The big wars over linking to so-called "attack sites" have moved to yet another venue... and this time, instead of just chilling discussion on various and sundry talk and project pages (but being pretty much peripheral to anything to do with maintaining an encyclopedia, other than diverting energy away from it), they're actually having a direct and negative effect on our quality as an encyclopedia. It seems that, regarding the [[Essjay controversy]], one of the Wikipedia-related conflicts that is notable enough to have a mainspace article, a key part of the history of the unfolding of this story took place on one of the "attack sites". (Our favorite enemy Daniel Brandt played a big role in that.) So, naturally, some people wanting a well-referenced historical record wish to include the relevant link. Others are fighting it, making the same tired arguments about ArbCom rulings and pseudo-policy. I was trying to mellow out about this whole issue so that I could get back to doing something actually relevant to the encyclopedia, but it seems like the damn thing keeps intruding no matter what, like the monster in a bad horror movie.
Personally, I'd delete [[Essjay controversy]] - we only think it's notable because it's a Wikipedia-related topic. Any other website and we wouldn't have it.
-Phil
On Jun 24, 2007, at 7:24 PM, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
The big wars over linking to so-called "attack sites" have moved to yet another venue... and this time, instead of just chilling discussion on various and sundry talk and project pages (but being pretty much peripheral to anything to do with maintaining an encyclopedia, other than diverting energy away from it), they're actually having a direct and negative effect on our quality as an encyclopedia. It seems that, regarding the [[Essjay controversy]], one of the Wikipedia-related conflicts that is notable enough to have a mainspace article, a key part of the history of the unfolding of this story took place on one of the "attack sites". (Our favorite enemy Daniel Brandt played a big role in that.) So, naturally, some people wanting a well-referenced historical record wish to include the relevant link. Others are fighting it, making the same tired arguments about ArbCom rulings and pseudo-policy. I was trying to mellow out about this whole issue so that I could get back to doing something actually relevant to the encyclopedia, but it seems like the damn thing keeps intruding no matter what, like the monster in a bad horror movie. -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Phil Sandifer schreef:
Personally, I'd delete [[Essjay controversy]] - we only think it's notable because it's a Wikipedia-related topic. Any other website and we wouldn't have it.
It shouldn't be deleted; the Essjay controversy is an important episode in the history of Wikipedia, and is often referred to in discussions both among wikipedians and among wikipedia critics.
It should be kept, probably in the Wikipedia: namespace.
Eugene
On 6/25/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
It should be kept, probably in the Wikipedia: namespace.
Well, yeah, it should be kept, but it's not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I completely agree with Phil. Move it to project-space
On 6/25/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/25/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
It should be kept, probably in the Wikipedia: namespace.
Well, yeah, it should be kept, but it's not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I completely agree with Phil. Move it to project-space
The place for that conversation is initaly at least the article talk page.
What makes it not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia?
Does Wikipedia not exist in the real world?
On 6/25/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/25/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
It should be kept, probably in the Wikipedia: namespace.
Well, yeah, it should be kept, but it's not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I completely agree with Phil. Move it to project-space
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Personally, I'd delete [[Essjay controversy]] - we only think it's notable because it's a Wikipedia-related topic. Any other website and we wouldn't have it.
There was plenty of media coverage of it - that's the usual criterion for notability of an event.
the media coverage was because Wikipedia is a famous website, Essjay was not, is not. He came into limelight only because of the controversy created on the website.
Would this piece be of any value after 10 years? I think not.
It is a serious BLP violation and should be deleted. Imagine something like this having repercussions for the rest of your life for something which you did in your teens.
Sir Nicholas
On 6/25/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I'd delete [[Essjay controversy]] - we only think it's notable because it's a Wikipedia-related topic. Any other website and we wouldn't have it.
There was plenty of media coverage of it - that's the usual criterion for notability of an event.
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 6/25/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
the media coverage was because Wikipedia is a famous website, Essjay was not, is not. He came into limelight only because of the controversy created on the website.
That is a good summary.
Would this piece be of any value after 10 years? I think not.
You are almost definitely wrong. Why don't we wait 10 years, and if it's of no value, we can delete it then. Deal?
It is a serious BLP violation and should be deleted.
A violation of what? It's an assiduously accurate and well-sourced article.
Imagine something like
this having repercussions for the rest of your life for something which you did in your teens.
Essjay is not a teenager. He is an adult. And I'm sure that many people can well imagine having repercussions for the rest of their life for something which they did in their teens, so I'm not sure why you brought up that irrelevancy.
Sir Nicholas
On 6/25/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I'd delete [[Essjay controversy]] - we only think it's notable because it's a Wikipedia-related topic. Any other website and we wouldn't have it.
There was plenty of media coverage of it - that's the usual criterion for notability of an event.
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 6/25/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
the media coverage was because Wikipedia is a famous website, Essjay was not, is not. He came into limelight only because of the controversy created on the website.
Would this piece be of any value after 10 years? I think not.
It is a serious BLP violation and should be deleted. Imagine something like this having repercussions for the rest of your life for something which you did in your teens.
Sir Nicholas
I think two statements are true:
1) An incident which has coverage (in some cases front-page) in most major US newspapers and newsmagazines rises to the level of notability under any rational interpretation of the word.
2) This sucks for Essjay.
BLP doesn't mean we won't cover something because it involves a friend or aquaintence of ours who has been put in a terrible situation.
I understand the desire to save Essjay the ongoing embarrassment. I sympathize with it. But that doesn't override (1) above. He managed to make himself notable in the real world press.
If you're going to propose that we really should delete the article, then don't cloak it in BLP. There is no BLP policy violation. There is an arguable human dignity issue, but that's not strictly a BLP policy issue. If you want to argue for one of the special-case human dignity exceptions to be made, then argue for that, not that this falls under BLP policy.
On Jun 25, 2007, at 8:30 PM, George Herbert wrote:
On 6/25/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
- An incident which has coverage (in some cases front-page) in most
major US newspapers and newsmagazines rises to the level of notability under any rational interpretation of the word.
In many cases, yes. But actually in most cases, no.
Here's a very big routine news story today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6238740.stm
Widely covered: http://news.google.com/news?tab=wn&client=firefox- a&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US% 3Aofficial&ncl=1117582711&hl=en
But I think we can all say that this study does not deserve an encyclopedia article. It's just a routine "filler" news story.
I think if you survey the front page of CNN or BBC or the New York Times each day, you will find that the vast majority of news stories are not about things which are encyclopedic in nature, and we end up not writing about most of them.
This may or may not have relevance in the EssJay notability debate, but just saying "it was in a lot of newspapers" doesn't really help settle the issue.
--Jimbo
On 6/26/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
On Jun 25, 2007, at 8:30 PM, George Herbert wrote:
On 6/25/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
- An incident which has coverage (in some cases front-page) in most
major US newspapers and newsmagazines rises to the level of notability under any rational interpretation of the word.
