do you?
We're not talking about Brandt and mildly critical stuff on a well-written and highly monitored article. We are talking about downright libels, negative spinning, and outrageous lies. We are talking about biographies that have pulled together every detail of a minor small-town scandal, and ignored any positive information whatsoever. People have an absolute right not to be subjected to that "WarmFuzzyPedia" or not.
We insist on NPOV BLP and V, but we are hosting thousands of biographies that do not comply with these policies and we have structures that have manifestly proven inadequate in dealing with them.
{{fact}}. Put together a listing of these biographies, publicize it, and if they really are so egregiously libelous I expect editors would start swarming all over them like rabid deletionist weasels.
If we host bios - we have a duty of care to the subject. We are clearly in breach of that duty.
I've seen no evidence of this beyond individual anecdotal cases.
Yes, people don't get 'take down rights' in the real media - but real media is produced by writers with real names and by publishers who take legal responsibility, not written by ten year olds or clever anonymous people with a malicious grudge and then published by non-responsible foundation.
How many such editors are there compared to the legions of good editors who are working to thwart them? Even in those individual anecdotal cases I mentioned seeing above, the moment the libels and lies became the subject of widespread attention they got thoroughly stamped out. Articles get protected, stubbed, or deleted, and problem editors get banned.
BTW, I assume that "doc wikipedia" isn't actually your real name. I have no problem with pseudonymy myself but since you're arguing that it's a bad thing you should probably practice what you preach if you want to be taken seriously.
People have a absolute right not to have their name googled and find that the highest ranking site (or perhaps only internet information on them) has been written by a silly slanderous schoolkid, their ex-husband's angry girlfriend, or a disgruntled ex-employee or rival out to trash them. And often these subtle attacks are on the face reading well-referenced and seemingly factual. Never spotted as simple vandalism.
Would blocking Google and the other major search engines from spidering Wikipedia satisfy you? I'd rather see that tried before implementing some sort of blanket ban on biographical articles.
People have a right not have to check their own biography for hatchet jobs, and if they they do check it, and there is one, they have an absolute right to expect us to have a means of making sure it never happens again.
Also, I think you're devaluing the phrase "absolute right" by using it on a relative triviality like this. This isn't exactly on par with such issues as slavery. Perhaps you should cut back on the hyperbole.
If Wikipedia can't reasonable insure that people don't have these rights infringed, then it has no business hosting their biographies in the first place.
Wikipedia is better at this sort of thing than pretty much every other free (or even cheap) web hosting site. Would you also hold MySpace, Geocities, IMDB, etc. to these standards and demand that they ban biographical information of any sort?
We can always get better, but perfection is impossible and we shouldn't fall on our swords the moment we fail to achieve it.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Bryan Derksen wrote:
But IMO it's not a "real solution" to delete an article that we would otherwise have if only the subject of the article hadn't asked us to delete it. Adding the exemption for biographies already in Britannica would just make Wikipedia's coverage even more nonsensical and arbitrary. There's nothing magical about Britannica's standards that makes biographies problem-free and it would introduce a whopping great systemic bias.
There is something magical about biographies in Britannica which makes biographies a lot closer to problem-free, if not actually there:
If you have a biography in Britannica, you're probably notable in the everyday non-Wikipedian sense: there are lot of sources and a lot of people already talking about you, and anything that Wikipedia can say is a drop in the bucket. There's so much material about George W. Bush both on the Internet and in print that a problem with the Bush article simply isn't going to hurt Bush much, because the Wikipedia article is one out of millions and doesn't have the influence.
If you don't have a biography in Britannica, your Wikipedia article is probably the top source of information on the Internet about you, or close, and any problems with that article loom large and can have a huge effect. Even if he leaves politics, nobody's going to deny George Bush a job because of something they read in his Wikipedia article. But they might to Joe Blow.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
If you don't have a biography in Britannica, your Wikipedia article is probably the top source of information on the Internet about you, or close, and any problems with that article loom large and can have a huge effect. Even if he leaves politics, nobody's going to deny George Bush a job because of something they read in his Wikipedia article. But they might to Joe Blow.
This puts a constraint on Wikipedia to never be a "better" source of information about certain topics than is already readily available, which strikes me as contradicting our basic goals. And you didn't address the systemic bias problem, Wikipedia has global scope whereas Britannica is focused on Britain.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
If you don't have a biography in Britannica, your Wikipedia article is probably the top source of information on the Internet about you, or close, and any problems with that article loom large and can have a huge effect. Even if he leaves politics, nobody's going to deny George Bush a job because of something they read in his Wikipedia article. But they might to Joe Blow.
This puts a constraint on Wikipedia to never be a "better" source of information about certain topics than is already readily available, which strikes me as contradicting our basic goals. And you didn't address the systemic bias problem, Wikipedia has global scope whereas Britannica is focused on Britain.
Actually, Britannica is an American company. :)
On 4/21/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
On 21/04/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:>
Any open source project, content or code or whatever, is subject to or at risk of attacks. This is a fact of life.
Ah, so tough on the people who are being adversely affected, libeled
and
attacked? We tell them that it is a risk we (sorry, they?) have to run. A fact of life 9for them)?
Well, we could give up, shut down the project, and all go and do
something else.
And how does that argument help? We need to admit the real problem and then try to find some real solutions - but unfortunately some people would rather shoot the messenger or assume that any major change would mean the death of wikipedia.
With people who prefer deleting articles over actually handling the issues they produce I often get the feeling they rather kill the project than look for solutions.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 4/21/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
On 21/04/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:>
Any open source project, content or code or whatever, is subject to or at risk of attacks. This is a fact of life.
Ah, so tough on the people who are being adversely affected, libeled
and
attacked? We tell them that it is a risk we (sorry, they?) have to run. A fact of life 9for them)?
Well, we could give up, shut down the project, and all go and do
something else. And how does that argument help? We need to admit the real problem and then try to find some real solutions - but unfortunately some people would rather shoot the messenger or assume that any major change would mean the death of wikipedia.
With people who prefer deleting articles over actually handling the issues they produce I often get the feeling they rather kill the project than look for solutions.
Mgm _______________________________________________
Oh ffs, this is ridiculous. The notion that the number of biographies we have has no correlation with the failure to properly monitor and maintain them is ridiculous.
Most of the real BLP issues group round biographies of little known people. Bios that be nature can only ever have information about the bit part they played in some small-town scandal, and thus can never be a balanced 'biography' of the person's life. Bios that highlight news that otherwise would be forgotten. Bios that are damaging because they may are the only public biography of the person in existence. Bios that by nature are under-watched. Bios where few will know enough to spot spin and hatchet jobs.
The notion that wikipedia can't survive if we have less of these tabloidesque articles is frankly nonsense.
What we've got on this list are reactionaries who don't want any change and would rather pretend that everything's jolly and no change can ever improve everything. Sure, any change will have some downsides - but that's not the end of the story.
Actually, I'm more optimistic here. I believe that there are solutions that can be found if there is a willingness to find them. But we need to be allowed to explore the radical, and not have people always pretending that any change would be death of wiki-civilization. In fact, a rigid attachment to the status quo is more likely to result in that.
