The issue is malicious content, our concern regardless of legality.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: William Pietri [mailto:william@scissor.com] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 03:50 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
Mark Ryan wrote:
On 20/09/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
But this is (a) wrong (at least in the case of www hyperlinks), and (b) not relevant to a site hosted in Florida, USA.
It is relevant. Defamation under UK law happens where the content is read, not where it is hosted.
Why exactly would we worry about this?
The way I look at it, all non-US law is relevant only to editors working in those jurisdictions. If Britain or Venezuela or China believes that the public can't handle certain material, that is interesting, but not relevant to how we run Wikipedia.
What might be relevant is the spirit behind the law. If the law gets made because of some particular harm that we think is worse than impeding honest discussion or the free flow of factual information, then we should take a look at altering our course. But the law itself is the business of the citizens under its jurisdiction, and not our collective problem.
William
-- William Pietri william@scissor.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri
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 Sep 20, 2007, at 4:07 PM, fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The issue is malicious content, our concern regardless of legality.
And you sincerely think this trumps writing a complete article? In your view, we should not mention the name of Judd Bagley's website in [[Overstock.com]] for the simple reason that we think it's a vile piece of trash?
This isn't Wikinfo, Fred. We don't have an exception to our policies on POV to exclude vile perspectives.
-Phil
In that case, we agree completely about the relevance of non-US law. The letter is irrelevant, but the spirit can be worth learning from.
Where we disagree is whether content can be malicious on its own. You and I agree that we should stop *people* from being malicious on-wiki. But I think we should allow people acting in good faith and with good purpose to discuss things that malicious people have said.
William
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The issue is malicious content, our concern regardless of legality.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: William Pietri [mailto:william@scissor.com] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 03:50 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
Mark Ryan wrote:
On 20/09/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
But this is (a) wrong (at least in the case of www hyperlinks), and (b) not relevant to a site hosted in Florida, USA.
It is relevant. Defamation under UK law happens where the content is read, not where it is hosted.
Why exactly would we worry about this?
The way I look at it, all non-US law is relevant only to editors working in those jurisdictions. If Britain or Venezuela or China believes that the public can't handle certain material, that is interesting, but not relevant to how we run Wikipedia.
What might be relevant is the spirit behind the law. If the law gets made because of some particular harm that we think is worse than impeding honest discussion or the free flow of factual information, then we should take a look at altering our course. But the law itself is the business of the citizens under its jurisdiction, and not our collective problem.
William
-- William Pietri william@scissor.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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 20/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
In that case, we agree completely about the relevance of non-US law. The letter is irrelevant, but the spirit can be worth learning from.
Someone brought up 'the good of the project', and the project could be sued in the United Kingdom if it fails to adhere to their defamation law.
Ethically, of course, you are right - the United Kingdom does not define morality, though they may make good moral arguments. E.g. that pointing at an attack or whatever extends it, failure to remove something upon request means you are no longer an innocent disseminater, etc.
Where we disagree is whether content can be malicious on its own. You and I agree that we should stop *people* from being malicious on-wiki. But I think we should allow people acting in good faith and with good purpose to discuss things that malicious people have said.
William
Who says attacks are made maliciously?
One person's attack is another person's fight for justice (or something perceived as good).
A lot of the attackers have been attacked too....
On 20/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
In that case, we agree completely about the relevance of non-US law. The letter is irrelevant, but the spirit can be worth learning from.
Someone brought up 'the good of the project', and the project could be sued in the United Kingdom if it fails to adhere to their defamation law.
Ethically, of course, you are right - the United Kingdom does not define morality, though they may make good moral arguments. E.g. that pointing at an attack or whatever extends it, failure to remove something upon request means you are no longer an innocent disseminater, etc.
Where we disagree is whether content can be malicious on its own. You and I agree that we should stop *people* from being malicious on-wiki. But I think we should allow people acting in good faith and with good purpose to discuss things that malicious people have said.
William
Who says attacks are made maliciously?
One person's attack is another person's fight for justice (or something perceived as good).