In many cases, yes. But actually in most cases, no.
Here's a very big routine news story today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6238740.stm
Widely covered: http://news.google.com/news?tab=wn&client=firefox- a&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US% 3Aofficial&ncl=1117582711&hl=en
But I think we can all say that this study does not deserve an encyclopedia article. It's just a routine "filler" news story.
I think it's just a matter of coming up with the right title. Googling [[Diet Plate]] suggests to me that it deserves an article.
Headline on CNN right now is "Poll: War support at new low" do we have an article of this poll? We write articles on events unless they are notable enough for the entire year rather than day.
A notable event would be Jimbo deciding to shut down the site (wikipedia) for example which would IMHO only be notable enough to be mentioned on the article on [[Wikipedia]]. Probably the coverage would be one or two lines, max a paragraph. Not a full article, that can be on wikinews (maybe). Essjay incident however isn't even worth a single line mention on article namespace.
I also think that Essjay article is in violation of the spirit of "right to vanish". I do not particularly ''like'' Essjay but this mocking of him even bothers me. I ask myself this question: "will I be mistreated like him if circumstances are right?"
- White Cat
On 6/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
On Jun 25, 2007, at 8:30 PM, George Herbert wrote:
On 6/25/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
- An incident which has coverage (in some cases front-page) in most
major US newspapers and newsmagazines rises to the level of notability under any rational interpretation of the word.
In many cases, yes. But actually in most cases, no.
Here's a very big routine news story today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6238740.stm
Widely covered: http://news.google.com/news?tab=wn&client=firefox- a&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US% 3Aofficial&ncl=1117582711&hl=en
But I think we can all say that this study does not deserve an encyclopedia article. It's just a routine "filler" news story.
I think if you survey the front page of CNN or BBC or the New York Times each day, you will find that the vast majority of news stories are not about things which are encyclopedic in nature, and we end up not writing about most of them.
This may or may not have relevance in the EssJay notability debate, but just saying "it was in a lot of newspapers" doesn't really help settle the issue.
--Jimbo
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 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Headline on CNN right now is "Poll: War support at new low" do we have an article of this poll? We write articles on events unless they are notable enough for the entire year rather than day.
[[American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq]]
A notable event would be Jimbo deciding to shut down the site (wikipedia) for example which would IMHO only be notable enough to be mentioned on the article on [[Wikipedia]]. Probably the coverage would be one or two lines, max a paragraph. Not a full article, that can be on wikinews (maybe). Essjay incident however isn't even worth a single line mention on article namespace.
I also think that Essjay article is in violation of the spirit of "right to vanish". I do not particularly ''like'' Essjay but this mocking of him even bothers me. I ask myself this question: "will I be mistreated like him if circumstances are right?"
The spirit of "right to vanish" is one important to MeatballWiki, not to an encyclopedia. In fact, it contravenes the mission of Wikipedia.
Sorry, but them's the breaks.
On 6/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
On Jun 25, 2007, at 8:30 PM, George Herbert wrote:
On 6/25/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
- An incident which has coverage (in some cases front-page) in most
major US newspapers and newsmagazines rises to the level of notability under any rational interpretation of the word.
In many cases, yes. But actually in most cases, no.
Here's a very big routine news story today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6238740.stm
Widely covered: http://news.google.com/news?tab=wn&client=firefox- a&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US% 3Aofficial&ncl=1117582711&hl=en
But I think we can all say that this study does not deserve an encyclopedia article. It's just a routine "filler" news story.
I think if you survey the front page of CNN or BBC or the New York Times each day, you will find that the vast majority of news stories are not about things which are encyclopedic in nature, and we end up not writing about most of them.
This may or may not have relevance in the EssJay notability debate, but just saying "it was in a lot of newspapers" doesn't really help settle the issue.
--Jimbo
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
American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq yes, thats fine. But an article about the spesific poll is not. An article on wikipedia is fine, an article on every minor dispute is not.
- White Cat
On 6/27/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Headline on CNN right now is "Poll: War support at new low" do we have
an
article of this poll? We write articles on events unless they are
notable
enough for the entire year rather than day.
[[American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq]]
A notable event would be Jimbo deciding to shut down the site
(wikipedia)
for example which would IMHO only be notable enough to be mentioned on
the
article on [[Wikipedia]]. Probably the coverage would be one or two
lines,
max a paragraph. Not a full article, that can be on wikinews (maybe).
Essjay
incident however isn't even worth a single line mention on article namespace.
I also think that Essjay article is in violation of the spirit of "right
to
vanish". I do not particularly ''like'' Essjay but this mocking of him
even
bothers me. I ask myself this question: "will I be mistreated like him
if
circumstances are right?"
The spirit of "right to vanish" is one important to MeatballWiki, not to an encyclopedia. In fact, it contravenes the mission of Wikipedia.
Sorry, but them's the breaks.
On 6/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
On Jun 25, 2007, at 8:30 PM, George Herbert wrote:
On 6/25/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
- An incident which has coverage (in some cases front-page) in most
major US newspapers and newsmagazines rises to the level of
notability
under any rational interpretation of the word.
In many cases, yes. But actually in most cases, no.
Here's a very big routine news story today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6238740.stm
Widely covered: http://news.google.com/news?tab=wn&client=firefox- a&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US% 3Aofficial&ncl=1117582711&hl=en
But I think we can all say that this study does not deserve an encyclopedia article. It's just a routine "filler" news story.
I think if you survey the front page of CNN or BBC or the New York Times each day, you will find that the vast majority of news stories are not about things which are encyclopedic in nature, and we end up not writing about most of them.
This may or may not have relevance in the EssJay notability debate, but just saying "it was in a lot of newspapers" doesn't really help settle the issue.
--Jimbo
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
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'd like to add that the news article is merely a statistical update on the war in Iraq. The poll is probably note-worthy only as statistical raw data. Aside from that it is not very notable at all. We do not want/need "opinion polls by month" chain articles.
People's right to vanish is an important aspect to any Wiki (or community for that matter) unless the wiki enjoys being a dick to its former users. Unless there is disruption, there is no reason not to observe "right to vanish." Who would want to contribute to a wiki which actively mocks former members?
Essjay had contributed to the project a great deal and is not given half the courtesy he deserves for that. Vandals who had done nothing productive (aside from MediaWiki fixes to prevent their vandalism) like MARMOT are given a greater courtesy. For example Jimbo even deleted the vandalism related sub pages out of courtesy to MARMOT. Frankly I feel people are being unfair to Essjay.
- White Cat
On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq yes, thats fine. But an article about the spesific poll is not. An article on wikipedia is fine, an article on every minor dispute is not.
