In a recent EnWiki policy discussion there was a conversation which I found quite interesting. I've removed the names to avoid singling out the guilty, because I doubt they are alone:
Person A: "(...) I think that might be a good idea. Doing so for any BLP deletion is a bad idea since they are usually for reasons completely against policy (as in the current case where the only reasons given are "The subject is going to sue us" and "We mustn't harm people", neither of which are policies)"
Person B: "Heh, that last bit is a little disturbing. Indeed, there is no policy that says we mustn't harm people. I think the idea here is to change policy in order to reduce the amount that we unnecessarily harm people. It's fair to debate to what extent this proposal actually accomplishes that goal, but it's a little disturbing to here someone basically assert that since there is no Wikipedia policy saying we can't needlessly harm people, that it is okay...."
Person A: "This is a proposal to change procedure. If you want to change an underlying principle, you need to do so explicitly."
Basically person A is arguing that avoiding causing harm to people is not explicitly a English Wikipedia policy, and so if you want to push a proposal or argument based on the concept of avoiding harm you must first change Wikipedia policy to recognize harm avoidance as a principle worth upholding.
I never used to expect Wikipedia policies to contain such points because I always considered Wikipedia policies to ultimately be subordinate to a number of higher powers: The laws of the countires we live in, basic common sense, and basic human decency. Yet I've seen a number of cases were Wikipedia contributors seem to have built the opinion that Wikipedia policies are the only rules binding the actions of Wikipedia users, and that details like human rights not only should but must be ignored unless they are established in the sovereign law of Wikipedia policy.
Person B's response gives me hope that this believe system is not yet the majority view. ... So I'm left wondering, how the heck did this start happening, and how can it be avoided? Is it the result of how the policies are presented? Or are there just a few bad applies that need to be disinvited from the community.
Thoughts?
On 22/04/2008, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Person B's response gives me hope that this believe system is not yet the majority view. ... So I'm left wondering, how the heck did this start happening, and how can it be avoided? Is it the result of how the policies are presented? Or are there just a few bad applies that need to be disinvited from the community. Thoughts?
The problem is pathologically literalist geeks so socially crippled they don't realise they are with a chronic inability not to hair-split down to the Planck length.
They do have a point, and that's why WP:BLP only works because it's the basic content rules (NPOV, NOR, V) applied in a really really hard-arsed manner.
But I think they need to be reminded to be human. Not that I know how.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 22/04/2008, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Person B's response gives me hope that this believe system is not yet the majority view. ... So I'm left wondering, how the heck did this start happening, and how can it be avoided? Is it the result of how the policies are presented? Or are there just a few bad applies that need to be disinvited from the community. Thoughts?
The problem is pathologically literalist geeks so socially crippled they don't realise they are with a chronic inability not to hair-split down to the Planck length.
They do have a point, and that's why WP:BLP only works because it's the basic content rules (NPOV, NOR, V) applied in a really really hard-arsed manner.
But I think they need to be reminded to be human. Not that I know how.
Is this the kind of ridiculous abuse that passes for discussion now? -- Gregory Maxwell calls people who disagree with his viewpoints, "bad apples that need to be disinvited from the community". -- David Gerard attacks people who disagree with him as "pathological" and "socially crippled", and implies that they aren't actually aware of how to be human.
What exactly do either of you hope to gain from this sort of juvenile name-calling? Do you think it will convince people who disagree with your viewpoints on how to write an encyclopedia that you've carefully thought through the matter and have reached an interesting proposal that they ought to give consideration to?
-Mark
I am Person A, so I will attempt to clarify what I was saying. Basically, there is a difference between "This is what we should do" and "This is how we should do it". We have policies on what kind of content is acceptable (WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc.) and then we have a separate policy on how we deal with content that doesn't (and can't) meet those criteria (WP:DELETE, probably - my knowledge of shortcuts is failing me!). "We should not do harm" is a matter of content and that should be kept separate to matters of procedure. Now, it's not necessary for all policy to be written down. We have plenty of unwritten rules, and not doing harm could be one of them, but it isn't - we do plenty of harm. We've always felt that neutrality takes precedence over not doing harm. We've recently changed that for marginally notable living people, but not for fully notable ones. We try to minimise harm (that's an unwritten rule based on common human decency), but not at the expense of neutrality. If we're going to change that, it needs to be carefully discussed, and that discussion should be separate from the procedural one.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I am Person A, so I will attempt to clarify what I was saying. Basically, there is a difference between "This is what we should do" and "This is how we should do it". We have policies on what kind of content is acceptable (WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc.) and then we have a separate policy on how we deal with content that doesn't (and can't) meet those criteria (WP:DELETE, probably - my knowledge of shortcuts is failing me!). "We should not do harm" is a matter of content and that should be kept separate to matters of procedure.