Doc
On 4/22/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
With people who prefer deleting articles over actually handling the
issues
they produce I often get the feeling they rather kill the project than
look
for solutions.
Mgm _______________________________________________
Oh ffs, this is ridiculous. The notion that the number of biographies we have has no correlation with the failure to properly monitor and maintain them is ridiculous.
Most of the real BLP issues group round biographies of little known people. Bios that be nature can only ever have information about the bit part they played in some small-town scandal, and thus can never be a balanced 'biography' of the person's life. Bios that highlight news that otherwise would be forgotten. Bios that are damaging because they may are the only public biography of the person in existence. Bios that by nature are under-watched. Bios where few will know enough to spot spin and hatchet jobs.
The notion that wikipedia can't survive if we have less of these tabloidesque articles is frankly nonsense.
What we've got on this list are reactionaries who don't want any change and would rather pretend that everything's jolly and no change can ever improve everything. Sure, any change will have some downsides - but that's not the end of the story.
Actually, I'm more optimistic here. I believe that there are solutions that can be found if there is a willingness to find them. But we need to be allowed to explore the radical, and not have people always pretending that any change would be death of wiki-civilization. In fact, a rigid attachment to the status quo is more likely to result in that.
Doc
In this case I was talking about people who prefer deleting ALL articles over any sort of sensible solution. If we are going to limit deletions to articles that actually are causing problems and could never be fixed or monitored, I'm all for deleting them.
doc wrote:
Most of the real BLP issues group round biographies of little known people. Bios that be nature can only ever have information about the bit part they played in some small-town scandal, and thus can never be a balanced 'biography' of the person's life. Bios that highlight news that otherwise would be forgotten. Bios that are damaging because they may are the only public biography of the person in existence. Bios that by nature are under-watched. Bios where few will know enough to spot spin and hatchet jobs.
Actually, when I was browsing through that list of {{unreferenced}} biographies last night I didn't come across a single one of these. The only person I found whose notoriety was due to a "scandal" actually looked pretty significant (not just some small-town thing) and had a lot of information about him out on the web.
The vast majority of the little-known people with biographies were minor sports figures, singers, actors, models, race car drivers, etc. whose articles were completely non-controversial and didn't mention any scandalous events.
What we've got on this list are reactionaries who don't want any change and would rather pretend that everything's jolly and no change can ever improve everything. Sure, any change will have some downsides - but that's not the end of the story.
Please don't mischaracterize those who disagree with you. I don't believe that "no change can ever improve everything", I just think that this specific change of being more aggressive about deleting biographies is not the best way to improve Wikipedia and may in fact be detrimental. As someone said elsethread, "we need to do something, this is something, therefore we need to do this" is flawed logic.
Personally, I think that once stable versions are finally implemented many of the major deletionism issues that have been going on for years will fade away. That's the change I'd really like to see, it'll make Wikipedia safer for work-in-progress again.
On 22/04/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Personally, I think that once stable versions are finally implemented many of the major deletionism issues that have been going on for years will fade away. That's the change I'd really like to see, it'll make Wikipedia safer for work-in-progress again.
HELL YES.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 22/04/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Personally, I think that once stable versions are finally implemented many of the major deletionism issues that have been going on for years will fade away. That's the change I'd really like to see, it'll make Wikipedia safer for work-in-progress again.
HELL YES.
Man, that's going to be a showdown of epic proportions. I'll again idly note that there's some significant opposition to the idea of article stability, and nothing appears to be happening to address that.
-Jeff
On 22/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Man, that's going to be a showdown of epic proportions. I'll again idly note that there's some significant opposition to the idea of article stability, and nothing appears to be happening to address that.
Please point me at it.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 22/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Man, that's going to be a showdown of epic proportions. I'll again idly note that there's some significant opposition to the idea of article stability, and nothing appears to be happening to address that.
Please point me at it.
I'd check out the two policy/guideline proposals regarding it. I think they're at [[Wikipedia:Stable articles]] and [[Wikipedia:Stable articles now]], or close to it.
-Jeff
On 22/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 22/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Man, that's going to be a showdown of epic proportions. I'll again idly note that there's some significant opposition to the idea of article stability, and nothing appears to be happening to address that.
Please point me at it.
I'd check out the two policy/guideline proposals regarding it. I think they're at [[Wikipedia:Stable articles]] and [[Wikipedia:Stable articles now]], or close to it.
Well, the stable version feature is going into MediaWiki (the Foundation is even paying for its development) and it's going to be trialled on de:wp. It's a software feature - if the current ideas on how to use it aren't getting popularity, others will. But something like it is unavoidable if we're actually writing an encyclopedia intended to be a usable product rather than *just* the continuous live working draft.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Well, the stable version feature is going into MediaWiki (the Foundation is even paying for its development) and it's going to be trialled on de:wp. It's a software feature - if the current ideas on how to use it aren't getting popularity, others will. But something like it is unavoidable if we're actually writing an encyclopedia intended to be a usable product rather than *just* the continuous live working draft.
I won't comment on the financial aspect of this, but I don't know if there will be some sort of "stability" feature that will gain popularity - many feel it's "unwiki" and goes against our principles. I just think it's a poor idea in general.
I don't think it's unavoidable, either. Part of the draw of Wikipedia is that it's nearly always a live draft, and "stability" will only hurt that portion of it.
-Jeff
On 22/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
I won't comment on the financial aspect of this, but I don't know if there will be some sort of "stability" feature that will gain popularity - many feel it's "unwiki" and goes against our principles. I just think it's a poor idea in general.
The unwikiness is the strongest objection.
I don't think it's unavoidable, either. Part of the draw of Wikipedia is that it's nearly always a live draft, and "stability" will only hurt that portion of it.
Unfortunately, we're a top-10 website now, and most of the problems that come with that are in fact from being a live working draft.
How about a wikipedia.com with stable versions and ads, to pay for educational programs for people who aren't comfortable and well-fed first-world citizens? That'd be fun. (As far as I can tell, the staunchest objectors to ads are comfortable and well-fed first-world citizens.)
- d.
On 4/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
I won't comment on the financial aspect of this, but I don't know if there will be some sort of "stability" feature that will gain popularity - many feel it's "unwiki" and goes against our principles. I just think it's a poor idea in general.
The unwikiness is the strongest objection.
Yep. But "unwikiness" is what will happen if Wikipedia dies because of the mountains of unsourced biographies.
Jeff Raymond wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 22/04/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Personally, I think that once stable versions are finally implemented many of the major deletionism issues that have been going on for years will fade away. That's the change I'd really like to see, it'll make Wikipedia safer for work-in-progress again.
HELL YES.
Man, that's going to be a showdown of epic proportions. I'll again idly note that there's some significant opposition to the idea of article stability, and nothing appears to be happening to address that.
I'm hoping that stable versions won't increase _article_ stability, and in fact I think it'll actually make articles easier to change.
As an example, I've been involved in a bit of a dispute over at [[Transhumanism]] where an editor who's done a lot of work on the article has now declared it to be "finished", and has been rather aggressive in reverting further changes because he believes new additions that aren't up to the same standards as existing material reduce the overall quality of the article. With stable version flagging, we could mark the version that got FA status and then people could work freely on the article without fear of disruption until a new and improved FA-quality version ensued.