- White CatOn 6/27/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Headline on CNN right now is "Poll: War support at new low" do we have
an
article of this poll? We write articles on events unless they are
notable
enough for the entire year rather than day.
[[American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq]]
A notable event would be Jimbo deciding to shut down the site
(wikipedia)
for example which would IMHO only be notable enough to be mentioned on
the
article on [[Wikipedia]]. Probably the coverage would be one or two
lines,
max a paragraph. Not a full article, that can be on wikinews (maybe).
Essjay
incident however isn't even worth a single line mention on article namespace.
I also think that Essjay article is in violation of the spirit of
"right to
vanish". I do not particularly ''like'' Essjay but this mocking of him
even
bothers me. I ask myself this question: "will I be mistreated like him
if
circumstances are right?"
The spirit of "right to vanish" is one important to MeatballWiki, not to an encyclopedia. In fact, it contravenes the mission of Wikipedia.
Sorry, but them's the breaks.
On 6/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
On Jun 25, 2007, at 8:30 PM, George Herbert wrote:
On 6/25/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
- An incident which has coverage (in some cases front-page) in
most
major US newspapers and newsmagazines rises to the level of
notability
under any rational interpretation of the word.
In many cases, yes. But actually in most cases, no.
Here's a very big routine news story today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6238740.stm
Widely covered: http://news.google.com/news?tab=wn&client=firefox- a&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US% 3Aofficial&ncl=1117582711&hl=en
But I think we can all say that this study does not deserve an encyclopedia article. It's just a routine "filler" news story.
I think if you survey the front page of CNN or BBC or the New York Times each day, you will find that the vast majority of news stories
are not about things which are encyclopedic in nature, and we end up not writing about most of them.
This may or may not have relevance in the EssJay notability debate, but just saying "it was in a lot of newspapers" doesn't really help settle the issue.
--Jimbo
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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
http://www.google.com/trends?q=jimmy+wales+wikipedia%2C+brian+peppers+wikipe...
Now thats a more accurate way to look at it.
- White Cat
On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to add that the news article is merely a statistical update on the war in Iraq. The poll is probably note-worthy only as statistical raw data. Aside from that it is not very notable at all. We do not want/need "opinion polls by month" chain articles.
People's right to vanish is an important aspect to any Wiki (or community for that matter) unless the wiki enjoys being a dick to its former users. Unless there is disruption, there is no reason not to observe "right to vanish." Who would want to contribute to a wiki which actively mocks former members?
Essjay had contributed to the project a great deal and is not given half the courtesy he deserves for that. Vandals who had done nothing productive (aside from MediaWiki fixes to prevent their vandalism) like MARMOT are given a greater courtesy. For example Jimbo even deleted the vandalism related sub pages out of courtesy to MARMOT. Frankly I feel people are being unfair to Essjay.
- White CatOn 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq yes, thats fine. But an article about the spesific poll is not. An article on wikipedia is fine, an article on every minor dispute is not.
- White CatOn 6/27/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Headline on CNN right now is "Poll: War support at new low" do we
have an
article of this poll? We write articles on events unless they are
notable
enough for the entire year rather than day.
[[American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq]]
A notable event would be Jimbo deciding to shut down the site
(wikipedia)
for example which would IMHO only be notable enough to be mentioned
on the
article on [[Wikipedia]]. Probably the coverage would be one or two
lines,
max a paragraph. Not a full article, that can be on wikinews
(maybe). Essjay
incident however isn't even worth a single line mention on article namespace.
I also think that Essjay article is in violation of the spirit of
"right to
vanish". I do not particularly ''like'' Essjay but this mocking of
him even
bothers me. I ask myself this question: "will I be mistreated like
him if
circumstances are right?"
The spirit of "right to vanish" is one important to MeatballWiki, not to an encyclopedia. In fact, it contravenes the mission of Wikipedia.
Sorry, but them's the breaks.
On 6/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
On Jun 25, 2007, at 8:30 PM, George Herbert wrote:
On 6/25/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
- An incident which has coverage (in some cases front-page) in
most
major US newspapers and newsmagazines rises to the level of
notability
under any rational interpretation of the word.
In many cases, yes. But actually in most cases, no.
Here's a very big routine news story today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6238740.stm
Widely covered: http://news.google.com/news?tab=wn&client=firefox- a&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US% 3Aofficial&ncl=1117582711&hl=en
But I think we can all say that this study does not deserve an encyclopedia article. It's just a routine "filler" news story.
I think if you survey the front page of CNN or BBC or the New York Times each day, you will find that the vast majority of news
stories
are not about things which are encyclopedic in nature, and we end
up
not writing about most of them.
This may or may not have relevance in the EssJay notability
debate,
but just saying "it was in a lot of newspapers" doesn't really
help
settle the issue.
--Jimbo
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
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 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=jimmy+wales+wikipedia%2C+brian+peppers+wikipe...
Now thats a more accurate way to look at it.
Two major problems with that (and a few minor ones which I made myself): Jimmy Wales, Brian Peppers, and Iraq war poll should all be in quotes. It doesn't much affect the two names, but the affect on Iraq war poll is significant. Also, there's no reason Wikipedia should be included with Brian Peppers name, as Brian Peppers has very little to do with Wikipedia.
The fact of the matter is that way more people are searching for information on Brian Peppers than on Jimmy Wales *or* Essjay. That's what that google trends search I gave clearly shows.
"Brian Peppers" isn't notable though. We do not even have an article on him. Nor should we have one. He isn't notable... - White Cat
On 6/27/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=jimmy+wales+wikipedia%2C+brian+peppers+wikipe...
Now thats a more accurate way to look at it.
Two major problems with that (and a few minor ones which I made myself): Jimmy Wales, Brian Peppers, and Iraq war poll should all be in quotes. It doesn't much affect the two names, but the affect on Iraq war poll is significant. Also, there's no reason Wikipedia should be included with Brian Peppers name, as Brian Peppers has very little to do with Wikipedia.
The fact of the matter is that way more people are searching for information on Brian Peppers than on Jimmy Wales *or* Essjay. That's what that google trends search I gave clearly shows.
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 Wednesday 27 June 2007 07:55, White Cat wrote:
"Brian Peppers" isn't notable though. We do not even have an article on him. Nor should we have one. He isn't notable... - White Cat
He exists, doesn't he?
On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
"Brian Peppers" isn't notable though. We do not even have an article on him. Nor should we have one. He isn't notable...
It is your opinion that he isn't notable. I and many others have a different opinion.
On 6/27/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
The fact of the matter is that way more people are searching for information on Brian Peppers than on Jimmy Wales *or* Essjay. That's what that google trends search I gave clearly shows.
What are they finding? If I recall the debate correctly, no one has yet to come up with anything resembling a reliable source.