A lot of the attackers have been attacked too....
Hello, and thanks for your reply.
No need to cc me. I already subscribe to the list, and don't need a second copy of a message. Thanks, though.
Armed Blowfish wrote:
On 20/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
In that case, we agree completely about the relevance of non-US law. The letter is irrelevant, but the spirit can be worth learning from.
Someone brought up 'the good of the project', and the project could be sued in the United Kingdom if it fails to adhere to their defamation law.
And how would that differ from any law in other country in the world? I'm sure there are dozens of countries with information- or press-suppression laws more restrictive than the US's. The notion that we should follow all of them seems untenable, and I don't see why we'd follow some but not others.
Personally, I don't think armchair international lawering will get us anywhere. Absent a formal request from a Wikimedia Foundation lawyer to follow non-US law, I suggest we'd focus on building the best encyclopedia possible.
Ethically, of course, you are right - the United Kingdom does not define morality, though they may make good moral arguments. E.g. that pointing at an attack or whatever extends it, failure to remove something upon request means you are no longer an innocent disseminater, etc.
That's an interesting argument, although I'd personally not go so far as to call it good.
For example, the reason I am sure that white supremacists are crazed idiots is precisely because I've been pointed at their attacks and read them carefully. Not that I wouldn't have assumed it, but my burning confidence comes from self-gained knowledge, not enforced ignorance.
Where we disagree is whether content can be malicious on its own. You and I agree that we should stop *people* from being malicious on-wiki. But I think we should allow people acting in good faith and with good purpose to discuss things that malicious people have said.
Who says attacks are made maliciously?
One person's attack is another person's fight for justice (or something perceived as good).
A lot of the attackers have been attacked too....
Well, I also agree that we should stop people from making personal attacks on-wiki, if that helps. And I'd encourage people not to get into the zero-sum, low-respect mindset that goes with a lot of attacks; I rarely see it help anything.
However, I stand by my view that people should be able to have thoughtful, [[WP:COOL]] discussions about those attacks, referring to source material as necessary. I believe anything else is in the long term counterproductive, harming the very community we are aiming to protect, and undermining a norm that is central to our ability to build a great encyclopedia.
But yes I agree completely that people on all sides of some of these disputes feel attacked, and also agree that's part of the problem.
William
On 20/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
On 20/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote: Someone brought up 'the good of the project', and the project could be sued in the United Kingdom if it fails to adhere to their defamation law.
And how would that differ from any law in other country in the world? I'm sure there are dozens of countries with information- or press-suppression laws more restrictive than the US's. The notion that we should follow all of them seems untenable, and I don't see why we'd follow some but not others.
Not all countries will let you sue in their country even if neither the defendant nor the plaintiff is a resident.
There was a case where Australia let an Australian sue a foreigner in Australia, so Australian defamation law may be relevant when writing about Australian subjects. http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,56793,00.html
Personally, I don't think armchair international lawering will get us anywhere. Absent a formal request from a Wikimedia Foundation lawyer to follow non-US law, I suggest we'd focus on building the best encyclopedia possible.
You do that, I'm not a Wikipaedian.
However, I do not see how anything defamatory under British law would ever make a good encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia should be an outside observer of the world, not an active participant in it, and should especially avoid having a negative effect on individuals. If anything, Wikiapedia's BLP standards should be much stricter than British defamation law.
Ethically, of course, you are right - the United Kingdom does not define morality, though they may make good moral arguments. E.g. that pointing at an attack or whatever extends it, failure to remove something upon request means you are no longer an innocent disseminater, etc.
That's an interesting argument, although I'd personally not go so far as to call it good.
For example, the reason I am sure that white supremacists are crazed idiots is precisely because I've been pointed at their attacks and read them carefully. Not that I wouldn't have assumed it, but my burning confidence comes from self-gained knowledge, not enforced ignorance.
Well, remembering that all people have flaws, a number of people on WR seem quite nice. Still, WR has attacks which should not be linked to. Removal of links should be done to protect people, not to punish WR.
Who says attacks are made maliciously?
