In a message dated 10/25/2008 11:28:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time, delirium@hackish.org writes:
than "some guy on Wikipedia has investigated, and determined that all the sources are in fact wrong".>>
---
This part is great. Made me smile.
Will Johnson
************** Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics – check it out! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir= http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 1:20 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/25/2008 11:28:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time, delirium@hackish.org writes:
than "some guy on Wikipedia has investigated, and determined that all the sources are in fact wrong".>>
This part is great. Made me smile.
Will Johnson
Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics – check it out! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir= http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And that part is exactly -why- we require sources, including to change something at a subject's request. If reliable sources indicate something, and the subject says "It isn't so" but we've got nothing to verify that, we can't simply say "Oh, alright," and change the article.
One thing we -can- do in such a case, as stated earlier, is to change that particular part of the article to a quoted form, e.g. "The New York Times reported in 2006 that foo did bar", rather than "Foo did bar <ref name="nyt">". In that case, our statement -cannot- be inaccurate, provided that the New York Times really did make such a report-we're simply in that case asserting that such a report was made.
If the subject -does- disagree, it's then his or her responsibility to talk to the NYT and look at having a correction printed (in which case, that correction is a reliable source to change what we've got!) This is better for the subject anyway, as now the original source is corrected and future inaccuracies from anything that relies on it (not just us) can be prevented. And if there is no inaccuracy and the subject is lying or genuinely mistaken, we don't end up removing or changing information which is both verifiable -and- truthful.
It is just beyond our means to determine if, firstly, the person claiming to be the subject really is, and secondly, even if that can be confirmed (through OTRS or the subject posting to his/her own site, for example), that the claims (s)he makes are true and the sources are genuinely wrong. Of course, if the subject is willing to post their side somewhere, such as on his or her own site, we can certainly add that "Doe denies this and states that...", citing that source and telling both sides of the story.
BLP is a good policy in general, in saying that "Potentially negative or controversial information about a living person that is -unsourced or badly sourced- should be removed posthaste, and such information when well-sourced should not be given undue weight." That's really just saying that our normal content policies (verifiability, NPOV, NOR) should be enforced with exceptional speed and vigor when concerning a BLP. Removing or sourcing questionable unsourced information and properly weighting are things we should aspire to with every article anyway. On the other hand, BLP shouldn't generally enter into the equation when information is well-sourced and duly weighted. That's an issue to be resolved through normal content mechanisms, not the sledgehammer of BLP. It might be needed, but it's got to be kept reined in.
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Todd Allen wrote:
It is just beyond our means to determine if, firstly, the person claiming to be the subject really is, ...
This only make sense if we demanded that the source check to see that he's really the subject.
In the majority of cases, this is not true. The source isn't going to do any identity checking. Demanding that he get an error about himself fixed in another source is just a hoop to force him to jump through. The idea that this source will do identity checking that we don't is just a legal fiction.
Of course, if the subject is willing to post their side somewhere, such as on his or her own site...
So why don't we just let him fix the Wikipedia article, and consider the Wikipedia correction to be the subject self-publishing the correction?
(Note that I'm not asking whether this violates policy, I'm asking what good the policy does.)
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Todd Allen wrote:
It is just beyond our means to determine if, firstly, the person claiming to be the subject really is, ...
This only make sense if we demanded that the source check to see that he's really the subject.
In the majority of cases, this is not true. The source isn't going to do any identity checking. Demanding that he get an error about himself fixed in another source is just a hoop to force him to jump through. The idea that this source will do identity checking that we don't is just a legal fiction.
Of course, if the subject is willing to post their side somewhere, such as on his or her own site...
So why don't we just let him fix the Wikipedia article, and consider the Wikipedia correction to be the subject self-publishing the correction?
(Note that I'm not asking whether this violates policy, I'm asking what good the policy does.)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ken Arromdee asked:
So why don't we just let him fix the Wikipedia article, and consider the Wikipedia correction to be the subject self-publishing the correction?
Because if we simply let people "fix" articles on themselves, we'd have all hagiographies. Some biographies include well-sourced, verifiable, unflattering information. We should not be allowing people to "fix" that, or we will not have any neutral biographies.
Todd Allen wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 1:20 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/25/2008 11:28:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time, delirium@hackish.org writes:
than "some guy on Wikipedia has investigated, and determined that all the sources are in fact wrong".>>
This part is great. Made me smile.
And that part is exactly -why- we require sources, including to change something at a subject's request. If reliable sources indicate something, and the subject says "It isn't so" but we've got nothing to verify that, we can't simply say "Oh, alright," and change the article.
One thing we -can- do in such a case, as stated earlier, is to change that particular part of the article to a quoted form, e.g. "The New York Times reported in 2006 that foo did bar", rather than "Foo did bar <ref name="nyt">". In that case, our statement -cannot- be inaccurate, provided that the New York Times really did make such a report-we're simply in that case asserting that such a report was made.