On 6/27/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/27/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
The fact of the matter is that way more people are searching for information on Brian Peppers than on Jimmy Wales *or* Essjay. That's what that google trends search I gave clearly shows.
What are they finding? If I recall the debate correctly, no one has yet to come up with anything resembling a reliable source.
You either recall incorrectly or whatever you've read previously was incorrect. There are at least 4 or 5 reliable sources for Brian Peppers.
On 6/27/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
You either recall incorrectly or whatever you've read previously was incorrect. There are at least 4 or 5 reliable sources for Brian Peppers.
Really? I recall during the mailing list debate that I did a database search and didn't find a single thing. And just now I looked at the deleted article and the only thing I saw there was a link to snopes.
On 6/27/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/27/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
You either recall incorrectly or whatever you've read previously was incorrect. There are at least 4 or 5 reliable sources for Brian Peppers.
Really? I recall during the mailing list debate that I did a database search and didn't find a single thing. And just now I looked at the deleted article and the only thing I saw there was a link to snopes.
I'm not sure what database you were searching, but your look at the deleted article clearly shows that someone has come up with something "resembling a reliable source". In fact, the deleted article apparently contained at least one bona-fide reliable source. And the Snopes article itself links to other reliable sources.
On 6/27/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/27/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure what database you were searching, but your look at the deleted article clearly shows that someone has come up with something "resembling a reliable source". In fact, the deleted article apparently contained at least one bona-fide reliable source. And the Snopes article itself links to other reliable sources.
Do you really think it's appropriate to have an entire article based on a snopes page? You keep alluding to other reliable sources, but I have yet to come across any. What are they?
On 6/27/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/27/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/27/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure what database you were searching, but your look at the deleted article clearly shows that someone has come up with something "resembling a reliable source". In fact, the deleted article apparently contained at least one bona-fide reliable source. And the Snopes article itself links to other reliable sources.
Do you really think it's appropriate to have an entire article based on a snopes page?
It would depend on the specifics of the situation.
You keep alluding to other reliable sources, but I have yet to come across any. What are they?
eSorn, the sex offender list, the court records, Fox Toledo...
On 6/27/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
You keep alluding to other reliable sources, but I have yet to come across any. What are they?
eSorn, the sex offender list, the court records, Fox Toledo...
These are not encyclopedic sources. What I mean by that is not that they are unreliable and thus should not be used, since they are obviously accurate as sources go. What I mean is that they are not encyclopedic in the sense that they don't tell us anything about why a particular individual is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. They provide raw data, not information or context. By repeatedly citing the google search stats, you are (I assume) trying to justify the existence of a Brian Peppers article on the grounds that he is a noteworthy internet meme, so what is needed are reliable sources establishing that he is in fact a noteworthy internet meme, not sources that merely establish his existence as a person or a criminal sex offender. In short, a reliable source establishing why *this particular* person should have an article, as opposed to all the other essentially anonymous people on the sex offender list or in Ohio court records.
On 6/28/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/27/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
You keep alluding to other reliable sources, but I have yet to come across any. What are they?
eSorn, the sex offender list, the court records, Fox Toledo...
These are not encyclopedic sources. What I mean by that is not that they are unreliable and thus should not be used, since they are obviously accurate as sources go. What I mean is that they are not encyclopedic in the sense that they don't tell us anything about why a particular individual is worthy of an encyclopedia entry.
Um the Fox Toledo one does.
On 6/28/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/27/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
You keep alluding to other reliable sources, but I have yet to come across any. What are they?
eSorn, the sex offender list, the court records, Fox Toledo...
These are not encyclopedic sources. What I mean by that is not that they are unreliable and thus should not be used, since they are obviously accurate as sources go.
So, when you said that "no one has yet to come up with anything resembling a reliable source" what you meant was that we've come up with lots of reliable sources, but that we haven't come up with what you would consider multiple encyclopedic reliable sources?
With that amendment, I'm apt to stop disagreeing.
What I mean is that they are not encyclopedic in the sense that they don't tell us anything about why a particular individual is worthy of an encyclopedia entry.
Google Trends tell us that. Lots of people are searching for information on Brian Peppers.
They provide raw data, not information or context. By repeatedly citing the google search stats, you are (I assume) trying to justify the existence of a Brian Peppers article on the grounds that he is a noteworthy internet meme, so what is needed are reliable sources establishing that he is in fact a noteworthy internet meme, not sources that merely establish his existence as a person or a criminal sex offender.
No, I've never said anything about being an internet meme. I frankly don't even know what the term means.
In short, a reliable source establishing why *this particular* person should have an article, as opposed to all the other essentially anonymous people on the sex offender list or in Ohio court records.
The most reliable source for that is Google Trends. This particular person should have an article because lots of people are searching for information about him. If you want to call that "an internet meme", that's your terminology, not mine.
Anthony
On 29/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/28/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/27/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
You keep alluding to other reliable sources, but I have yet to come across any. What are they?
eSorn, the sex offender list, the court records, Fox Toledo...
These are not encyclopedic sources. What I mean by that is not that they are unreliable and thus should not be used, since they are obviously accurate as sources go.
So, when you said that "no one has yet to come up with anything resembling a reliable source" what you meant was that we've come up with lots of reliable sources, but that we haven't come up with what you would consider multiple encyclopedic reliable sources?
With that amendment, I'm apt to stop disagreeing.
What I mean is that they are not encyclopedic in the sense that they don't tell us anything about why a particular individual is worthy of an encyclopedia entry.
Google Trends tell us that. Lots of people are searching for information on Brian Peppers.
They provide raw data, not information or context. By repeatedly citing the google search stats, you are (I assume) trying to justify the existence of a Brian Peppers article on the grounds that he is a noteworthy internet meme, so what is needed are reliable sources establishing that he is in fact a noteworthy internet meme, not sources that merely establish his existence as a person or a criminal sex offender.
No, I've never said anything about being an internet meme. I frankly don't even know what the term means.
In short, a reliable source establishing why *this particular* person should have an article, as opposed to all the other essentially anonymous people on the sex offender list or in Ohio court records.
The most reliable source for that is Google Trends. This particular person should have an article because lots of people are searching for information about him. If you want to call that "an internet meme", that's your terminology, not mine.
Anthony
Forgive me but wasn't the Brian Peppers thing about ridicule and "fair ground show attraction" than it was about him being a meme. The whole thing is something that wikipedia is not about. Wikipedia should echo current themes in society (it is not a pen and paper encyclopedia) but it should not become the source. Wikipedia as a top rank site, has responsibilities. Snopes can do all that for us like did in newsgroups.
Mike
On 6/28/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Forgive me but wasn't the Brian Peppers thing about ridicule and "fair ground show attraction" than it was about him being a meme.