One person's attack is another person's fight for justice (or something perceived as good).
A lot of the attackers have been attacked too....
Well, I also agree that we should stop people from making personal attacks on-wiki, if that helps. And I'd encourage people not to get into the zero-sum, low-respect mindset that goes with a lot of attacks; I rarely see it help anything.
You can't stop people from making attacks. Wikipaedia can create a supportive environment where they are not so rampant, but they will still happen sometimes, because the life is pain and people get upset.
However, I stand by my view that people should be able to have thoughtful, [[WP:COOL]] discussions about those attacks, referring to source material as necessary. I believe anything else is in the long term counterproductive, harming the very community we are aiming to protect, and undermining a norm that is central to our ability to build a great encyclopedia.
The opposite of love is not hate, the opposite of love is indifference. Coolness may be perceived as insensitivity. People are in pain....
Transience would be good. A fight between my friends and I, whatever the cause, generally ends in hugs and is forgotten in a day or a week. Leaving the material on-wiki for all eternity solidifies the attack, preventing recovery. Remove it and forget.
But yes I agree completely that people on all sides of some of these disputes feel attacked, and also agree that's part of the problem.
William
-- William Pietri william@scissor.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri
: )
On 21/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
However, I do not see how anything defamatory under British law would ever make a good encyclopaedia. (...) If anything, Wikiapedia's BLP standards should be much stricter than British defamation law.
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha no.
Seriously, sneezing at the wrong time can be construed as defamatory. Calling a man "honourable" with intent can be defamatory*. The law - which is orders of magnitude broader than the 1996 Act, incidentally - relies immensely on real or presumed intent, on implications and motives rather than what was actually written. It is a vast seething bog of caselaw, with very little hard and clear statute law; it is conceptually capable of declaring almost anything defamatory, because almost anything - in the right tone - can be. Truth is no absolute defence; nor is prior publication.
If our BLP standards are "much stricter" than the potential edge cases of unusual situations, then it would be impossible to write virtually anything about a person save to note if they were dead.
Okay. I'm not a lawyer so I'll take your word for it, for the moment at least.
However, is it even worth worrying about in the case of only marginally notable subjects? For example, subjects who have been mentioned in newspapers, but do not have biographies about them written in any major reliable source, such as Britannica? (Or random Wikipaedians not mentioned by *any* reliable source....)
If a subject who has not have a full biography on him or her in any major reliable sources wishes to not have a biography on Wikipaedia, why not delete it?
On 21/09/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha no.
Seriously, sneezing at the wrong time can be construed as defamatory. Calling a man "honourable" with intent can be defamatory*. The law - which is orders of magnitude broader than the 1996 Act, incidentally - relies immensely on real or presumed intent, on implications and motives rather than what was actually written. It is a vast seething bog of caselaw, with very little hard and clear statute law; it is conceptually capable of declaring almost anything defamatory, because almost anything - in the right tone - can be. Truth is no absolute defence; nor is prior publication.
If our BLP standards are "much stricter" than the potential edge cases of unusual situations, then it would be impossible to write virtually anything about a person save to note if they were dead.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
- Well, not quite; legal exceptions kick in in Parliament, but I
recall hearing there was a case back in the forties(?), and it was pretty scandalous...
Armed Blowfish wrote:
For example, the reason I am sure that white supremacists are crazed idiots is precisely because I've been pointed at their attacks and read them carefully. Not that I wouldn't have assumed it, but my burning confidence comes from self-gained knowledge, not enforced ignorance.
Well, remembering that all people have flaws, a number of people on WR seem quite nice. Still, WR has attacks which should not be linked to. Removal of links should be done to protect people, not to punish WR.
Yes, and my point in the paragraph above is precisely that it does not protect them in the long run.
Removing (or better, defanging) personal attacks is something I do myself, and have no quibble with. What I object to is stopping all discussion of particular attacks, both alleged and actual.
It may make targets (or perceived targets) feel better in the short term. In the long run, it creates darkness where suspicion and indifference breed.