Just to avoid making *too* strong a "sources are everything" comment here, we can of course also exercise some editorial judgment when it comes to weighting parts of a biography and writing intro-text descriptions and so on. If a source says that someone was born in 1947, and no source says otherwise, in some sense we're stuck, even if it's wrong---absent original research, the literature says he was born in 1947, so we'll duly report that. But just because someone somewhere has called someone "a director" doesn't necessarily mean our intro paragraph has to say that he's "a director". That he directed a film, the body text should say, but which of the things in the body text is worth highlighting in the intro sentence/paragraph should be done by summarizing the rest of the article with some common sense.
-Mark
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 1:20 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/25/2008 11:28:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time, delirium@hackish.org writes:
than "some guy on Wikipedia has investigated, and determined that all the sources are in fact wrong".>>
This part is great. Made me smile.
And that part is exactly -why- we require sources, including to change something at a subject's request. If reliable sources indicate something, and the subject says "It isn't so" but we've got nothing to verify that, we can't simply say "Oh, alright," and change the article.
One thing we -can- do in such a case, as stated earlier, is to change that particular part of the article to a quoted form, e.g. "The New York Times reported in 2006 that foo did bar", rather than "Foo did bar <ref name="nyt">". In that case, our statement -cannot- be inaccurate, provided that the New York Times really did make such a report-we're simply in that case asserting that such a report was made.
Just to avoid making *too* strong a "sources are everything" comment here, we can of course also exercise some editorial judgment when it comes to weighting parts of a biography and writing intro-text descriptions and so on. If a source says that someone was born in 1947, and no source says otherwise, in some sense we're stuck, even if it's wrong---absent original research, the literature says he was born in 1947, so we'll duly report that. But just because someone somewhere has called someone "a director" doesn't necessarily mean our intro paragraph has to say that he's "a director". That he directed a film, the body text should say, but which of the things in the body text is worth highlighting in the intro sentence/paragraph should be done by summarizing the rest of the article with some common sense.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In this particular case, I would certainly see no problem in changing "Foo is a director" to "Foo directed bar" if that were the only issue. But this had mainly gotten off that issue to a more general discussion of what to do if a subject disputes sourced information in an article. (Obviously, if a subject disputes -unsourced- information in an article, we should remove it at once.)
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Todd Allen wrote:
In this particular case, I would certainly see no problem in changing "Foo is a director" to "Foo directed bar" if that were the only issue. But this had mainly gotten off that issue to a more general discussion of what to do if a subject disputes sourced information in an article.
It's not really a case of the subject disputing sourced information, it's a case of the subject disputing undue weight. He just doesn't know enough about Wikipedia to be able to phrase it as an undue weight claim or even to realize we have a rule about it.
This is naive. A NYT article on a subject reports a number of things, some facts, some their interpretations to various extents. They will furthermore publish an umber of articles as an story develops. . It is necessary to select what one wishes to use from among this, and to harmonize it with what others report, and to set it within context. Staying strictly within the sources, most important topics of controversy can be turned into expressions of undiluted POV merely by selective quotation of reliable sources. there is no mechanical formula for writing article, any more than for reporting .It take both intelligence, and the determination to do a fair job. One can also use intelligence and skill to do an unfair job.
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 2:44 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
And that part is exactly -why- we require sources, including to change something at a subject's request. If reliable sources indicate something, and the subject says "It isn't so" but we've got nothing to verify that, we can't simply say "Oh, alright," and change the article.
One thing we -can- do in such a case, as stated earlier, is to change that particular part of the article to a quoted form, e.g. "The New York Times reported in 2006 that foo did bar", rather than "Foo did bar <ref name="nyt">". In that case, our statement -cannot- be inaccurate, provided that the New York Times really did make such a report-we're simply in that case asserting that such a report was made.
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 4:00 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
This is naive. A NYT article on a subject reports a number of things, some facts, some their interpretations to various extents. They will furthermore publish an umber of articles as an story develops. . It is necessary to select what one wishes to use from among this, and to harmonize it with what others report, and to set it within context. Staying strictly within the sources, most important topics of controversy can be turned into expressions of undiluted POV merely by selective quotation of reliable sources. there is no mechanical formula for writing article, any more than for reporting .It take both intelligence, and the determination to do a fair job. One can also use intelligence and skill to do an unfair job.
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 2:44 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
And that part is exactly -why- we require sources, including to change something at a subject's request. If reliable sources indicate something, and the subject says "It isn't so" but we've got nothing to verify that, we can't simply say "Oh, alright," and change the article.
One thing we -can- do in such a case, as stated earlier, is to change that particular part of the article to a quoted form, e.g. "The New York Times reported in 2006 that foo did bar", rather than "Foo did bar <ref name="nyt">". In that case, our statement -cannot- be inaccurate, provided that the New York Times really did make such a report-we're simply in that case asserting that such a report was made.
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And if we've got an undue weight issue, we certainly should correct it. Cherrypicking or giving undue weight to sources to create a non-neutral article slanted toward one's own bias has never been acceptable and never should be. However, neither has excluding well sourced information because someone simply dislikes it or states it isn't so, and that shouldn't fly either.