On 4/22/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 22/04/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Personally, I think that once stable versions are finally implemented many of the major deletionism issues that have been going on for years will fade away. That's the change I'd really like to see, it'll make Wikipedia safer for work-in-progress again.
HELL YES.
Man, that's going to be a showdown of epic proportions. I'll again idly note that there's some significant opposition to the idea of article stability, and nothing appears to be happening to address that.
I'm hoping that stable versions won't increase _article_ stability, and in fact I think it'll actually make articles easier to change.
My own feeling on the matter is that this is probably wishful thinking.
As an example, I've been involved in a bit of a dispute over at [[Transhumanism]] where an editor who's done a lot of work on the article has now declared it to be "finished", and has been rather aggressive in reverting further changes because he believes new additions that aren't up to the same standards as existing material reduce the overall quality of the article. With stable version flagging, we could mark the version that got FA status and then people could work freely on the article without fear of disruption until a new and improved FA-quality version ensued.
To use your example to explain my feeling on the matter, we *already* can mark the version that got FA status. In fact, it's already marked. If you click on [show] next to the featured article message, you can see quite plainly that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transhumanism&oldid=53177243 is when the article received FA status.
Could we show by default the featured article and make people click through to the work in progress? Yes, although I'm sure it's debatable whether or not we should. If we did that, would this appease the person who's agressive in reverting changes which s/he feels is making the article worse? Probably not. Even if so, are there that many featured articles in the first place? No, so then you've gotta have good articles, and semi-good articles, and non-vandalised articles, etc. Could this be implemented well? Probably, though it would take an awful lot of time and energy to maintain even after the technical parts are implemented. Will it be implemented well? I doubt it.
Anthony
On 4/22/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/22/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 22/04/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
As an example, I've been involved in a bit of a dispute over at [[Transhumanism]] where an editor who's done a lot of work on the article has now declared it to be "finished", and has been rather aggressive in reverting further changes because he believes new additions that aren't up to the same standards as existing material reduce the overall quality of the article. With stable version flagging, we could mark the version that got FA status and then people could work freely on the article without fear of disruption until a new and improved FA-quality version ensued.
To use your example to explain my feeling on the matter, we *already* can mark the version that got FA status. In fact, it's already marked. If you click on [show] next to the featured article message, you can see quite plainly that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transhumanism&oldid=53177243 is when the article received FA status.
Could we show by default the featured article and make people click through to the work in progress? Yes, although I'm sure it's debatable whether or not we should. If we did that, would this appease the person who's agressive in reverting changes which s/he feels is making the article worse? Probably not. Even if so, are there that many featured articles in the first place? No, so then you've gotta have good articles, and semi-good articles, and non-vandalised articles, etc. Could this be implemented well? Probably, though it would take an awful lot of time and energy to maintain even after the technical parts are implemented. Will it be implemented well? I doubt it.
Anthony
The problem with this, imo, is that no matter how excellent a FA is, when it is placed on the front page, it is greatly improved by the large variety of new editors who see the article and add, subtract, or clarify information, or just comment on aspects of the article. My thinking is that it may be a stable version, but the best version of the article comes a week or two after it has been on the front page.
Good article criteria is much looser. There are some awful good articles. I am removing some in the past few days that have problems. There are some FAs that need reviewed, but not truly awful, imo. So, not GAs at all, just FAs, but still, they improve with becoming featured on the main page.
KP
Jeff Raymond wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 22/04/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Personally, I think that once stable versions are finally implemented many of the major deletionism issues that have been going on for years will fade away. That's the change I'd really like to see, it'll make Wikipedia safer for work-in-progress again.
HELL YES.
Man, that's going to be a showdown of epic proportions. I'll again idly note that there's some significant opposition to the idea of article stability, and nothing appears to be happening to address that.
Surely you exaggerate!
Ec
On 22/04/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Please don't mischaracterize those who disagree with you. I don't believe that "no change can ever improve everything", I just think that this specific change of being more aggressive about deleting biographies is not the best way to improve Wikipedia and may in fact be detrimental. As someone said elsethread, "we need to do something, this is something, therefore we need to do this" is flawed logic.
Known as "the Politician's syllogism", it has led to such great moments in British history as the Suez Crisis and the Munich Agreement. (Thanks to [[Sir Humphrey]] for that one...)
On 22/04/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
doc wrote:
Most of the real BLP issues group round biographies of little known people. Bios that be nature can only ever have information about the bit part they played in some small-town scandal, and thus can never be a balanced 'biography' of the person's life. Bios that highlight news that otherwise would be forgotten. Bios that are damaging because they may are the only public biography of the person in existence. Bios that by nature are under-watched. Bios where few will know enough to spot spin and hatchet jobs.
Actually, when I was browsing through that list of {{unreferenced}} biographies last night I didn't come across a single one of these. The only person I found whose notoriety was due to a "scandal" actually looked pretty significant (not just some small-town thing) and had a lot of information about him out on the web. The vast majority of the little-known people with biographies were minor sports figures, singers, actors, models, race car drivers, etc. whose articles were completely non-controversial and didn't mention any scandalous events.
Yes.
The problem is that doing lots of OTRS leaves one with a ridiculously distorted view of the content of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is HUGE.
And it's not run for the benefit of OTRS. I recall Submarine posting to foundation-l that the Foundation should unilaterally delete all school articles from en:wp because they caused lots of OTRS complaints. He did not bother saying one word on en:wp itself or on this list, and did not answer when asked why he had not.
OTRS, it twists the mind.
- d.
On 4/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that doing lots of OTRS leaves one with a ridiculously distorted view of the content of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is HUGE.
I agree. Just as police officers have a distorted view of society through dealing with its worst elements constantly, OTRS volunteers are constantly subjected to the worst, most problematic articles on Wikipedia. It's easy to start thinking these are representative, rather than outliers.
-Matt
On 22/04/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that doing lots of OTRS leaves one with a ridiculously distorted view of the content of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is HUGE.
I agree. Just as police officers have a distorted view of society through dealing with its worst elements constantly, OTRS volunteers are constantly subjected to the worst, most problematic articles on Wikipedia. It's easy to start thinking these are representative, rather than outliers.
These articles are indeed outliers, and we do know that - we do actually edit the rest of the wiki, on occasion, too!
But we have one point seven something million articles as of the time of writing; the absolute number of "outliers" is very, very large. And we can't simply dismiss a problem by saying "well, relatively speaking, it's a small problem" - it's still a problem. Being exposed to it continually makes you more alert to it, but that doesn't mean it's being confabulated.
On 4/22/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that doing lots of OTRS leaves one with a ridiculously distorted view of the content of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is HUGE.
I agree. Just as police officers have a distorted view of society through dealing with its worst elements constantly, OTRS volunteers are constantly subjected to the worst, most problematic articles on Wikipedia. It's easy to start thinking these are representative, rather than outliers.