William
On 21/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
For example, the reason I am sure that white supremacists are crazed idiots is precisely because I've been pointed at their attacks and read them carefully. Not that I wouldn't have assumed it, but my burning confidence comes from self-gained knowledge, not enforced ignorance.
Well, remembering that all people have flaws, a number of people on WR seem quite nice. Still, WR has attacks which should not be linked to. Removal of links should be done to protect people, not to punish WR.
Yes, and my point in the paragraph above is precisely that it does not protect them in the long run.
Removing (or better, defanging) personal attacks is something I do myself, and have no quibble with. What I object to is stopping all discussion of particular attacks, both alleged and actual.
It may make targets (or perceived targets) feel better in the short term. In the long run, it creates darkness where suspicion and indifference breed.
Worse, kicking up such a big fuss about such attacks draws attention to them.
On 21/09/2007, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Worse, kicking up such a big fuss about such attacks draws attention to them.
Which is why they should be quickly and quietly removed, and discussion about whether or not they should be re-included should occur privately.
On 21/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 21/09/2007, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Worse, kicking up such a big fuss about such attacks draws attention to them.
Which is why they should be quickly and quietly removed, and discussion about whether or not they should be re-included should occur privately.
Because that's certainly been an effective approach so far. Oh, wait.
- d.
On 21/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 21/09/2007, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Worse, kicking up such a big fuss about such attacks draws attention to them.
Which is why they should be quickly and quietly removed, and discussion about whether or not they should be re-included should occur privately.
And anyone asking about it should be told not to talk about it, or have their comments removed themselves and privately told to discuss it, and anyone asking about that...
That won't upset anyone or make the situation worse. I am sure our administrators will behave with tact, decorum and common sense at all times.
On 21/09/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Which is why they should be quickly and quietly removed, and discussion about whether or not they should be re-included should occur privately.
And anyone asking about it should be told not to talk about it, or have their comments removed themselves and privately told to discuss it, and anyone asking about that...
Yes! Discretion would indicate that private or otherwise sensitive matters should not be discussed publicly. If people do not get that, they should be censored. Of course, in order to not make them feel like they have to discuss it publicly in order to be noticed, it should be discussed privately.
That won't upset anyone or make the situation worse. I am sure our administrators will behave with tact, decorum and common sense at all times.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
In theory, no, it shouldn't. Just tell the person their comment was hurting someone, and either offer to explain why (privately) or tell them its a delicate matter just take your word for it (not preferred, but I can see how it would be necessary in some situations).
In actuality, if comment is removed with an edit summary like 'remove personal attack', the person whose comment is removed may also feel attacked. Hence, the edit summary should read 'remove hurtful comment, email if you want to know why it is hurtful' or something.
On 21/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Well, remembering that all people have flaws, a number of people on WR seem quite nice. Still, WR has attacks which should not be linked to. Removal of links should be done to protect people, not to punish WR.
Yes, and my point in the paragraph above is precisely that it does not protect them in the long run.
Short-term solutions do not preclude long terms ones. I also suggest attempting to improve relations with certain websites.
Removing (or better, defanging) personal attacks is something I do myself, and have no quibble with.
Good! : )
What I object to is stopping all discussion of particular attacks, both alleged and actual.
Not all discussion, just public discussion of specific attacks, unless of course the attackee wants to talk about it.
It may make targets (or perceived targets) feel better in the short term. In the long run, it creates darkness where suspicion and indifference breed.
William
But if you do let people talk about it, some of them may agree with the attacks, or say that the attackee needs to have thicker skin. As Fred pointed out, some things which may be said are false, but not obviously so. I'm not saying you would, but it is common practise.
Thus, public discussion of the matter can have very real damaging effects on the attackees.
Armed Blowfish wrote:
What I object to is stopping all discussion of particular attacks, both alleged and actual.
Not all discussion, just public discussion of specific attacks, unless of course the attackee wants to talk about it.
We are an open community. It would be great if we could discuss things in private, but the only shared discussion is unfortunately a public one. This is a core aspect of Wikipedia. There is such public objection to your approach precisely because is undermines that core.