No, a dislike of causing harm should be an element of basic human decency. It's not up for policy to decide.
Ultimately the outcomes, both short and long-term, must be considered anytime procedure is applied. A long time fundamental tenant of Wikipedia is that you don't apply a procedure when you know it's the wrong thing to do.
[snip]
We've always felt that neutrality takes precedence over not doing harm. We've recently changed that for marginally notable living people, but not for fully notable ones.
There is a pretty straightforward argument why neutrality and harm avoidance are not necessarily in conflict:
When a noteworthy person does some horrific thing and later Wikipedia goes on to produce a fair and accurate account of the event placed in appropriate context and given appropriate weight, then any resulting harm was the subject's doing, not Wikipedias. Certantly all participants in a modern society are aware of journalism. They can except reasonable editorial standards from people that right about them, but not a shield against factual information and even criticism over their acts, .. as has been affirmed many times by the courts of any country which has any semblance of free speech.
Though in this case it is irrelvent if you accept this argument or not, since what you were arguing against was not the total avoidance of harm but rather and attempt to minimize it.
[snip]
We try to minimise harm (that's an unwritten rule based on common human decency), but not at the expense of neutrality.
Amusingly, an attempt to minimize harm is *precisely* what you were arguing against, ... You now claim to be attacking another position "We mustn't harm people", but thats a straw man. Your opposition was taking the positions that "we can't needlessly harm people" (we must) "reduce the amount that we unnecessarily harm people" and said so explicitly.
Can you explain to me why you were arguing against minimizing harm?
Amusingly, an attempt to minimize harm is *precisely* what you were arguing against, ... You now claim to be attacking another position "We mustn't harm people", but thats a straw man. Your opposition was taking the positions that "we can't needlessly harm people" (we must) "reduce the amount that we unnecessarily harm people" and said so explicitly.
It's not a strawman, it is exactly what (some) people were arguing.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Amusingly, an attempt to minimize harm is *precisely* what you were arguing against, ... You now claim to be attacking another position "We mustn't harm people", but thats a straw man. Your opposition was taking the positions that "we can't needlessly harm people" (we must) "reduce the amount that we unnecessarily harm people" and said so explicitly.
It's not a strawman, it is exactly what (some) people were arguing.
It's certainly not what the people you were talking to there were arguing, they were quite specific. (And I'm not sure sure thats what anyone is arguing, I'm pretty confident that compromising neutrality is a decidedly minority view).
I'm glad to hear that you're not a complete monster. ;)
It's certainly not what the people you were talking to there were arguing, they were quite specific. (And I'm not sure sure thats what anyone is arguing, I'm pretty confident that compromising neutrality is a decidedly minority view).
I'll use the nomination in the Stefano AFD as an example (I specifically said I was talking about this case). It includes the sentence:
"If real people are negatively affected, we do the right thing, and stop hurting them."
That's an absolute statement that we mustn't do harm and doesn't even try and take into account whether the harm is justified. (I know that's just one sentence, but even in context, I think that's how it was intended.)
In the long run, we avoid harming people in general by telling the truth. The proposition that we must never report anything unpleasant about anyone even to report the truth about that person's notable activities is contrary to the production of a NPOV encyclopedia. We probably do need a explanation of the meaning of do no harm; as I understand it it consists of the wide dissemination of technically public but not widely disseminated negative information about a private individual. The classic example is the identity of the victim in the Central Park Jogger case. It was reported in one NYC paper, but the others none the less refused to include it. We use it in WP, because the victim later chose to publicize it widely in a book.
As applies to us, if something disreputable is published in a tabloid about the early career of a notable but private individual, we would not include it unless widespread more respectable sources did so. I would extend it to not doing the same for most public figures either. Once the story is truly widespread, no further harm can be done.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It's certainly not what the people you were talking to there were arguing, they were quite specific. (And I'm not sure sure thats what anyone is arguing, I'm pretty confident that compromising neutrality is a decidedly minority view).
