On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Apoc 2400 <apoc2400(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there anyone here who can do something about this before it becomes an > even bigger wheel-war?

Yes, the Arbcom has done something about it. Specifically, it has patted them on the head and said, 'good job, guys! Just be quieter in the future'. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Reques…

    The Committee hereby proclaims an amnesty for all editors who may have overstepped the bounds of policy in this matter. Everyone is

our project. The Committee recommends, in particular, that a request for comments be opened to centralize discussion on the most efficient way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people."

Translation: BLP now means anything whatsoever unsourced is evil & to be burned with fire; anything is justified in pursuit of previous;

IAR now means flagrant admin abuses are justified if you can cite imaginary bits of a policy, and other admins have to sit there and take it;

silent mass deletions are now an acceptable admin tactic.

I particularly enjoy the 'innocuous statements' point. It's reminiscent of the best Cold War paranoia: your friend, your co-worker, or even your dog could secretly be a Commie agent! No one is safe! Not even *you*. I have a list of 55 unsourced innocuous-seeming statements in the [[State Department]]...

2010/1/21 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>: Added to the newly-opened RFC page: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comme… - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

2010/1/21 Gwern Branwen <gwern0(a)gmail.com>om>:

That bit's not ideal, I'd think they should be listed first. Perhaps a {{BLP-prod}}, where someone has a few days to put the references in. OR THE ARTICLE DIES.

Just restored a former prime minister.

I see a lot of mindless fetishism of sourcing here,

but suppose Cunctator resurrected an article and stuck in a random newspaper article for the claim 'Foo was married in 1967.' Nobody disputed that before; nobody disputed that after; no new information was added. How *exactly* is the article better?

Is it better because some hypothetical viewer might one day go, hm, I wonder if he really was married in 1967, and will look at the cite and be relieved? Speaking from personal experience on the _Evangelion_ articles: I have on multiple occasions spent hours or weeks tracking down some fact widely accepted amongst Eva fans & academic commentators to its original source and found it. And then felt a sick hollow feeling as I realize that all I have done is waste my life satisfying RS standards, when the fans and professors knew it all along because they trust each other and their forebears and can see for themselves the consilience of all those commonly accepted facts.

Just restored a former prime minister. On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

"Community consensus" isn't a valid reason to violate BLP. en:wp is a top-5 website of massive impact, not a personal playground enjoying something akin to parliamentary privilege 'cos it says so.

2010/1/21 Emily Monroe <bluecaliocean(a)me.com>om>: "Community consensus" isn't a valid reason to violate BLP. en:wp is a top-5 website of massive impact, not a personal playground enjoying something akin to parliamentary privilege 'cos it says so. - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Now, presumably if I use the IMDB biog as a reference I bet I will be done for copyvio, even though our article came *first*. So... what to do? Deletion looms.

Arb Com at this point seems very willing to encourage arbitrary action by administrators, when we really need to be be moving in the opposite direction, of requiring greater admin responsibility and care.

I agree that either before or now -- indeed, any possible rule, an admin is more likely to succeed with an unchecked deletion if the articles actually turn out to be unsourceable, than if they turn out to be notable and sourceable. But it is reckless to delete without checking first unless immediate harm is apparent, and arb com actually used "commend" to describe the act of doing just that sort of single-handed thoughtless deletion. I mention an earlier proposal that single handed deletion is only possible for G10 G11 and truly routine administration. At least then there will be a second admin involved. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

"Community consensus" isn't a valid reason to violate BLP. en:wp is a top-5 website of massive impact,

not a personal playground enjoying something akin to parliamentary privilege 'cos it says so.

2010/1/21 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>: Your reading comprehension appears defective, as I was saying the opposite.

I oppose this mass deletion but support the theory behind it, that is to say, I would support this deletion criteria but believe this to be out of process. Being Bold doesn't extend to administrator tools, IMHO. This reminds me of the Userbox mass deletion fiasco of January 2006, see RFC/Kelly Martin

It is easier to attack than defend. If you want to justify high standards and removal, there are easy arguments: 'what if this could be another Seigenthaler?' 'what if this is fancruft Wikipedia will be criticized for including?' If you want to defend, you have... what? Even the mockery of _The New Yorker_ didn't convince several editors that [[Neil Gaiman]] should cover Scientology. There is no beacon example of deletionism's grievous errors.

We're historically prone to having people (especially at CSD) assume that an earlier deletion is itself a strong black mark - if an article was deleted earlier, there must have been a good reason for it, they figure.