It may make targets (or perceived targets) feel better in the short term. In the long run, it creates darkness where suspicion and indifference breed.
But if you do let people talk about it, some of them may agree with the attacks, or say that the attackee needs to have thicker skin. As Fred pointed out, some things which may be said are false, but not obviously so. I'm not saying you would, but it is common practise.
Thus, public discussion of the matter can have very real damaging effects on the attackees.
I'm not denying any of that. However, the notion that we should suppress information because some people might end up with an opinion not officially sanctioned is antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia. More importantly, it doesn't work.
Going into the JFK article and removing all mention of conspiracy theories because they are bunk will not, in the long term, reduce their popularity or longevity. Sure, some people will not hear about them, so they will have the "right" opinion. But you'll make the conspiracy nuts more adamant, as you have just proved the conspiracy is even bigger than they thought.
Further, attempts to suppress information has counterintuitive effects. A publisher loves it when a book is banned by somebody, as it dramatically increases sales. People will rate a banned product as better in every way than similar people to whom it is freely available. Jurors can place more weight on a fact that they've been ordered to ignore, not less. And people prevented from hearing one side of an argument will favor that side more, not less, when they learn about the ban. [1]
And, as David Gerard points out, this has been amply borne out in our context as well. As well-meaning as the attempts to suppress information have been, they have achieved precisely the opposite of their goal.
The pains you mention are real, and worth weighing. But the solution you propose hasn't worked and will continue not to work. Trying harder to make it work will harm both the people you are trying to help and Wikipedia as a whole.
William
[1] See Robert Cialdini's "Influence", Ch 7, "Scarcity" and the studies he references there for pretty much everything in this paragraph.
On 21/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
Not all discussion, just public discussion of specific attacks, unless of course the attackee wants to talk about it.
We are an open community. It would be great if we could discuss things in private, but the only shared discussion is unfortunately a public one. This is a core aspect of Wikipedia. There is such public objection to your approach precisely because is undermines that core.
Who is this we of whom you speak? I am not a Wikipaedian.
If the community feels that openness should extend to the point of public discussion of the private lives of individuals, that community possesses an incredible lack of discretion.
But if you do let people talk about it, some of them may agree with the attacks, or say that the attackee needs to have thicker skin. As Fred pointed out, some things which may be said are false, but not obviously so. I'm not saying you would, but it is common practise.
Thus, public discussion of the matter can have very real damaging effects on the attackees.
I'm not denying any of that. However, the notion that we should suppress information because some people might end up with an opinion not officially sanctioned is antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia. More importantly, it doesn't work.
And what right do random people on the internet have to judge the sex life of a private individual?
Going into the JFK article and removing all mention of conspiracy theories because they are bunk will not, in the long term, reduce their popularity or longevity. Sure, some people will not hear about them, so they will have the "right" opinion. But you'll make the conspiracy nuts more adamant, as you have just proved the conspiracy is even bigger than they thought.
JFK is a very public figure. The average internet user - whether an admin, a banned user, or a WP critic - is not.
[snip]
Armed Blowfish wrote:
Who is this we of whom you speak? I am not a Wikipaedian.
Yes, I think we all get that now, thanks.
Going from the assumption that you are actually asking and not using my comment just for a rhetorical launch pad into something that's clearly a big issue for you, I'll answer: When I said "we" I referred to the Wikipedia community.
If the community feels that openness should extend to the point of public discussion of the private lives of individuals, that community possesses an incredible lack of discretion.
I am going to grit my teeth here again and assume that you are not willfully misunderstanding my point. However, I do think that you are repeatedly misunderstanding it to the extent that I suspect explaining it again won't help. From my side, it feels like you are picking out minor parts of what I've written, arguing with those bits, and ignoring the meat of what I'm saying
I know this is an emotional topic for you, apparently based on deep personal trauma, so perhaps I'm expecting too much in the way of reasoned discussion. If so, sorry; we can pass on to some other topic. Regardless, let me try one last time:
Nobody reasonable is advocating for unrestricted on-Wiki gossip. Nobody is requesting unlimited power to dig through somebody's personal life when it has no bearing on on-Wiki behavior or Wikipedia's governance.