-Matt
Yes. Statistically, I believe one can both show that quality and consistency of articles is steadily increasing.... and also that as users become more deeply involved in the site, including policing and monitoring growing watchlists, they grow disillusioned with the site, and convinced that community policy-making is falling apart and the site's quality and consistency [often in a specific sub-area] is getting worse.
SJ
Bryan Derksen wrote:
doc wrote:
Most of the real BLP issues group round biographies of little known people. Bios that be nature can only ever have information about the bit part they played in some small-town scandal, and thus can never be a balanced 'biography' of the person's life. Bios that highlight news that otherwise would be forgotten. Bios that are damaging because they may are the only public biography of the person in existence. Bios that by nature are under-watched. Bios where few will know enough to spot spin and hatchet jobs.
Actually, when I was browsing through that list of {{unreferenced}} biographies last night I didn't come across a single one of these. The only person I found whose notoriety was due to a "scandal" actually looked pretty significant (not just some small-town thing) and had a lot of information about him out on the web.
The vast majority of the little-known people with biographies were minor sports figures, singers, actors, models, race car drivers, etc. whose articles were completely non-controversial and didn't mention any scandalous events.
This is consistent with what I would have expected, and is contrary to the oft proclaimed notion that we are the town scandal sheet. It's just that the scandalous minority takes up the majority of time.
Ec
Those who are being libeled and attacked have legal recourse. Daniel Brandt isn't hiding behind anonymity, and I'm fairly certain that Wikipedia Review would cooperate fully in any legal proceedings against any of it's members - that is, assuming that anyone has a legitimate case, which I doubt.
As for those who are suffering other adverse effects, I hold that much of that is their own doing. It's unlikely that a user would face employment problems because of their Wikipedia involvement being "outed" unless they were a) posting libel (ie, Brian Chase) b) editing while on-the-clock, or c) had an active conflict of interest (ie, Katefan0).
doc wrote:
George Herbert wrote:>
Any open source project, content or code or whatever, is subject to or at risk of attacks. This is a fact of life.
Ah, so tough on the people who are being adversely affected, libeled and attacked? We tell them that it is a risk we (sorry, they?) have to run. A fact of life 9for them)?
After all the intensive efforts to set and maintain and enforce BLP policies, no outsider can reasonably claim we aren't trying.
Sorry, but that's crap. Our 'solutions' are utterly unrealistic.
No insider is going to claim we're succeeding perfectly, either.
We can't be perfect. To attain our project's goals, we have to balance technology, people's time, and policies. Lacking "approved version" code, we're doing a pretty good approximation of optimally given what our project stands for and the resource constraints.
Do we also have to balance the harm done to bystanders? Or does collateral damage not feature in the accounting analysis?
Doc
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 21/04/07, Blu Aardvark jewbowales@wikipedia-lol.cjb.net wrote:
As for those who are suffering other adverse effects, I hold that much of that is their own doing. It's unlikely that a user would face employment problems because of their Wikipedia involvement being "outed" unless they were a) posting libel (ie, Brian Chase) b) editing while on-the-clock, or c) had an active conflict of interest (ie, Katefan0).
Or (d) had been actively harassed by Wikipedia Review (e.g. Phil Sandifer).
- d.
Eh, that didn't happen, at least, not in the way you try to paint it.
Phil posted a graphic story online. Someone from Wikipedia Review noticed it, and started a thread about it (Lir, IIRC, but it was quite some time ago, and I don't remember exactly). Someone else, who was probably a Wikipedia Review member (and, if I were to guess, Amorrow), called the police about it. There seemed to have been a pretty legitimate concern; regardless, the police thought it worth questioning.
Now, being questioned by police isn't a form of "harassment", nor is it incredibly likely to cause problems with one's employment situation, which is the specific point I was addressing.
David Gerard wrote:
On 21/04/07, Blu Aardvark jewbowales@wikipedia-lol.cjb.net wrote:
As for those who are suffering other adverse effects, I hold that much of that is their own doing. It's unlikely that a user would face employment problems because of their Wikipedia involvement being "outed" unless they were a) posting libel (ie, Brian Chase) b) editing while on-the-clock, or c) had an active conflict of interest (ie, Katefan0).
Or (d) had been actively harassed by Wikipedia Review (e.g. Phil Sandifer).
- d.
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 4/20/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:>
Any open source project, content or code or whatever, is subject to or at risk of attacks. This is a fact of life.
Ah, so tough on the people who are being adversely affected, libeled and attacked? We tell them that it is a risk we (sorry, they?) have to run. A fact of life 9for them)?
After all the intensive efforts to set and maintain and enforce BLP policies, no outsider can reasonably claim we aren't trying.
Sorry, but that's crap. Our 'solutions' are utterly unrealistic.
No insider is going to claim we're succeeding perfectly, either.
We can't be perfect. To attain our project's goals, we have to balance technology, people's time, and policies. Lacking "approved version" code, we're doing a pretty good approximation of optimally given what our project stands for and the resource constraints.
Do we also have to balance the harm done to bystanders? Or does collateral damage not feature in the accounting analysis?
Doc
Here Here!! I entered Wikipedia Dispute Resolution & Arbitration in Good Faith, only to be viciously defamed in the midst of an ArbCom hearing, with ArbCom turning a blind eye, by default rubber stamping the perpetrators attacks. This problem can be ignored for two years, as seems the intent, but it *must* be dealt wioth sooner of later.
Rob Smith aka Nobs01
James Farrar Well, we could give up, shut down the project, and all go and do something else.
I really think Wikipedia would survive having a biography of living person opt-out for a marginally-notable person. Of course, it's riskless for me to say that. But objectively, *most* of the objections to it seem to be pure dogma. Hence the (by now painful) circularity of argument when this topic comes up - it's driven by many other, ideological, factors besides the nominal difficulties.
On 21/04/07, Seth Finkelstein sethf@sethf.com wrote:
James Farrar Well, we could give up, shut down the project, and all go and do something else.
I really think Wikipedia would survive having a biography ofliving person opt-out for a marginally-notable person.
But first you need to define where the line that separates the notable from the marginally-notable is.
On 4/20/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/04/07, Seth Finkelstein sethf@sethf.com wrote:
I really think Wikipedia would survive having a biography ofliving person opt-out for a marginally-notable person.
But first you need to define where the line that separates the notable from the marginally-notable is.
There isn't going to be a firm line, but a good rule of thumb would be that the greater the role of Wikipedia in increasing the subject's notability, the more we should incline toward deleting the article on request.
On 21/04/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/04/07, Seth Finkelstein sethf@sethf.com wrote:
I really think Wikipedia would survive having a biography ofliving person opt-out for a marginally-notable person.
But first you need to define where the line that separates the notable from the marginally-notable is.
There isn't going to be a firm line, but a good rule of thumb would be that the greater the role of Wikipedia in increasing the subject's notability, the more we should incline toward deleting the article on request.
If there's no firm line, I foresee an awful lot of arguments in the grey area.
James Farrar wrote:
On 21/04/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/04/07, Seth Finkelstein sethf@sethf.com wrote:
I really think Wikipedia would survive having a biography ofliving person opt-out for a marginally-notable person.