I have no idea, since I still haven't figured out what an internet meme is. Wiktionary says that a meme is "Any unit of cultural information, such as a practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another." So I guess an "internet meme" would be a unit of cultural information that is transmitted via an internet? Eh, I still don't understand the term. I've always thought of memes as being analogous to genes. Is "Star wars kid" an internet meme? Where's the analogy to genes?
On 6/28/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/28/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
They provide raw data, not information or context. By repeatedly citing the google search stats, you are (I assume) trying to justify the existence of a Brian Peppers article on the grounds that he is a noteworthy internet meme, so what is needed are reliable sources establishing that he is in fact a noteworthy internet meme, not sources that merely establish his existence as a person or a criminal sex offender.
No, I've never said anything about being an internet meme. I frankly don't even know what the term means.
I looked into it a bit more, mostly in the [[meme]] article, and while you could probably legitimately call just about anything an internet meme, I'd more see something like "O RLY" or "first post" or whatever the term is for fowarding stupid emails to everyone in your address book is, as an internet meme. I wouldn't really consider Brian Peppers to be a meme, though like I said you could probably legitimately argue for calling just about anything an internet meme.
Of course, [[Category:Internet memes]] seems to have a lot of articles that don't seem to be much of internet memes either. I guess the meme of calling things an internet meme has evolved into uselessness, kind of like the meme of calling people trolls.
On 29/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/28/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/28/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
They provide raw data, not information or context. By repeatedly citing the google search stats, you are (I assume) trying to justify the existence of a Brian Peppers article on the grounds that he is a noteworthy internet meme, so what is needed are reliable sources establishing that he is in fact a noteworthy internet meme, not sources that merely establish his existence as a person or a criminal sex offender.
No, I've never said anything about being an internet meme. I frankly don't even know what the term means.
I looked into it a bit more, mostly in the [[meme]] article, and while you could probably legitimately call just about anything an internet meme, I'd more see something like "O RLY" or "first post" or whatever the term is for fowarding stupid emails to everyone in your address book is, as an internet meme. I wouldn't really consider Brian Peppers to be a meme, though like I said you could probably legitimately argue for calling just about anything an internet meme.
Of course, [[Category:Internet memes]] seems to have a lot of articles that don't seem to be much of internet memes either. I guess the meme of calling things an internet meme has evolved into uselessness, kind of like the meme of calling people trolls.
I get your point that newspeak is silly. Linguistically, language probably evolves much faster than good articles. i use the word meme to describe a thing or person that becomes the most talked about thing in the workplace or school one week and disappears the next. it is a thing of shared common ground at the water pump or smoke room. it wasn't like our grandparents sharing important news about a pogrom or the death of somebody important at the village pump. Its a talking point that we can live without, but if you haven't seen it you might google it and shock horror you see Brian Peppers. Want to shock somebody else show them brian peppers. That is a meme.
Brian Peppers is perhaps the lowest that any editor can go on. It is everything that wikipedia is not. As I said we echo the craziest things from a new japanese playing card game and list every character down to their waist size to news of a cabinet reshuffle before its hit the lunchtime news. We are not a pen and paper encyclopedia and we have the ability to echo sourced information long before other have to shift through google "priority" hits, but when things are nasty, irrelevent or just downright shocking internet memes - I say don't go there.
</snip>
Brian Peppers is perhaps the lowest that any editor can go on. It is everything that wikipedia is not. As I said we echo the craziest things from a new japanese playing card game and list every character down to their waist size to news of a cabinet reshuffle before its hit the lunchtime news. We are not a pen and paper encyclopedia and we have the ability to echo sourced information long before other have to shift through google "priority" hits, but when things are nasty, irrelevent or just downright shocking internet memes - I say don't go there.
But who determines whether it is 'nasty, irrelevent or just downright shocking'? I certainly don't have the same opinion on the matter as you or as several admins. Does this mean that I am wrong? Perhaps. But I would argue that it is important that policy strive for objective measures so that there are no nasty suprises to people several hundred revisions and many consensuses later.
Sincerely, Silas Snider
On 29/06/07, Silas Snider swsnider@gmail.com wrote:
</snip> > Brian Peppers is perhaps the lowest that any editor can go on. It is > everything that wikipedia is not. As I said we echo the craziest things from > a new japanese playing card game and list every character down to their > waist size to news of a cabinet reshuffle before its hit the lunchtime > news. We are not a pen and paper encyclopedia and we have the ability to > echo sourced information long before other have to shift through google > "priority" hits, but when things are nasty, irrelevent or just downright > shocking internet memes - I say don't go there.
But who determines whether it is 'nasty, irrelevent or just downright shocking'? I certainly don't have the same opinion on the matter as you or as several admins. Does this mean that I am wrong? Perhaps. But I would argue that it is important that policy strive for objective measures so that there are no nasty suprises to people several hundred revisions and many consensuses later.
Sincerely, Silas Snider
Look some of the WP:BLP deletions haven't been fun. I don't particulary like every wikilawyer quoting WP:BLP at me either. I can imagine the horror of hours of edits going through the mincer and I am not saying that policy is always right or admins. But when an article is presented in such a way that if lends it weight to shock or ridicule, I can't see how even the most "give the benefit of the doubt" editor can say that articles like that suck and why didn't it get a spd? I'm not trying to give you the mighty mighty tiger argument - "then consider it was you on WP?" I am saying if it isn't covered by notable news organisations then neither should we.
On 6/28/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/06/07, Silas Snider swsnider@gmail.com wrote:
</snip> > Brian Peppers is perhaps the lowest that any editor can go on. It is > everything that wikipedia is not. As I said we echo the craziest things from > a new japanese playing card game and list every character down to their > waist size to news of a cabinet reshuffle before its hit the lunchtime > news. We are not a pen and paper encyclopedia and we have the ability to > echo sourced information long before other have to shift through google > "priority" hits, but when things are nasty, irrelevent or just downright > shocking internet memes - I say don't go there.
But who determines whether it is 'nasty, irrelevent or just downright shocking'? I certainly don't have the same opinion on the matter as you or as several admins. Does this mean that I am wrong? Perhaps. But I would argue that it is important that policy strive for objective measures so that there are no nasty suprises to people several hundred revisions and many consensuses later.
Sincerely, Silas Snider
Look some of the WP:BLP deletions haven't been fun. I don't particulary like every wikilawyer quoting WP:BLP at me either. I can imagine the horror of hours of edits going through the mincer and I am not saying that policy is always right or admins. But when an article is presented in such a way that if lends it weight to shock or ridicule, I can't see how even the most "give the benefit of the doubt" editor can say that articles like that suck and why didn't it get a spd? I'm not trying to give you the mighty mighty tiger argument - "then consider it was you on WP?" I am saying if it isn't covered by notable news organisations then neither should we.
I see where you are coming from, but I must disagree. Notable news organizations can be extremely spotty in their coverage.