2010/1/21 The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com>om>: I am carefully staying out of this on all sides (hey, I've got a weekend off, I'm looking forward to some peace), but this flags up one issue I'd really like to see brought up in these discussions: * an emphasis that these are "procedural" deletions, and not in any way reflective of the merits of the topic of the article. A high proportion of these unsourced-BLPs are going to be on the sorts of topics that no-one will particularly cry to see deleted; drive-by puff pieces and contentless stubs. However, a lot more will simply be "bad articles on good topics"; significant figures, whose notability even the most exclusionist would agree on, but who we have not yet managed to write a halfway decent article on. (I could name a few, easily!) We're historically prone to having people (especially at CSD) assume that an earlier deletion is itself a strong black mark - if an article was deleted earlier, there must have been a good reason for it, they figure. Whatever comes out of this, it would be good to see something firmly stating that these articles were deleted because they were textually bad, not conceptually bad, and people are encouraged to recreate them as better versions. (and now, back to planning my trip) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

2010/1/21 Gwern Branwen <gwern0(a)gmail.com>om>: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Apoc 2400 <apoc2400(a)gmail.com> wrote:

That bit's not ideal, I'd think they should be listed first. Perhaps a {{BLP-prod}}, where someone has a few days to put the references in. OR THE ARTICLE DIES. - d.

And to disagree with Gwern: sourcing matters. You can correct subtle mistakes, misunderstandings, and sometimes errors of fact in the process of sourcing (I sourced a bio the other day where the husband of the person involved had died in between when the bio was created and when I worked on it; someone has to change "is married to.." eventually and that's not the kind of thing you want to guess at). Not to mention all the implications for readers, the larger project, etc. etc. But personally I pick and choose, and only work on people whose lives I find interesting -- I give the footballers, the olympians, and the pop stars a miss. Those seem to be the bulk of BLPs, though, and it seems like there are ought to be a good way to source those en masse, maybe through the relevant wikiprojects. -- phoebe

Agreed with David G. on this point. The general sentiment to keep up with BLPs is ok, I think; but most of the time sources can be found for most bios. (And yes, I do make an occasional hobby of sourcing random BLPs

it's hard work and takes at least a good hour or two per bio to do properly, and that's with access to a full university library).

Sheesh. I was on a press conference call today with one of the deleted people as a speaker. *Robert Corell* is the Director of the Global Change Program at The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment and is a Senior Policy Fellow at the Policy Program of the American Meteorological Society<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Meteorological_Society>ty>, and he recently completed an appointment as a Senior Research Fellow in the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfer_Center_for_Science_and_Inter… the Kennedy School of Government<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_School_of_Government>… Harvard University <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University> which began in January 2000. He is currently actively engaged in research concerned with both the science of global change and the interface between science and public policy. He is particularly interested in global and regional climate change <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change> and related environmental issues, and in the science to facilitate understanding of vulnerability and sustainable development<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development> . Dr. Corell is the co-chairman of an international strategic planning group that is developing the strategy for and the programs and activities that are designed to harness science, technology and innovation for sustainable development. This planning effort is sponsored by the International Council for Science <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Council_for_Science>(ICSU), the Third World Academy of Sciences<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World_Academy_of_Sciences>…(TWAS), and a major international initiative, supported in part from a grant from the Packard Foundation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packard_Foundation>entitled “An International Initiative for Science Technology, and Innovation for Sustainability (ISTS).” He is the leader of an international partnership intended to better understand and plan for a transition to hydrogen<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen>for several nations, entitled the “Global Hydrogen Partnership,” currently focused on Iceland <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland>, India<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India>ia>, and the eight Arctic nations seeking to address this important new energy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy>strategy and economic policy. Dr. Corell is leading a research project to explore methods, models, and conceptual frameworks for vulnerability research, analysis, and assessment. The current focus of which is on vulnerabilities of indigenous communities in the Arctic. Further, he currently serves as the Chair of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Climate_Impact_Assessment…nt>; an international assessment of the impacts of climate variability, change, and UV increases in the Arctic Region, and the Chair of an international planning R&D effort for the Arctic region and with a time scale of a decade or two ahead. He is also the Senior Science Advisor to ManyOne Networks<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManyOne_Networks>ks>, a Silicon Valley <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley> team designing the next generation of Internet Web Browser, the initial focus on planet earth and Chair of the Board of the Digital Universe Foundation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Universe_Foundation> . Prior to January 2000, Dr. Corell was Assistant Director for Geosciences at the National Science Foundation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation>(… where he had oversight for the Atmospheric, Earth, and Ocean Sciences and the global change programs of the NSF. While at the NSF, Dr. Corell also served as the Chair of the National Science and Technology Council<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_and_Technology_Cou… committee that has oversight of the U.S. Global Change Research Program<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Global_Change_Research_Program… was Chair of the international committee of government agencies funding global change research. Further, he served as Chair and principal U.S. delegate to many international bodies with interests in and responsibilities for climate and global change research programs. Prior to joining the NSF, Dr. Corell was a Professor and academic administrator at the University of New Hampshire<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_New_Hampshire>re>. Dr. Corell is an oceanographer and engineer by background and training, having received the Ph.D., M.S. and B.S. degrees at the Case Western Reserve University and MIT and has held appointments at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woods_Hole_Oceanographic_Instit…on>, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scripps_Institution_of_Oceanog…hy>, the University of Washington<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Washington>on>, and Case Western Reserve University<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Western_Reserve_University&… . On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Carcharoth &lt;carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:46 PM, George Herbert &lt;george.herbert(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Corell

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:46 PM, George Herbert &lt;george.herbert(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Corell