But first you need to define where the line that separates the notable from the marginally-notable is.
There isn't going to be a firm line, but a good rule of thumb would be that the greater the role of Wikipedia in increasing the subject's notability, the more we should incline toward deleting the article on request.
If there's no firm line, I foresee an awful lot of arguments in the grey area.
You're telling us something new??? ;-)
Ec
James Farrar But first you need to define where the line that separates the notable from the marginally-notable is.
"But objectively, *most* of the objections to it seem to be pure dogma. Hence the (by now painful) circularity of argument when this topic comes up - it's driven by many other, ideological, factors besides the nominal difficulties."
[That is, WP:ICantForTheLifeOfMeImagineAPolicyWhichCouldExist, is self-refuting]
On 21/04/07, Seth Finkelstein sethf@sethf.com wrote:
James Farrar But first you need to define where the line that separates the notable from the marginally-notable is.
"But objectively, *most* of the objections to it seem to be pure dogma.
I suppose you could call the belief that any policy must be fairly enforceable "pure dogma", but I don't think it helps.
James Farrar I suppose you could call the belief that any policy must be fairly enforceable "pure dogma", but I don't think it helps.
I call the belief that Wikipedia couldn't figure out a policy on this topic a laughably absurd excuse that doesn't deserve a moment of being taken seriously. It is the essence of the difference between "can't" and "doesn't want to" (with "put critics on the defensive" in the mix).
On 21/04/07, Seth Finkelstein sethf@sethf.com wrote:
James Farrar I suppose you could call the belief that any policy must be fairly enforceable "pure dogma", but I don't think it helps.
I call the belief that Wikipedia couldn't figure out a policyon this topic a laughably absurd excuse that doesn't deserve a moment of being taken seriously.
I don't say it can't figure out such a policy. It will be very difficult to do so, and the place where the line of "marginal notability" is to be drawn is key if the policy is not to immediately unravel.
Seth Finkelstein wrote:
James Farrar I suppose you could call the belief that any policy must be fairly enforceable "pure dogma", but I don't think it helps.
I call the belief that Wikipedia couldn't figure out a policy on this topic a laughably absurd excuse that doesn't deserve a moment of being taken seriously. It is the essence of the difference between "can't" and "doesn't want to" (with "put critics on the defensive" in the mix).
Well, of course we already DO have a policy on this: WP:BLP.
Arguments that suggest that any change is equivalent to "might as well shut Wikipedia down" are useless and will of course be sensibly ignored by the community.
"Delete any bio if the subject objects" is pretty clearly too simplistic a policy.
But I think it is entirely possible to strengthen our policies in a way that is consistent with our values and traditions, and broadly acceptable within the community.
One possibility that someone mentioned the other day would be to have a shift in policy that looks something like this:
Whenever the subject of a biography objects on the grounds of being non-notable, the subsequent AFD has a shifted "default"... instead of needing a "consensus to delete" we would have a "consensus to keep".
Another version would say this for ALL bios of living people:
For biographies of living persons, there must be a "consensus to keep" rather than a "consensus to delete".
Another version would say this for ALL bios of living people:
For biographies of living persons, a "majority to delete (taking into account sock puppets, and taking into account the number of edits of those participating in the discussion" shall be sufficient to delete.
Another version... another version. The point is, it would not be difficult or the death of Wikipedia to lean a little bit more in the direction of structural deletionism than we have done in the past. Standards of inclusion shift all the time, and can and will shift again.
We can think creatively about that, rather than engaging in rhetoric about shutting Wikipedia down. :)
--Jimbo
On 4/21/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Arguments that suggest that any change is equivalent to "might as well shut Wikipedia down" are useless and will of course be sensibly ignored by the community.
"Delete any bio if the subject objects" is pretty clearly too simplistic a policy.
But I think it is entirely possible to strengthen our policies in a way that is consistent with our values and traditions, and broadly acceptable within the community.
One possibility that someone mentioned the other day would be to have a shift in policy that looks something like this:
Whenever the subject of a biography objects on the grounds of being non-notable, the subsequent AFD has a shifted "default"... instead of needing a "consensus to delete" we would have a "consensus to keep".
Another version would say this for ALL bios of living people:
For biographies of living persons, there must be a "consensus to keep" rather than a "consensus to delete".
Another version would say this for ALL bios of living people:
For biographies of living persons, a "majority to delete (taking into account sock puppets, and taking into account the number of edits of those participating in the discussion" shall be sufficient to delete.
Those all seem like creative and possibly acceptable solutions, at least so long as "consensus" in "consensus to keep" is treated more like the "supermajority" that is currently the de facto standard.
I think the problem with a bio on Brandt goes beyond the usual, though. [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] seems to apply to that biography for pretty much all active editors, which suggests that all of us should at least exercise great caution when editing the page. I'm not sure a neutral bio can possibly be written about Brandt by Wikipedians.
Another version... another version. The point is, it would not be difficult or the death of Wikipedia to lean a little bit more in the direction of structural deletionism than we have done in the past. Standards of inclusion shift all the time, and can and will shift again.
Well said.
We can think creatively about that, rather than engaging in rhetoric about shutting Wikipedia down. :)
--Jimbo
On 4/21/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
For biographies of living persons, a "majority to delete (taking into account sock puppets, and taking into account the number of edits of those participating in the discussion" shall be sufficient to delete.
<snip>
We can think creatively about that, rather than engaging in rhetoric about shutting Wikipedia down. :)
--Jimbo
I think this is positive. Such a shift would effectively over time reduce the number of low-notability and dubious bios we have - allowing us to focus attention on the rest. Low-notability bios are the problem as 1) they are often the only information on the subject 2) they are normally underwatched. 3) not enough people know about the subject to spot problems, imbalances and lies.
At the same time, this solution leaves the community firmly in control and avoids silly decisions that delete things because technically the sourcing doesn't fall into category x. Each article gets discussed on its merits.
Indeed for those who are concerned about community and democracy, this is a shift towards democracy.
I'd word it:
"For articles on the biographies of living people, deletion shall require only the clear balance of the debate in its favour - which shall normally consist of support of at least the majority of users expressing a relevant opinion"
The notion that such a policy would 'break' wikipedia is ridiculous. It would clearly empower the community to solve some of the issues and not the reverse.
And even if this solution doesn't take, it shows that there are rational alternatives to the status-quo. No need to shut the wiki down yet.
On 4/21/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/21/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Arguments that suggest that any change is equivalent to "might as well shut Wikipedia down" are useless and will of course be sensibly ignored by the community.
"Delete any bio if the subject objects" is pretty clearly too simplistic a policy.
But I think it is entirely possible to strengthen our policies in a way that is consistent with our values and traditions, and broadly acceptable within the community.
One possibility that someone mentioned the other day would be to have a shift in policy that looks something like this:
Whenever the subject of a biography objects on the grounds of being non-notable, the subsequent AFD has a shifted "default"... instead of needing a "consensus to delete" we would have a "consensus to keep".
Another version would say this for ALL bios of living people:
For biographies of living persons, there must be a "consensus to keep" rather than a "consensus to delete".