Also, are you actually asserting that there are some topics, such as Brian Peppers, which otherwise pass our verifiability standards, but about which we could *never* write a NPOV article? Or are you saying that it would be too harmful to the subject of the article to have one? In the latter case, I thought we had mostly agreed on this mailing list that any harm that we do by publishing information that is available elsewhere is minor compared to the harm of censoring topics because it might hurt someone's feelings, especially as it would never stop at the 'obvious' cases. (Sorry, can't find the link at the moment)
Sincerely, Silas Snider
On 29/06/07, Silas Snider swsnider@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Look some of the WP:BLP deletions haven't been fun. I don't
particulary
like every wikilawyer quoting WP:BLP at me either. I can imagine the
horror
of hours of edits going through the mincer and I am not saying that
policy
is always right or admins. But when an article is presented in such a
way
that if lends it weight to shock or ridicule, I can't see how even the
most
"give the benefit of the doubt" editor can say that articles like that
suck
and why didn't it get a spd? I'm not trying to give you the mighty
mighty
tiger argument - "then consider it was you on WP?" I am saying if it
isn't
covered by notable news organisations then neither should we.
I see where you are coming from, but I must disagree. Notable news organizations can be extremely spotty in their coverage.
Also, are you actually asserting that there are some topics, such as Brian Peppers, which otherwise pass our verifiability standards, but about which we could *never* write a NPOV article? Or are you saying that it would be too harmful to the subject of the article to have one? In the latter case, I thought we had mostly agreed on this mailing list that any harm that we do by publishing information that is available elsewhere is minor compared to the harm of censoring topics because it might hurt someone's feelings, especially as it would never stop at the 'obvious' cases. (Sorry, can't find the link at the moment)
Sincerely, Silas Snider
No, the "and it makes baby jesus cry too" sentiment that is passed off as sane "this is an encyclopedia" grate me too. Censorship/WP:OFFICE is not cool. WP exists now and apart from someone bored at work/home who writes a "badness", that makes the project look "bad" WP:OFFICE should only come into play then, when vandalism has gone outta sight. My concerns about Brian Pepper (plz G-d Don't do it again Brian) is that or new episodes of the "internet phenonemn" is that without real coverage in newspapers, we rely on boarderline sources, which may have really only found about something because we discuss them so much. Wikipedia is a great way is becoming infamous - we don't feed trolls but we feed every other nutter who is interested in something unsavoury.
Depending on when something is written, it can be cached or mirrored for days later. You try telling that to a 9th grader. "nah it must be true it was on wikipedia". We have a great duty to tell the truth, in terms of truth there really was nothing we could add - it was as you say already out there - but we added a top post to every single search. Why was Brian Peppers there? Brian Peppers was there because nobody could believe a basket case like him could exist, never mind commit a sex crime. It is offensive those words, people weren't trying to find out what happened but to guess about what he had done.
WP:BLP can't work on every case. Notable newspapers probably do as you suggest have their own agenda when reporting things. Censoring what makes wikipedia bad isn't bad.
Mike Mike33
On 6/29/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Why was Brian Peppers there? Brian Peppers was there because nobody could believe a basket case like him could exist, never mind commit a sex crime. It is offensive those words, people weren't trying to find out what happened but to guess about what he had done.
I note that the only one in this thread calling Brian Peppers unsavory and shocking and a basket case is you.
On 29/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/29/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Why was Brian Peppers there? Brian Peppers was there because nobody could believe a basket
case
like him could exist, never mind commit a sex crime. It is offensive
those
words, people weren't trying to find out what happened but to guess
about
what he had done.
I note that the only one in this thread calling Brian Peppers unsavory and shocking and a basket case is you.
Why were people searching for Brian Peppers? How had they heard about him? when they search were do they hit first?
On 6/29/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Why were people searching for Brian Peppers? How had they heard about him? when they search were do they hit first?
I have no idea why people were searching for Brian Peppers, other than that they apparently wanted to find out more information about him, and I highly doubt a decent study has been done to determine more exactly why people were searching for him and how they had heard about him. Anecdotally, I heard about him through the deletion discussion. I believe Snopes is currently the top hit for a search. It probably used to be Wikipedia.
Not sure why any of this matters, though.
On 29/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/29/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Why were people searching for Brian Peppers? How had they heard about
him?
when they search were do they hit first?
I have no idea why people were searching for Brian Peppers, other than that they apparently wanted to find out more information about him, and I highly doubt a decent study has been done to determine more exactly why people were searching for him and how they had heard about him. Anecdotally, I heard about him through the deletion discussion. I believe Snopes is currently the top hit for a search. It probably used to be Wikipedia.
Not sure why any of this matters, though.
Well it all goes back to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia isn't snopes. Snopes has done a great job since newsgroups/bbs. Does wikipedia want to be like snopes?
Next week we'll get a guy that felates his pet monkey on the japanese railway system "Monkey Blower", it got 100,110 hits first week it went on YouTube, will we cover it? Probably yes until the guy gets arrested and his name comes out. We'll revert to earlier pages, a GFDL pic of him felating his monkey and some geo about the train system in tokyo and maybe a reference to it arousing intrigue (but not arousing the monkey)
There are innocent memes that self publicize. I dont think that Brian Peppers was. His only claim to 15 minutes was that he looked very ugly, he was ridiculed like a carnival attraction. The guy did not have a column in a single newspaper never mind 10. He was an attraction of gouls and bloggists. If I ofended you with my words you can see much worse descriptions.
On 6/29/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/29/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Why were people searching for Brian Peppers? How had they heard about
him?
when they search were do they hit first?
I have no idea why people were searching for Brian Peppers, other than that they apparently wanted to find out more information about him, and I highly doubt a decent study has been done to determine more exactly why people were searching for him and how they had heard about him. Anecdotally, I heard about him through the deletion discussion. I believe Snopes is currently the top hit for a search. It probably used to be Wikipedia.
Not sure why any of this matters, though.
Well it all goes back to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia isn't snopes. Snopes has done a great job since newsgroups/bbs. Does wikipedia want to be like snopes?
No, of course not. Wikipedia is much broader in scope than Snopes, it's written collaboratively, and it's open source.
michael west wrote:
Next week we'll get a guy that felates his pet monkey on the japanese railway system "Monkey Blower", it got 100,110 hits first week it went on YouTube, will we cover it? Probably yes until the guy gets arrested and his name comes out. We'll revert to earlier pages, a GFDL pic of him felating his monkey and some geo about the train system in tokyo and maybe a reference to it arousing intrigue (but not arousing the monkey)
This is the essence of a straw man argument: Invent a situation that is highly unlikely to be the basis for an article. Make the fallacious jump from something that wouldn't happen to something that shouldn't happen. Use that as an argument to thwart other articles that that editor doesn't like.