I'll use the nomination in the Stefano AFD as an example (I specifically said I was talking about this case). It includes the sentence:
"If real people are negatively affected, we do the right thing, and stop hurting them."
That's an absolute statement that we mustn't do harm and doesn't even try and take into account whether the harm is justified. (I know that's just one sentence, but even in context, I think that's how it was intended.)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 22/04/2008, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
In the long run, we avoid harming people in general by telling the truth.
I don't see how that works. If the truth is negative, telling the truth does harm. The net result to society is positive (we generally consider having a free, neutral encyclopaedia a good thing), but that doesn't mean we haven't harmed the subject.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see how that works. If the truth is negative, telling the truth does harm. The net result to society is positive (we generally consider having a free, neutral encyclopaedia a good thing), but that doesn't mean we haven't harmed the subject.
That's one difficulty of applying "do no harm" simplistically. :) Asimov's robots managed to figure out a 0th law to supercede the 1st in important circumstances; why can't we?
-Luna
On 22/04/2008, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see how that works. If the truth is negative, telling the truth does harm. The net result to society is positive (we generally consider having a free, neutral encyclopaedia a good thing), but that doesn't mean we haven't harmed the subject.
That's one difficulty of applying "do no harm" simplistically. :) Asimov's robots managed to figure out a 0th law to supercede the 1st in important circumstances; why can't we?
Actually, in some of the stories, the "0th law" was just a special application of the first law, rather than a law of its own - can we, too, do without the instruction creep? If we interpret "do no harm" in a general sense, rather than in the sense of harm to the subject, then we should be ok. A non-neutral article (or lack, thereof) does more harm overall than a neutral but necessarily negative article, it's just harm to different people.
On 23/04/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/04/2008, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
In the long run, we avoid harming people in general by telling the truth.
I don't see how that works. If the truth is negative, telling the truth does harm. The net result to society is positive (we generally consider having a free, neutral encyclopaedia a good thing), but that doesn't mean we haven't harmed the subject.
If the article is properly sourced then all of the opinions and facts expressed in the article are derived from outside sources so they are not being harmed by unique information in wikipedia, just their perception of wikipedia being more influential than scattered news articles and books. If wikipedia doesn't say anything new any harm due to the compilation of facts is immaterial IMO. Unless a court rules that random facts can't be combined in properly sourced secondary/tertiary sources due to the effect of the combination alone then they have no case.
Peter
2008/4/22 Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com:
If the article is properly sourced then all of the opinions and facts expressed in the article are derived from outside sources so they are not being harmed by unique information in wikipedia, just their perception of wikipedia being more influential than scattered news articles and books. If wikipedia doesn't say anything new any harm due to the compilation of facts is immaterial IMO. Unless a court rules that random facts can't be combined in properly sourced secondary/tertiary sources due to the effect of the combination alone then they have no case.
For the usual case, it's not so much "they have no case" as "that's not such a good article, and while being firm in our neutrality we shouldn't be dicks about it." Hence the WP:BLP rule about the facts being of note themselves. (e.g. minorly-notable physicist who had a messy divorce - messy divorce details may be documentable, but they're not relevant to what he's famous for and no reader would care, unless the messy divorce itself was notable.) We get too many BLPs where someone mistakes Wikipedia for a repository of investigative journalism and throws in material that really doesn't belong in a good article.
- d.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
If the article is properly sourced then all of the opinions and facts expressed in the article are derived from outside sources so they are not being harmed by unique information in wikipedia, just their perception of wikipedia being more influential than scattered news articles and books. If wikipedia doesn't say anything new any harm due to the compilation of facts is immaterial IMO.
I think that in the end what people are really complaining about isn't Wikipedia per se. It's the Internet and Google. In the past, long-ago minor incidents, even if documented in a major news source at the time, were only available in physical archives that had to be searched through by hand (often with an index, but still...) Even after the first data revolution, news archives and the like were generally subscription services not available to the public at large.
Now, Wikipedia editors are putting stuff online that wasn't easily available before, and in a place that's easily accessed and searched. Furthermore, many major newspapers are putting their archives online (e.g. the NYT), so it's not just us.
The second part of the problem (as they see it) is Google and its habit of putting our article at or near the top no matter what.