Another version would say this for ALL bios of living people:
For biographies of living persons, a "majority to delete (taking into account sock puppets, and taking into account the number of edits of those participating in the discussion" shall be sufficient to delete.
Those all seem like creative and possibly acceptable solutions, at least so long as "consensus" in "consensus to keep" is treated more like the "supermajority" that is currently the de facto standard.
I think the problem with a bio on Brandt goes beyond the usual, though. [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] seems to apply to that biography for pretty much all active editors, which suggests that all of us should at least exercise great caution when editing the page. I'm not sure a neutral bio can possibly be written about Brandt by Wikipedians.
I don't think a neutral bio can be written by Brandt himself either, so him claiming it's defaming him, is probably a worse case of WP:COI. Mgm
On 4/22/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/21/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I think the problem with a bio on Brandt goes beyond the usual, though. [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] seems to apply to that biography for pretty much all active editors, which suggests that all of us should at least exercise great caution when editing the page. I'm not sure a neutral bio can possibly be written about Brandt by Wikipedians.
I don't think a neutral bio can be written by Brandt himself either, so him claiming it's defaming him, is probably a worse case of WP:COI.
Huh? What does WP:COI have to do with claiming that something is defaming you? Can you expand on that?
Anthony
On 4/21/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We are an encyclopedia, and an open source content project. Our objective, as a project, is to create and host content. That includes biographies of people who are alive.
Any open source project, content or code or whatever, is subject to or at risk of attacks. This is a fact of life.
Let's describe this "risk of attacks" to an "open source project" in more realistic terms: real harm done to real people on a daily basis. This isn't a bit of code that we can assign a "no warrantees" disclaimer on. We have to take the damage very seriously.
On 4/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/21/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We are an encyclopedia, and an open source content project. Our objective, as a project, is to create and host content. That includes biographies of people who are alive.
Any open source project, content or code or whatever, is subject to or at risk of attacks. This is a fact of life.
Let's describe this "risk of attacks" to an "open source project" in more realistic terms: real harm done to real people on a daily basis. This isn't a bit of code that we can assign a "no warrantees" disclaimer on. We have to take the damage very seriously.
And Linus Torvalds doesn't? A vulnerabilty snuck into Linux today would potentially affect half the servers on the Internet. A vulnerability snuck into Apache would affect a vast majority of the websites on the Internet. MySQL and PostgreSQL? Perl? Billions of dollars are at stake with those. Not being personally responsible for the goof wouldn't make the horrific consequences go away.
Existing presumably accidental vulnerabilities in all the above DO constitute a major fact of life for IT staff and managers, and cause security exposures somewhere on the net on a daily basis, with real financial and employement and privacy effects on real people. Every day.
We should take damage that Wikipedia can cause to people seriously. And we do. BLP sets the policy framework, that what you say about live people has to be better sourced and more neutral if it's at all negative, and then some. People watch biographies as closely as any other single class of articles. The stable versions upgrade to Mediawiki will hopefully eliminate the driveby anon or throwaway account bio vandalism problem, and that upgrade is if ambiguously off in the distance at least a well understood, well agreed to technical upgrade in the works.
Society and the law say that you have to treat people's reputations with some care. But the standards for that care are far below what Wikipedia already does. We can hold ourselves to higher standards, and we do. If we try to set those standards too high, we hamstring the project's goals to build the encyclopedia and create both open content and a site and technology to promote the creation of more open content.
There seems to be a strong argument being put forth here that we're neglegent by legal and/or societal standards in our handling of living persons biographies. We aren't. We're one of the better sites on the Internet from those perspectives. We should neither be complacent or underestimate the scope of the problem or be insensitive to how people feel when they're bitten by it, nor cripple the project and denigrate ourselves endlessly for the fact that it is still a major issue.
We're doing OK. Don't break it trying to "Fix" it.
On 4/21/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Let's describe this "risk of attacks" to an "open source project" in more realistic terms: real harm done to real people on a daily basis. This isn't a bit of code that we can assign a "no warrantees" disclaimer on. We have to take the damage very seriously.
And Linus Torvalds doesn't? A vulnerabilty snuck into Linux today would potentially affect half the servers on the Internet. A vulnerability snuck into Apache would affect a vast majority of the websites on the Internet. MySQL and PostgreSQL? Perl? Billions of dollars are at stake with those. Not being personally responsible for the goof wouldn't make the horrific consequences go away.
Quite. But look what the lkml is doing about it. Compared to them, we're still *literally* doing the equivalent of letting anybody commit to the main release tree and them umming-and-ahing about whether we'll take bug reports seriously and, you know, actually remove components that are causing damage.
On 4/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/21/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Let's describe this "risk of attacks" to an "open source project" in more realistic terms: real harm done to real people on a daily basis. This isn't a bit of code that we can assign a "no warrantees" disclaimer on. We have to take the damage very seriously.
And Linus Torvalds doesn't? A vulnerabilty snuck into Linux today would potentially affect half the servers on the Internet. A vulnerability snuck into Apache would affect a vast majority of the websites on the Internet. MySQL and PostgreSQL? Perl? Billions of dollars are at stake with those. Not being personally responsible for the goof wouldn't make the horrific consequences go away.
Quite. But look what the lkml is doing about it. Compared to them, we're still *literally* doing the equivalent of letting anybody commit to the main release tree and them umming-and-ahing about whether we'll take bug reports seriously and, you know, actually remove components that are causing damage.
We're not that bad. And a lot of that will get reduced with Stable Versions (taking commit rights away from most people, in software version control terms).
The problem is that we can only go so far to separate biographies out and treat them differently. We can't do a complete technical solution - even some sort of biography flag could be missed or undone or subverted, and there's nothing keeping someone from putting "Mister Skinner, the school's principal, is gay and sleeps with his male students" on a School article, or in a town's article, etc. That would be just as googleable as a bio on Leonard Skinner (example from The Simpsons, hopefully there's no real school principal who will take offense at this example...).
We can ban anon contributors, and make getting accounts harder. But that will cut down on contributions, and most contributions aren't vandalism, even anon contributions.
We can implement stable versions. That takes "Commit" away from the teeming masses.
We can continue to care about the problem and pay attention to it.
But we can't make it go away. And even if we could, it wouldn't solve the MySpace/YouTube/Blogosphere problems people have with libel and online attacks.
Are we a worse component of the problem than everyone else? No. Are we handling it more or less responsibly than everyone else? More.
Case closed. We're ok. Not happy-no-problem ok - it's legitimately an issue. But we don't need to tear the project apart over it.
On 4/21/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Case closed. We're ok. Not happy-no-problem ok - it's legitimately an issue. But we don't need to tear the project apart over it.
I think we're in broad agreement there, though I think your use of "case closed" is unfortunate. We certainly don't need to do anything that would harm the project in any way, but this doesn't mean that we shouldn't take the problem much more seriously than we have so far.
There is at present a very serious tension between the OTRS workers and the rest of the community. Of its nature the work is often controversial has to be done discreetly and "under the radar" of the community, because a long drama-strewn discussion thread is the last thing we need. And the workload is increasing all the time. The work is essential, but I'm not happy with the fact that it has to be done like this.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Quite. But look what the lkml is doing about it. Compared to them, we're still *literally* doing the equivalent of letting anybody commit to the main release tree and them umming-and-ahing about whether we'll take bug reports seriously and, you know, actually remove components that are causing damage.