Perhaps a criterion for notability could be the amount of time wasted discussing the notability of something on Wikimedia, its mailing lists and chat lines. Once the volume of that discussion has reached 1 megabyte (or some other arbitrary amount) the subject will have become notable. If you really think that something is not notable you have no reason to carry on at length about the subject.
Ec
P.S. This is not an invitation to people who want to game the idea to unilaterally produce a megabyte of drivel on a meaningless subject.
Google trends is not a reliable source. It never was and will never will be.
- White Cat
On 6/29/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/28/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/27/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
You keep alluding to other reliable sources, but I have yet to come across any. What are they?
eSorn, the sex offender list, the court records, Fox Toledo...
These are not encyclopedic sources. What I mean by that is not that they are unreliable and thus should not be used, since they are obviously accurate as sources go.
So, when you said that "no one has yet to come up with anything resembling a reliable source" what you meant was that we've come up with lots of reliable sources, but that we haven't come up with what you would consider multiple encyclopedic reliable sources?
With that amendment, I'm apt to stop disagreeing.
What I mean is that they are not encyclopedic in the sense that they don't tell us anything about why a particular individual is worthy of an encyclopedia entry.
Google Trends tell us that. Lots of people are searching for information on Brian Peppers.
They provide raw data, not information or context. By repeatedly citing the google search stats, you are (I assume) trying to justify the existence of a Brian Peppers article on the grounds that he is a noteworthy internet meme, so what is needed are reliable sources establishing that he is in fact a noteworthy internet meme, not sources that merely establish his existence as a person or a criminal sex offender.
No, I've never said anything about being an internet meme. I frankly don't even know what the term means.
In short, a reliable source establishing why *this particular* person should have an article, as opposed to all the other essentially anonymous people on the sex offender list or in Ohio court records.
The most reliable source for that is Google Trends. This particular person should have an article because lots of people are searching for information about him. If you want to call that "an internet meme", that's your terminology, not mine.
Anthony
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 6/29/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Google trends is not a reliable source. It never was and will never will be.
It's not a source that's generally useful within an article, mainly because it requires interpretation and therefore usually falls under original research, but it seems to me to be a perfectly *reliable* source when used properly. WP:OR doesn't apply to arguments made in deletion discussions.
On 6/28/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote: >
So, when you said that "no one has yet to come up with anything resembling a reliable source" what you meant was that we've come up with lots of reliable sources, but that we haven't come up with what you would consider multiple encyclopedic reliable sources?
I'd say that's a fair assessment.
In short, a reliable source establishing why *this particular* person should have an article, as opposed to all the other essentially anonymous people on the sex offender list or in Ohio court records.
The most reliable source for that is Google Trends. This particular person should have an article because lots of people are searching for information about him. If you want to call that "an internet meme", that's your terminology, not mine.
Okay, so you are saying (hopefully I have it right this time) not that he should have an article because of specific kind of notability (like a significant internet meme) but simply because people are looking for info on him. It doesn't matter if this demand is generated by general internet interest, or just the population of Toledo, Ohio wondering who that guy down the block is.
But, to me, the key question is : what are they finding? If there are no encyclopedic (in the sense that I discussed above) sources to support an article, then we should not have an article regardless of the demand. It is the mission of journalists and historians to satisfy that demand by creating secondary sources through synthesising primary ones like court documents, not ours. It is our mission to write encyclopedia articles once those secondary sources exist.
On 6/29/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote: >
In short, a reliable source establishing why *this particular* person should have an article, as opposed to all the other essentially anonymous people on the sex offender list or in Ohio court records.
The most reliable source for that is Google Trends. This particular person should have an article because lots of people are searching for information about him. If you want to call that "an internet meme", that's your terminology, not mine.
Okay, so you are saying (hopefully I have it right this time) not that he should have an article because of specific kind of notability (like a significant internet meme) but simply because people are looking for info on him. It doesn't matter if this demand is generated by general internet interest, or just the population of Toledo, Ohio wondering who that guy down the block is.
Pretty much. I don't see notability as a judgment on why people want to know about something. I also don't think locality considerations play a role, so long as the verifiability of the sources is universal (if you can't check a source without going to a courthouse in Toledo, Ohio, that would be a problem).
I actually think the "hyperlocal" aspects of Wikipedia are one of the areas of greatest potential.
But, to me, the key question is : what are they finding? If there are no encyclopedic (in the sense that I discussed above) sources to support an article, then we should not have an article regardless of the demand.
The way you have described encyclopedic sources, I'm not even sure they should be in the article in the first place. Except in corner cases (a topic which is notable for being notable), notability is a topic for discussion pages, not for the article itself.
It is the mission of journalists and historians to satisfy that demand by creating secondary sources through synthesising primary ones like court documents, not ours. It is our mission to write encyclopedia articles once those secondary sources exist.
There are at least two secondary sources for BP, the Toledo newspaper article and the Snopes article.
Anthony
On 7/1/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
But, to me, the key question is : what are they finding? If there are no encyclopedic (in the sense that I discussed above) sources to support an article, then we should not have an article regardless of the demand.
The way you have described encyclopedic sources, I'm not even sure they should be in the article in the first place. Except in corner cases (a topic which is notable for being notable), notability is a topic for discussion pages, not for the article itself.
I'm not sure you understand what I was getting at. I don't advocate a discussion of notability in the article, but the use of sources that establish notability, as opposed to sources that just provide raw data and do nothing more than establish the mere existence of a person.
It is the mission of journalists and historians to satisfy that demand by creating secondary sources through synthesising primary ones like court documents, not ours. It is our mission to write encyclopedia articles once those secondary sources exist.
There are at least two secondary sources for BP, the Toledo newspaper article and the Snopes article.
Snopes is not enough to prop up an encyclopedia article, and this Toledo newspaper article, well, where is it? It's not in the article versions I examined, and the last time this issue came up on the mailing list nobody produced it and I couldn't find it despite an extensive database search .
On 7/2/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/1/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
But, to me, the key question is : what are they finding? If there are no encyclopedic (in the sense that I discussed above) sources to support an article, then we should not have an article regardless of the demand.
The way you have described encyclopedic sources, I'm not even sure they should be in the article in the first place. Except in corner cases (a topic which is notable for being notable), notability is a topic for discussion pages, not for the article itself.
I'm not sure you understand what I was getting at. I don't advocate a discussion of notability in the article, but the use of sources that establish notability, as opposed to sources that just provide raw data and do nothing more than establish the mere existence of a person.
Well, the majority of the sources for Brian Peppers do more than just establish his mere existence.
To ask whether or not the sources establish notability begs the question. You say a topic is notable only if its sources establish notability. But that doesn't say what it means to establish notability.
It is the mission of journalists and historians to satisfy that demand by creating secondary sources through synthesising primary ones like court documents, not ours. It is our mission to write encyclopedia articles once those secondary sources exist.
