BLP idea:
Negative or contentious facts should not be in a BLP article unless more than one unrelated source covers it. That would keep the one-note negative crap right out. Apply notability standards to *facts*, not just topics. Ben Affleck had a nasty divorce from Jennifer Lopez: Notable, lots of sources. Keep. Ben Affleck did x, y, or z illegal thing to J-Lo, reported by one otherwise "good" or acceptable source. No other independent coverage. Exclude ferociously. The base notion is that while some people may be 'notable', not all they do is, or can be. What George Bush for example does in private at the Crawford ranch, outside his official duties, is not inherently notable--unless society makes it so. We don't get to decide on that either; we report. By that token, we can choose to not include facts that aren't corroborated and multiply sourced that are of a negative or contentious tone.
Good idea, or bad?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 6/7/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
BLP idea:
Negative or contentious facts should not be in a BLP article unless more than one unrelated source covers it. Good idea, or bad?
The 'negative' part has little merit. The 'contentious' and 'unrelated' parts are article-destroying.
"It's contentious! You need TWO cites for that!" "Why is it contentious?" "Because I'm disputing it, so it's contentious." *A little while later* "I added a cite for the Wall Street Journal in addition to the New York Times." "The New York Times clearly used the WSJ article as a source! Therefore, they're related and the source cannot be used."
There's also the workload to bring existing articles into compliance. Consider for a moment our article on [[Tony Blair]]. It's safe to assume that everything in the Criticism section is contentious or negative. Someone would need to sit down and find 26 more citations just to satisfy this rule and not have the article degenerate. That's at least two hours of work that doesn't actually accomplish anything.
There's a possibility this rule would help for a few cases where untrue information is added from a single other-wise reliable source. There's a much stronger possibility it would just cause a lot of work and become yet another way to remove correct information.
-Chris Croy.
We're really better off if we try not to apply moral judgments to content when we don't have to. This falls under that. Our current system is more than sufficient.
On 6/7/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
BLP idea:
Negative or contentious facts should not be in a BLP article unless more than one unrelated source covers it. That would keep the one-note negative crap right out. Apply notability standards to *facts*, not just topics. Ben Affleck had a nasty divorce from Jennifer Lopez: Notable, lots of sources. Keep. Ben Affleck did x, y, or z illegal thing to J-Lo, reported by one otherwise "good" or acceptable source. No other independent coverage. Exclude ferociously. The base notion is that while some people may be 'notable', not all they do is, or can be. What George Bush for example does in private at the Crawford ranch, outside his official duties, is not inherently notable--unless society makes it so. We don't get to decide on that either; we report. By that token, we can choose to not include facts that aren't corroborated and multiply sourced that are of a negative or contentious tone.
Good idea, or bad?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com _______________________________________________ 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 6/7/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
We're really better off if we try not to apply moral judgments to content when we don't have to. This falls under that. Our current system is more than sufficient.
My opinion? We don't get a choice. Our sources make moral judgements and work within systems of professional ethics. We have to have our own, or else we're just parroting their priorities.
The most accessible, pervasive information sources on the planet have as their priority, for the most part, the maximization of audience share and the selling of half page ads for furniture, underwears and slimming aids. Those that are in competition to sell advertising space feel they have little choice but to serve up something that will push up sales and generate advertising revenue.
They have their ethical systems, which enable them to do pretty good work despite the pressure to produce stuff that's, well, less than good. Gossip about pop stars is kept within reasonable bounds, Prurience is limited. But titillation is still a big seller so sensationalism is hard to keep at bay.
Political considerations are also a problem. News sources might adopt a detached, unworldly tone on politics, but press office conditions enable those in political power to influence which subjects they discuss--on pain of exclusion from background briefings and other privileged access. Our sources are biased, even though they struggle to avoid this.
Those are our sources. As Wikipedians, intending to produce an encyclopedia, we have to choose how we process this news and current affairs source--which is so prevalent as to be like a veritable fire hose compared to other informational sources. We have no choice. We must have an ethical framework within which to handle this information.
I'm not sure why this is being discussed. As far as I can tell what the original poster said is already policy even if some people wilfully misinterpret it.
Mgm
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/7/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
We're really better off if we try not to apply moral judgments to content when we don't have to. This falls under that. Our current system is more than sufficient.
My opinion? We don't get a choice. Our sources make moral judgements and work within systems of professional ethics. We have to have our own, or else we're just parroting their priorities.
The most accessible, pervasive information sources on the planet have as their priority, for the most part, the maximization of audience share and the selling of half page ads for furniture, underwears and slimming aids. Those that are in competition to sell advertising space feel they have little choice but to serve up something that will push up sales and generate advertising revenue.
They have their ethical systems, which enable them to do pretty good work despite the pressure to produce stuff that's, well, less than good. Gossip about pop stars is kept within reasonable bounds, Prurience is limited. But titillation is still a big seller so sensationalism is hard to keep at bay.
Political considerations are also a problem. News sources might adopt a detached, unworldly tone on politics, but press office conditions enable those in political power to influence which subjects they discuss--on pain of exclusion from background briefings and other privileged access. Our sources are biased, even though they struggle to avoid this.
Those are our sources. As Wikipedians, intending to produce an encyclopedia, we have to choose how we process this news and current affairs source--which is so prevalent as to be like a veritable fire hose compared to other informational sources. We have no choice. We must have an ethical framework within which to handle this information.
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 think that's a road we'd better walk down carefully, if at all. Usually, those issues are at least mitigated by the use of multiple sources, and being very careful to attribute rather than state as fact if only a single source reports on something. Saying "we know better then them" sounds to me like inviting original research and novel interpretation.
Stating that sources may have bias is like stating that the sun may rise tomorrow. Every human being has some sort of bias (even if that's a bias toward carefully seeking neutrality at all times, and even then, your version of "neutral" may not match mine. Look at how many disputes we have over what actually constitutes a neutral article.) But it's always been our policy that if a source is generally accepted as reliable, we don't "correct" it based upon our own interpretations. That's generally worked pretty well, and I'd be pretty hesitant to change it.
As you stated, the sources that we consider reliable -do- have ethical frameworks in place. They also have legal teams which will evaluate whether what they're reporting on is likely to land them in legal trouble. If a lot of reliable sources have decided "Yes, it is legal and ethical to report this", we should think very hard before we say "They're all wrong."
On 6/7/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Good idea, or bad?
BLP is largely fine as it is. More energy needs to go into applying it (checking changes in the living people article category, for instance), rather than trying to create more special case policies about "negative claims" and such. The most serious problems with BLPs are typically resolved quickly once the community actually examines the article. And when there is serious debate, we should not provide new sticks that wikilawyers can use to get what they want.