We don't "umm and ah" about it, we've got a number of vigorous mechanisms to deal with such problems.
I think a lot of the difficulty lies in the fact that some of the "problems" that people point out about articles are not, in fact, actual problems. People claim things are libel which are not, or claim they're not public figures when they really are, etc. If someone were to submit a bug report to Linus about how they were unable to use Linux to repair the flat tire on their bicycle, it's not a problem when Linus fails to address the issue.
We have the mechanisms in place, but it appears we need to attract more knowledgeable people. It's the ignorant ones and the vandals who cause the problem.
We can either keep our eyes open and handle problems as they arise and improve the technical means we have available to deal with issues or get rid of the people causing the problem, but it's already clear that removing editing priviliges of anons or severly restricting them on any editor is not going to get community approval.
ZMgm
On 21/04/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I strongly disagree that we refuse to take any real steps to reduce the harm. There are a lot of good people who watch for bio article changes. We have additional steps and procedure and policy clearly defined for detection and handling of bio article problems.
The problem is, this is mitigating the harm when it appears, not reducing the potential.
We can mitigate the harm, on the whole, not too shabbily. We have our patrollers and our processes, and we have a glorious technical innovation on the horizon which should catch another third or so, and we're pretty good at taking stuff out as soon as someone complains - in fact, we're sufficiently good that when I reply to a complaint about vandalism on a page, it actually seems embarassingly bad unless I can say "was only there two minutes".
But let's examine the actual problem. It falls into two classes. One is routine defacement, where we are the victim, which we can handle pretty well - standard vandalism. The other is malicious editing, where the victim isn't us but is some third party. This is what Doc and I are concerned about.
We can't really reduce the former, other than by limiting editing - it happens to all articles at any particular time. But the latter tends to revolve around a (fuzzily-definable) set of articles, which are - broadly speaking - mostly "contemporary individuals", with some "current issues" as well. If not looked after by a reasonably competent editor, these often devolve into hatchetjobs by one or two people with an axe to grind; once a competent editor or three has their hand in the process, though, they're usually not too bad.
A large portion of these are safe - we have enough eyeballs on them that it's virtually impossible to seriously defame [[George W. Bush]] or [[Hillary Clinton]] or even anyone down to about the level of [[Nick Griffin]], for a random example. On the whole, most people with real first-class (or even third-class) importance get enough eyeballs this way; it's a truism to say that the more interesting the topic of an article to the world, the more likely it is to be maintained.
And even articles on trivially notable people - obscure individuals of limited importance, the fundamentally *unimportant* articles - can be made good; all it needs is one person with a sense of decency, some common sense, and the willingness to keep checking. I have dozens or hundreds of these on my watchlist, from an article on a porn starlet where someone keeps trying to add her personal background to a computer theorist who a crank decided is Really A Man And The World Needs To Know.* So do many others; we pick them up in our normal routine.
The problem is, not all of them get this care. We only have so many people willing to maintain things - this isn't a jab at people, I've reached pretty much a limit myself - and the eternal turnover means that articles which were once "curated" will eventually be unloved again.
So we have these articles which are risky, and of those we have some which are looked after by the community and some which aren't. Of the latter, the subjects themselves - with admirable fortitude - keep some clean, but generally less succesfully than we can; and we have a final class of unloved, risky, articles.
These are the problem. They are targets for vandalism, and the community lets them sit there. We can mitigate the harm when we become wise to it, add another article to the list of things our ever-patient users work on, but the harm's been done once - and then consider all the ones we never hear about.
So what we should be considering is some way of identifying these "risky" articles and doing something about them. Perhaps the ones who are of the most risk of hatchetry plus the least general importance should be prioritised, if we can figure out an evaluation system. I don't know how we can best deal with these articles. Deleting the extreme cases is one solution, and a tempting one. Deletion is strongly unpopular; merging back into a parent topic only a bit less so.
But in order to actively reduce the harm we are doing, these are the articles we need to take a good look at; we need to look at the culture we have which thinks "keep, cleanup" is a useful comment at an AFD, and then fails to do anything about it, leading to articles the community vaguely "wants kept" but which are unmaintainable. They are our most "dangerous" articles, and the least critical to our mission.
Andrew Gray wrote:
So what we should be considering is some way of identifying these "risky" articles and doing something about them. Perhaps the ones who are of the most risk of hatchetry plus the least general importance should be prioritised, if we can figure out an evaluation system.
More could probably be done at a technical level, but given the difficulty of getting stable version implemented as a simple yes/no feature hope for something more sophisticated seems far more distant. I hate to criticize our technical people on this, because they must have their hands full just keeping up with the priority of making sure the whole enterprise keeps running.
I find it easy to suggest statistical evaluation processes that would do this. Perhaps it's just a matter of having someone who can devote himself to such initiatives without the obligations connected with daily maintenance to keep him distracted.
Ec
On 4/21/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
I consider our current attitude to the biographies of living persons to be positively immoral. We know people are being adversely affected, libeled and harassed. We know people are having to check their articles daily because of the danger of malicious attacks. And yet we hide behind the belief that we are legally untouchable and we refuse to take any real steps to reduce the harm, on the basis that 'it isn't how we do things', it might upset our users, or it might inadvertently take out a precious article on a webcomic as collateral. Well, the collateral to real people, in the real world, is now unacceptable.
We greedily insist on retaining as many articles as we can when we evidently cannot properly monitor them. That is immoral. We should not be hosting articles on people that we cannot reasonably service.
In other words we should find some way to monitor those articles properly. It doesn't happen now, but that doesn't we can't do it. We've set up more complex systems. If articles aren't being monitored now, deleting a bunch isn't going improve the situation, it wouldn't actually make people monitor articles.
Mgm
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 4/20/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
If Brandt wants to sincerely work with us to achieve that -- fixing any remaining flaws in his biography, and working with us to identify strategies to keep it, and other similar articles, sane -- then he should say so. He should stop his obsessive-compulsive crusade against Wikipedia, including his ridiculous attempts to unmask individual users, and recognize that he is dealing with a group of people who mean him no harm. He could have worked with this group of people a long time ago. But apparently having some enemy to rail against is more satisfying.
Would it be an accceptable compromise to revert the article to the version Brandt declared himself happy with in October 2005, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&oldid=25614242 update it a little, add some citations, then protect it for a longish period until feelings have died down? If Brandt reciprocates by refraining from commenting elsewhere on Wikpedia issues, the excitement over his bio will diminish and most reasonable people will be too bored to start the issue up again when it's unprotected.
Coming from you as one of the offended people this is certainly a positive suggestion. This could at least be done until stable versions are implemented, which we are constantly reassured are just around the corner.
Commenting on Wikipedia elsewhere should not be the problem; this is after all a very high profile website. Restricting his personal comments about individual Wikipedians would be more desirable.