What I am saying is that when concerns are raised about things that could affect Wikipedia's quality or reputation, Wikipedians should be able to look into those concerns. If that leads them to information published elsewhere on the Internet, even information some would rather keep quiet, we should generally trust them to handle that information wisely. If that leads them to people being jerks in ways that we wouldn't accept on Wikipedia, we should trust our colleagues to recognize the jerkiness. And to aid Wikipedians in coming to the right conclusions, we should let them discuss the issues as much as they need to. When specific people fail to handle that power responsibly, we should deal with them in the ways we already deal with malice and foolishness.
Yes, people will get things wrong sometimes. Usually, they will get it right. Right or wrong, their opinions will make people sad sometimes. I regret that, but believe the alternatives on offer are much more harmful.
I'm not denying any of that. However, the notion that we should suppress information because some people might end up with an opinion not officially sanctioned is antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia. More importantly, it doesn't work.
And what right do random people on the internet have to judge the sex life of a private individual?
Again, I feel like this is so tangential as to miss the point, but I'll play along for a bit more.
Under the US Constitution, they have every right. And you have the right to carry on judging them for judging. The notion is that over time, the truth wins out. And that letting the truth win out is more important than preventing bad feelings in the meantime.
Take a look at this guy:
http://cbs5.com/video/?id=26888@kpix.dayport.com
Did he change his judging of homosexuals because a committee somewhere ordered him to? Or because people with power suppressed mention of the views that he previously held?
I don't think so. I think he's verging on tears because an honest examination of things led him to a powerful truth.
Going into the JFK article and removing all mention of conspiracy theories because they are bunk will not, in the long term, reduce their popularity or longevity. [...]
JFK is a very public figure. The average internet user - whether an admin, a banned user, or a WP critic - is not.
Yes, but again you miss my point. Or at least appear to ignore it, using a snippet to jump to something else. I find that very frustrating.
However, to address your point, old notions of public and private are changing. Their used to be a wide separation, depending mainly on your access to an expensive communications device like a four-color printing press or a TV transmitter.
But the Internet has changed that. For $50 a month, you can have global distribution of your ideas. For a little more, you can do it with sound and video. The narrowing cost gap means a narrowed gap between public and private. And that gap will continue to narrow and blur as the technology gets cheaper. [1]
Wikipedia is an open project building the world's most read factual source. The notion that one could play an important public role in that and not thereby become an object of discussion is not just wrong, it's absurd. Wikipedia is essentially and inescapably a public endeavor. Electing to participate is putting oneself in the public sphere.
No, this is not a license to gossip endlessly. No, this does not excuse people being jerks. However, most-read factual source or not, our powers are limited. We cannot end gossip or jerkiness. The best we can do is to discourage those things on-wiki, and allow honest investigation of legitimate complaints, so that Wikipedians can judge for themselves what has merit and what does't.
William
[1] See Brin's "The Transparent Society" for a detailed look at this.
On 21/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
If the community feels that openness should extend to the point of public discussion of the private lives of individuals, that community possesses an incredible lack of discretion.
[snip]
I know this is an emotional topic for you, apparently based on deep personal trauma, so perhaps I'm expecting too much in the way of reasoned discussion. If so, sorry; we can pass on to some other topic. Regardless, let me try one last time:
Thanks for understanding that. : )
Nobody reasonable is advocating for unrestricted on-Wiki gossip. Nobody is requesting unlimited power to dig through somebody's personal life when it has no bearing on on-Wiki behavior or Wikipedia's governance.
But, unfortunately, it is all too easy to argue that a person's personal life is somehow relevant. Some argue that all editors should reveal their real names, due to some law prohibiting anonymous harassment. Some people think outing others is necessary to prove those people have conflicts of interest. And many people have very personal reasons for desiring privacy, which of course the accountability advocates want to know about.
But what on Wikipaedia is so important that it is worth hurting these people?