Unless a court rules that random facts can't be combined in properly sourced secondary/tertiary sources due to the effect of the combination alone then they have no case.
I think in most cases we're talking not only about legal liability but about what's the right thing to do in a more general sense. There are plenty of legal things that one probably still shouldn't do.
-Matt
note the "in general" . Our purpose is not the defense of the innocent or the guilty, but the provision of acurate POV information about matters of concern to the public. The provision of this information is of general befit to tthe en tire community. We have a responsibility to our subject, and a eq On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/04/2008, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
In the long run, we avoid harming people in general by telling the truth.
I don't see how that works. If the truth is negative, telling the truth does harm. The net result to society is positive (we generally consider having a free, neutral encyclopaedia a good thing), but that doesn't mean we haven't harmed the subject.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I am Person A, so I will attempt to clarify what I was saying. Basically, there is a difference between "This is what we should do" and "This is how we should do it". We have policies on what kind of content is acceptable (WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc.) and then we have a separate policy on how we deal with content that doesn't (and can't) meet those criteria (WP:DELETE, probably - my knowledge of shortcuts is failing me!). "We should not do harm" is a matter of content and that should be kept separate to matters of procedure.
No, a dislike of causing harm should be an element of basic human decency. It's not up for policy to decide.
Ultimately the outcomes, both short and long-term, must be considered anytime procedure is applied. A long time fundamental tenant of Wikipedia is that you don't apply a procedure when you know it's the wrong thing to do.
There's a difference between using "avoid harm" as a heuristic to prioritize work, and using it as an actual criterion for what an ideal article content should contain. Some of the BLP folks appear to want the latter, whereas I strongly feel that whether someone is alive or not, or whether it would harm someone or not, shouldn't have an effect on the content---either the information should or shouldn't go in the article based on concerns wholly separate from whether it would be harmful or not to put it there.
However, it could well have an effect on what order we work on things---incorrect allegations that are not widely supported (and perhaps have even been refuted) are certainly more pressing to correct than getting someone's date of birth wrong. And incorrect allegations about a living person are more pressing to correct than incorrect allegations about an ancient Roman (not a hypothetical example---we have at least one article on an ancient Roman that flatly says he committed a murder that modern historians no longer think he committed). But this is just a matter of what order we fix articles, not really anything to do with what *should* go in an article, since the other things should be fixed eventually too.
This sort of thing isn't unique to biographies of living people either; similar principles apply to inflammatory, incorrect information about current national or ethnic disputes, for example, or grossly incorrect information in health-related articles.
-Mark
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
[rest of the flaming snipped] Or are there just a few bad applies that need to be disinvited from the community.
This sort of blatant personal attack on people who disagree with your viewpoints is not a very good way to start a constructive conversation.
-Mark
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:53 AM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
[rest of the flaming snipped] Or are there just a few bad applies that
need to be disinvited from the community.
This sort of blatant personal attack on people who disagree with your viewpoints is not a very good way to start a constructive conversation.
I know this thread is only a week old... but if you would take the time to read the entire thread you might observe that through discussion I came to the understanding Thomas was actually disagreeing with a point which was not being made in the cited discussion, and that he was not claiming to reject the position that WP ought avoid harming people as he appeared to be. Which elicited a response of "I'm glad to hear that you're not a complete monster. ;)"
Though I'm also a bit confused a bit by your accusations of "personal attacks" and "juvenile name calling", when at least some effort was made to avoid singling out specific people and instead criticize a pattern of behavior which I considered to be anti-social and generally harmful. It's not a 'personal attack' to criticize a class of behavior, no matter how personally offended a person who sees a potential similarity in their own actions...
On a serious note, If you or anyone else holds the position that Wikipedia need to abide by the conventional rules of basic ethical behavior, please let me know so that I can have the honor of being the first to extend the previously mentioned disinvitation. I'm confident that I would not be alone.
(As noted, Thomas apparently wasn't trying to take that position ... so my complaint was ultimately not one that should apply to him)
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On a serious note, If you or anyone else holds the position that Wikipedia need to abide by the conventional rules of basic ethical behavior, please let me know so that I can have the honor of being the first to extend the previously mentioned disinvitation. I'm confident that I would not be alone.
Please feel free to do so, then. Is there some sort of ceremony?
-Mark