Ec
On 4/20/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Would it be an accceptable compromise to revert the article to the version Brandt declared himself happy with in October 2005, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&oldid=25614242 update it a little, add some citations, then protect it for a longish period until feelings have died down? If Brandt reciprocates by refraining from commenting elsewhere on Wikpedia issues, the excitement over his bio will diminish and most reasonable people will be too bored to start the issue up again when it's unprotected.
Part of the problem with the bio is that it has been unstable -- 2446 edits by 718 unique editors, including 271 IP addresses, which is a lot for a borderline notable page. That is the core of Brandt's objection, namely that there are too many anonymous editors involved in writing it, so that he has to keep on checking it, and he feels this is a burden. The flaw in his position is that Brandt himself caused this situation by stirring up people's interest. If he would stop doing that once the page was protected, the issue would die down, and he'd be left with a brief, factual entry that would do him no harm at all.
Sarah
Reverting to that version would remove any mention of Wikipedia criticism. So no, I don't think that's acceptable. As for anon editors: that's what semi-protection is for. Yes, he would get a lot less attention if he stopped asking for it in the first place.
On 4/20/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Failure to do so is actionable if the content is illegal, assuming that the Board is made aware of the situation.
It would not be wise to discuss legal strategy in public. That said, I think the idea that Brandt's article is "illegal" is preposterous.
The fact is that his could be the opposite strategy - by threatening the foundation in to making a decision here, they would acknowledge that they are the final decision maker and thus bring additional problems. The decision makers on what content to keep should remain a community decision with libelous content, etc quickly removed by the community. The foundation is only a provider of services and is not responsible for the content that is put on those services, and to exercise any other power because they own the servers would put their status as a service provider in jeapordy.
In other words - it looks like Brandt's strategy is to use legal threats to get the board to do some action that will undermine their very solid legal position.
Jim (Trodel)
On 4/25/07, Jim trodel@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Failure to do so is actionable if the content is illegal, assuming that the Board is made aware of the situation.
It would not be wise to discuss legal strategy in public. That said, I think the idea that Brandt's article is "illegal" is preposterous.
The fact is that his could be the opposite strategy - by threatening the foundation in to making a decision here, they would acknowledge that they are the final decision maker and thus bring additional problems. The decision makers on what content to keep should remain a community decision with libelous content, etc quickly removed by the community. The foundation is only a provider of services and is not responsible for the content that is put on those services, and to exercise any other power because they own the servers would put their status as a service provider in jeapordy.
In other words - it looks like Brandt's strategy is to use legal threats to get the board to do some action that will undermine their very solid legal position.
Jim (Trodel)
I think you just hit the nail on the head. ~~~~
Brandt's right on one thing. Unblocking him was a complete waste of time. We either delete his bio or we don't. His state of blockedness is entirely irrelevant to that decision. This whole business has been handled with neither clarity nor unity of purpose, and has merely generated a whole load of mostly irrelevant discussion. We should block him, delete the bio, and move on. Eventually the fuss from those who don't like the deletion will die off.
The problem with reverting/protecting back to one version Brandt liked a while ago is that we don't know he'll like it now, and he hasn't told us what he doesn't like about the current version. Gah, what a depressing mess. Kill the article, please!
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your mobile. http://www.msn.txt4content.com/
On 4/20/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Brandt's right on one thing. Unblocking him was a complete waste of time.
I don't think so. This has started a dialog of sorts between the community and Daniel Brandt, in which the side issues have been drowned out, for the most part, by honest attempts to address legitimate issues. This is more progress than we could have asked for just a week ago.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 4/20/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Brandt's right on one thing. Unblocking him was a complete waste of time.
I don't think so. This has started a dialog of sorts between the community and Daniel Brandt, in which the side issues have been drowned out, for the most part, by honest attempts to address legitimate issues. This is more progress than we could have asked for just a week ago.
Since he has declared that he has no general interest in editing Wikipedia the ban is largely immaterial and symbolic.
Ec
On 4/21/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 4/20/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Brandt's right on one thing. Unblocking him was a complete waste of time.
I don't think so. This has started a dialog of sorts between the community and Daniel Brandt, in which the side issues have been drowned out, for the most part, by honest attempts to address legitimate issues. This is more progress than we could have asked for just a week ago.
Since he has declared that he has no general interest in editing Wikipedia the ban is largely immaterial and symbolic.
Not quite. Notwithstanding his recent statement, see the text of his open letter of April 11th, a copy of which I have placed on the talk page of his article. In it he says "At the same time, I want to point out that the main reason I want my editing privileges restored is because I feel that I have the right to comment on my biography on the Talk page for that biography."
That wish was granted, and it was apparently on his own request that he has been blocked again. Symbolism? Yes, but a very important symbol of openness and good faith.
On 4/20/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Brandt's right on one thing. Unblocking him was a complete waste of time. We either delete his bio or we don't. His state of blockedness is entirely irrelevant to that decision. This whole business has been handled with neither clarity nor unity of purpose, and has merely generated a whole load of mostly irrelevant discussion. We should block him, delete the bio, and move on. Eventually the fuss from those who don't like the deletion will die off.
The problem with reverting/protecting back to one version Brandt liked a while ago is that we don't know he'll like it now, and he hasn't told us what he doesn't like about the current version. Gah, what a depressing mess. Kill the article, please!
Moreschi
So if someone causes enough of a depressing mess on a certain article you'd give in and delete it? Now that's depressing. Don't let vandals hear it, or they'll start causing problems in more articles than you could imagine.
Daniel Brandt wrote:
I feel that Jimmy Wales made the wrong decision when he unbanned me a couple of days ago.
Ooooookay. You asked me to do it, and I did it. Now you ask me to undo it, and I am undoing it.
We can and should continue to talk privately about the other parts of your request, in an effort to find some useful compromise position.
--Jimbo
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: fredbaud@waterwiki.info, English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales should reconsider Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:31:20 +0200
Daniel Brandt wrote:
I feel that Jimmy Wales made the wrong decision when he unbanned me a couple of days ago.
Ooooookay. You asked me to do it, and I did it. Now you ask me to undo it, and I am undoing it.
We can and should continue to talk privately about the other parts of your request, in an effort to find some useful compromise position.
--Jimbo
Um, Brandt asked to be reblocked where? I've read that email that Fred forwarded to here, and that's definitely not what Brandt was getting at. Please see ANI, but I'm confused...again...what a mess.
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail is evolving - check out the new Windows Live Hotmail http://get.live.com/betas/mail_betas
Christiano Moreschi wrote:
Daniel Brandt wrote:
I feel that Jimmy Wales made the wrong decision when he unbanned me a couple of days ago.
Ooooookay. You asked me to do it, and I did it. Now you ask me to undo it, and I am undoing it.
We can and should continue to talk privately about the other parts of your request, in an effort to find some useful compromise position.
--Jimbo
Um, Brandt asked to be reblocked where? I've read that email that Fred forwarded to here, and that's definitely not what Brandt was getting at. Please see ANI, but I'm confused...again...what a mess.
He wrote "I feel that Jimmy Wales made the wrong decision when he unbanned me a couple of days ago." and "I ask that Mr. Wales reconsider."
--Jimbo