What I am saying is that when concerns are raised about things that could affect Wikipedia's quality or reputation, Wikipedians should be able to look into those concerns. If that leads them to information published elsewhere on the Internet, even information some would rather keep quiet, we should generally trust them to handle that information wisely. If that leads them to people being jerks in ways that we wouldn't accept on Wikipedia, we should trust our colleagues to recognize the jerkiness. And to aid Wikipedians in coming to the right conclusions, we should let them discuss the issues as much as they need to. When specific people fail to handle that power responsibly, we should deal with them in the ways we already deal with malice and foolishness.
I've seen Wikipaedia hurt enough people, myself included, that I really don't trust it anymore, and Wikipaedia really shouldn't be putting itself ahead of individuals all the time in any case.
Yes, people will get things wrong sometimes. Usually, they will get it right. Right or wrong, their opinions will make people sad sometimes. I regret that, but believe the alternatives on offer are much more harmful.
When every choice is a dilemma, how can one not make mistakes?
The world is made of pain, and Wikipaedia is much like the world in that regard.
I guess you are an optimist and I am a pessimist.
And what right do random people on the internet have to judge the sex life of a private individual?
Again, I feel like this is so tangential as to miss the point, but I'll play along for a bit more.
Well, it does happen a lot.
Under the US Constitution, they have every right. And you have the right to carry on judging them for judging. The notion is that over time, the truth wins out. And that letting the truth win out is more important than preventing bad feelings in the meantime.
Not all of us live in the United States.
A lot of the time, the truth loses and the lies people want to believe win out.
Take a look at this guy:
http://cbs5.com/video/?id=26888@kpix.dayport.com
Did he change his judging of homosexuals because a committee somewhere ordered him to? Or because people with power suppressed mention of the views that he previously held?
I don't think so. I think he's verging on tears because an honest examination of things led him to a powerful truth.
I certainly do suggest someone try to make peace with the 'attack sites'... except for ED, since even trying would probably make things worse.
JFK is a very public figure. The average internet user - whether an admin, a banned user, or a WP critic - is not.
However, to address your point, old notions of public and private are changing. Their used to be a wide separation, depending mainly on your access to an expensive communications device like a four-color printing press or a TV transmitter.
Or to put it more pessimistically, technology is making it easier to stalk people. Hurray for Tor....
But the Internet has changed that. For $50 a month, you can have global distribution of your ideas. For a little more, you can do it with sound and video. The narrowing cost gap means a narrowed gap between public and private. And that gap will continue to narrow and blur as the technology gets cheaper. [1]
More like $7 a month. I hope you are not paying that much for a small, low-bandwidth website?
Wikipedia is an open project building the world's most read factual source. The notion that one could play an important public role in that and not thereby become an object of discussion is not just wrong, it's absurd. Wikipedia is essentially and inescapably a public endeavor. Electing to participate is putting oneself in the public sphere.
Erm, Wikipaedia volunteers aren't paid enough to deal with the kind of things that are often said about them.
No, this is not a license to gossip endlessly. No, this does not excuse people being jerks. However, most-read factual source or not, our powers are limited. We cannot end gossip or jerkiness. The best we can do is to discourage those things on-wiki, and allow honest investigation of legitimate complaints, so that Wikipedians can judge for themselves what has merit and what does't.
William
[1] See Brin's "The Transparent Society" for a detailed look at this.
Okay, does Britannica have articles on individuals Wikipaedians? If not, they aren't that notable.
On 21/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
And, as David Gerard points out, this has been amply borne out in our context as well. As well-meaning as the attempts to suppress information have been, they have achieved precisely the opposite of their goal.
If you ask ED to remove something, they will attack you even more. Where do you think they learnt that from?
On 21/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 21/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
And, as David Gerard points out, this has been amply borne out in our context as well. As well-meaning as the attempts to suppress information have been, they have achieved precisely the opposite of their goal.
If you ask ED to remove something, they will attack you even more. Where do you think they learnt that from?
4chan.