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Carcharoth &lt;carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: PS. I forgot. "Bob Corell" gets a lot of hits as well, and should be a redirect also. Carcharoth _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Carcharoth wrote: But I don't think the issue will be resolved by more "guidelines". This is an interesting example where the web material is largely of the kind of self-validating, not really third-party stuff that can be problematic. (I don't think having the biography is problematic, but the critical approach is quite helpful here, in indicating what it should contain.) There is a great deal of point in being selective: much of academia has to be taken on similar terms, and I don't think we should slide too far into rejecting departmental home pages as references.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Sarah Ewart &lt;sarahewart(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: george.herbert(a)gmail.com&gt;wroteote: And no-one has yet created a redirect? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Corell He also received the [[Brazilian Order of Scientific Merit]] (I got that from "what links here", and then went looking for a source to confirm that). http://www.mct.gov.br/index.php/content/view/11199.html And from here (IEEE Transactions on Geoscience Electronics, November 1968): http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=04043245 You can get his birth year (1934) and day (4 November) and other details. But that is a lucky find. Most sources don't say when he was born, and that is generally an indication that comprehensive biographical material is scarce, which in turn implies that no-one else has yet really written a comprehensive biography. Which comes back to the point of whether Wikipedia should be the first to do so (we can produce something similar to the mini-biographies already out there, such as the four that The Cunctator found, which are either institutional bios, or conference bios, but we can't go beyond that until other sources do, which is generally towards the end of someone's career, or at the point when obituaries are written). It also looks like it was rescued in a rush, six errors in grammar or composition: "is prominent climate scientist" "and he formerly as a" "to ManyOne Networks, the and Chair" "funding global change research" The "sustainable development" header has stray formatting "and international partnership" I wonder how many years it would have been before someone copyedited it to fix those problems? I guess we will never know now. But this feeds into my point about whether such articles should be brought to a minimum standard, instead of roughly referenced along with a lot of others ones being worked on at the same time, and then the people doing this rough-and-ready referencing moving on to other articles? My standards would be to ensure minimum copyediting standards have been met, that the birth year has been found and securely referenced, and that a standalone biography (even if only a mini-biography from who they work for, or a conference biography, or some form of press release) is found and used as a reference. Carcharoth _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Sometimes I don't understand people. Carcharoth goes to the trouble of finding his birth date, learning he received the Brazilian Order of Merit, and lists out some copy errors, but then doesn't fix the page? I mean, what's the point?

I re-copy edited it. It was rescued in a rush, and improved in a rush. The next step is to collate with the original article., and then to look for good additional material.

Some of the above discussions imply much too high a standard, both for what should be in Wikipedia and for what the quality of the content in Wikipedia should be. We are not producing a definitive scholarly resource, nor are our basic methods adapted to doing so--scholarship requires critical evaluation and editorial control, two things we are unable to provide.

What we can provide is a rough-and-ready general reference work, and our strength is the potential for of a large group of amateurs to be extremely comprehensive  , and include a wider range of material than any conventional method of work has ever provided.

It can neither make true judgments of importance, nor will it  be guaranteed accurate--those who want to read such have the full range of conventional sources at their disposal, and another goal of the free scholarship movement --different from ours-- is to make these more widely available. Those who want to  write a this level need to write in the more conventional way, a way that requires qualified researchers with access to the full range of relevant sources, and trained editors with professional standards.

The goal for BLPs --or any other topic--cannot be the complete avoidance of error, for not even the most professional of resources have the ability to do that. Not even the most carefully edited publications have succeeded in being free from hoaxes and libel. The goal is to be as reasonably correct as possible, to remove obvious error when pointed out to us, and have working policies that will exclude the worst blunders and discourage the use for libel, propaganda, and promotion.  The only way to avoid these entirely is to include nothing at all about anything involving anyone living or any living writer-- some of our worst BLP problems involve our comments on living authors.

The easiest thing is to write nothing. The second easiest to is eliminate material without thinking. The third easiest, is a little different, for it  is to write without thinking. We  can not exclude the thoughtless from working here, either to make foolish positive contributions or foolish negative edits, and only the most reckless of all or the most obviously biased can actually be rejected.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Carcharoth &lt;carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: <snip> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessm… * B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. * B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. * B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. * B4. It is free from major grammatical errors. * B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. Should all BLPs meet that standard? Carcharoth _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

a case of a BDP

but I actually created two articles about the same person once, who had been a professor on both sides of the Channel, as was pointed out by someone looking over my shoulder from frWP).

* B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. * B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. * B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. * B4. It is free from major grammatical errors. * B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. Should all BLPs meet that standard?

Does anyone have a summary of the articles deleted in the present blood-crazed axe frenzy? Is there a list up? And/or a description of the general type of BLP deleted? I understand many were hardly-viewed articles with no edits in the last six months. Which sounds innocuous enough, but remember that [[John Seigenthaler]] was one of those until the subject noticed.

2010/1/21 David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; I don't get the entire controversy: is it not the case that only *statements* can be sourced, and not entire articles? Does that not mean that if  [[John Seigenthaler]] contained at least one <ref> at the time, it wouldn't have been affected by this? So why not go the whole hog and delete all BLPs where not every statement is sourced? Michel