On 21/09/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
If you ask ED to remove something, they will attack you even more. Where do you think they learnt that from?
4chan.
-- geni
Interesting. Did WP also learn this from 4chan?
On 21/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 21/09/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
If you ask ED to remove something, they will attack you even more. Where do you think they learnt that from?
4chan.
Interesting. Did WP also learn this from 4chan?
Do you have anything useful to contribute? Now that you have stated you don't consider yourself to be a Wikipedian.
- d.
On 21/09/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Do you have anything useful to contribute? Now that you have stated you don't consider yourself to be a Wikipedian.
- d.
Well, apparently bringing the Gunston Hall article up from a stub to a Good Article was an egregious violation of WP policy, so now I am advocating being nicer to banned users and other people and strengthening BLP in general.
On 21/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 21/09/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
If you ask ED to remove something, they will attack you even more. Where do you think they learnt that from?
4chan.
-- geni
Interesting. Did WP also learn this from 4chan?
Wikipedia doesn't do it so the answer would appear to be no. #wikipedia has picked up a few of the meme phrases but that is about the limit of 4chan's influence (well other that making sure there is a class of wikipedian who are completely immune to shock images).
On 21/09/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 21/09/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
If you ask ED to remove something, they will attack you even more. Where do you think they learnt that from?
4chan.
Interesting. Did WP also learn this from 4chan?
Wikipedia doesn't do it so the answer would appear to be no. #wikipedia has picked up a few of the meme phrases but that is about the limit of 4chan's influence (well other that making sure there is a class of wikipedian who are completely immune to shock images). -- geni
Except Wikipaedia does attack people for even asking for content to be removed, because Wikipaedia seems to think it has the right to discuss everything, including the private lives of individuals connected to Wikipaedia.
On 21/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Except Wikipaedia does attack people for even asking for content to be removed,
OTRS people would tend to dissagree and they know a lot more about removeing stuff about people than you are ever likely to do so.
On 21/09/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Except Wikipaedia does attack people for even asking for content to be removed,
OTRS people would tend to dissagree and they know a lot more about removeing stuff about people than you are ever likely to do so.
-- geni
The OTRS people are quite nice. Unfortunately, OTRS is not a badge, and the community sometimes fights them tooth and nail.
On 21/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
The OTRS people are quite nice. Unfortunately, OTRS is not a badge, and the community sometimes fights them tooth and nail.
Of course. Because sometimes OTRS are wrong.
On 21/09/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
The OTRS people are quite nice. Unfortunately, OTRS is not a badge, and the community sometimes fights them tooth and nail.
Of course. Because sometimes OTRS are wrong.
-- geni
Or perhaps the community is cruel. Saying no is one thing. Attacking someone for even asking, threatening to file an AN/I against the person if he or she ever asks for any more page blankings and deletions, and drawing attention to the part of the material that outed the person is another matter entirely.
If you then proceed to email WR to ask them to remove the material on their website that draws attention to the blankings, the attacks, and the outing, they will kindly do so, send you a sympathetic email in return and you won't hear anything more from them on the subject.
On 21/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 21/09/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
The OTRS people are quite nice. Unfortunately, OTRS is not a badge, and the community sometimes fights them tooth and nail.
Of course. Because sometimes OTRS are wrong.
-- geni
Or perhaps the community is cruel.
No you are thinking of anonymous
Saying no is one thing. Attacking someone for even asking, threatening to file an AN/I against the person if he or she ever asks for any more page blankings and deletions, and drawing attention to the part of the material that outed the person is another matter entirely.
Depends how they ask.
On 21/09/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Or perhaps the community is cruel.
No you are thinking of anonymous
'I'm in pain, please make it better.'
'How dare you even ask! Tell us all about your pain!'
Saying no is one thing. Attacking someone for even asking, threatening to file an AN/I against the person if he or she ever asks for any more page blankings and deletions, and drawing attention to the part of the material that outed the person is another matter entirely.
Depends how they ask.
-- geni
Privately, to the OTRS member, who blanks the material, only for there to be an outcry from the WP community.