There are at least two secondary sources for BP, the Toledo newspaper article and the Snopes article.
Snopes is not enough to prop up an encyclopedia article, and this Toledo newspaper article, well, where is it? It's not in the article versions I examined, and the last time this issue came up on the mailing list nobody produced it and I couldn't find it despite an extensive database search .
I remember seeing it before so I'm sure I could find it if I needed to. But then you'd just say that isn't enough to prop up an encyclopedia article either, so why should I bother? I don't expect to change your mind - you don't think an article on Brian Peppers belongs in Wikipedia. But please don't make it out like we don't have any sources on him, or that all we know is that he exists.
On 7/2/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
To ask whether or not the sources establish notability begs the question. You say a topic is notable only if its sources establish notability. But that doesn't say what it means to establish notability.
I already have. Some context that differentiates him from others of his type and establishes why he is significant enough to have an encyclopedia article.
I remember seeing it before so I'm sure I could find it if I needed to. But then you'd just say that isn't enough to prop up an encyclopedia article either, so why should I bother? I don't expect to change your mind - you don't think an article on Brian Peppers belongs in Wikipedia. But please don't make it out like we don't have any sources on him, or that all we know is that he exists.
No, I'm not hellbent on keeping a Brian Peppers article out, I didn't even vote in the AfDs. Maybe I would say that about the source, I don't know, I haven't read it. But if it's a note in some local paper about his arrest, I wouldn't think that sufficient. As has been noted by others before, Wikipedia is not a police blotter.
The sources simply don't exist to justify the existence of an article. Any individual living in an industrialized society generates a significant number of primary documents. We could find a similar group of sources for any individual, but that's not an encyclopedia, that's a database of random personal information. Nothing other than the Snopes article (and that, barely) says anything other than this is some random, essentially anonymous individual with a criminal record. We've deleted articles on people far more notable than Brian Peppers with far more legitimate sources. A case could be made for saving those articles, but there is no case for saving this one.
On 7/2/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/2/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
To ask whether or not the sources establish notability begs the question. You say a topic is notable only if its sources establish notability. But that doesn't say what it means to establish notability.
I already have. Some context that differentiates him from others of his type and establishes why he is significant enough to have an encyclopedia article.
How many sexual offenders are in wheelchairs? That differentiates him from other sex offenders if nothing else. How many sexual offenders suffer from a disease that causes facial deformity? I know of no others.
As for "why he is significant enough to have an encyclopedia article", again that begs the question.
I remember seeing it before so I'm sure I could find it if I needed to. But then you'd just say that isn't enough to prop up an encyclopedia article either, so why should I bother? I don't expect to change your mind - you don't think an article on Brian Peppers belongs in Wikipedia. But please don't make it out like we don't have any sources on him, or that all we know is that he exists.
No, I'm not hellbent on keeping a Brian Peppers article out, I didn't even vote in the AfDs. Maybe I would say that about the source, I don't know, I haven't read it. But if it's a note in some local paper about his arrest, I wouldn't think that sufficient. As has been noted by others before, Wikipedia is not a police blotter.
It's not a police blotter note about his arrest. See http://brianpeppersfoxtoledo.ytmnd.com/, which obviously doesn't verify the validity of the story, but does give the content. If that story is proven valid, is Brian Peppers noteworthy?
The sources simply don't exist to justify the existence of an article. Any individual living in an industrialized society generates a significant number of primary documents. We could find a similar group of sources for any individual, but that's not an encyclopedia, that's a database of random personal information. Nothing other than the Snopes article (and that, barely) says anything other than this is some random, essentially anonymous individual with a criminal record. We've deleted articles on people far more notable than Brian Peppers with far more legitimate sources.
That's for sure. I still remember the VfD over Sidney Morgenbesser, whose initial article was plagiarized from Vanity Faire Magazine. "Delete, vanity" said one after another.
A case could be made for saving those articles, but there is no case for saving this one.
Now there's no case? I thought you didn't even know what you'd say about the Toledo News story. I thought you hadn't made up your mind.
On 7/2/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
That's for sure. I still remember the VfD over Sidney Morgenbesser, whose initial article was plagiarized from Vanity Faire Magazine. "Delete, vanity" said one after another.
Wow, that certainly wasn't AfD's finest hour.
A case could be made for saving those articles, but there is no case for saving this one.
Now there's no case? I thought you didn't even know what you'd say about the Toledo News story. I thought you hadn't made up your mind.
No case based on the information currently available to me.
Anthony wrote:
On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=jimmy+wales+wikipedia%2C+brian+peppers+wikipe...
Now thats a more accurate way to look at it.
Two major problems with that (and a few minor ones which I made myself): Jimmy Wales, Brian Peppers, and Iraq war poll should all be in quotes. It doesn't much affect the two names, but the affect on Iraq war poll is significant. Also, there's no reason Wikipedia should be included with Brian Peppers name, as Brian Peppers has very little to do with Wikipedia.
The fact of the matter is that way more people are searching for information on Brian Peppers than on Jimmy Wales *or* Essjay. That's what that google trends search I gave clearly shows.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Actually, I find "jimmy wales" (quotes included) to return right near a million results. "brian peppers" (quotes included) returns about 150,000. ("jimbo wales" (quotes included) produces about 217,000 more, also more than Brian Peppers.) So this would seem to be a nonstarter.
On 6/27/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
The fact of the matter is that way more people are searching for information on Brian Peppers than on Jimmy Wales *or* Essjay. That's what that google trends search I gave clearly shows.
Actually, I find "jimmy wales" (quotes included) to return right near a million results. "brian peppers" (quotes included) returns about 150,000. ("jimbo wales" (quotes included) produces about 217,000 more, also more than Brian Peppers.) So this would seem to be a nonstarter.
You're confusing search results with searches.
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, White Cat wrote:
Unless there is disruption, there is no reason not to observe "right to vanish." Who would want to contribute to a wiki which actively mocks former members?
Essjay had contributed to the project a great deal and is not given half the courtesy he deserves for that.
I think Essjay counts as disruption.
A quick check discloses the the NYT gives Essjay's real name (which is not all that identifying: a raw google on his name produces at least six different people in the first page alone). Wikipedia hiding his name isn't going to "protect" him at all.
If we think that Wikipedia is important, then Essjay's sins are important. Either it will be an important crisis that we got past, or it will be the first major outbreak of a problem we never learned to deal with. Either way, people ten years from now who write about Wikipedia are going to mention the incident.
On Jun 27, 2007, at 11:05 AM, The Mangoe wrote:
If we think that Wikipedia is important, then Essjay's sins are important. Either it will be an important crisis that we got past, or it will be the first major outbreak of a problem we never learned to deal with. Either way, people ten years from now who write about Wikipedia are going to mention the incident.
I'm skeptical. Why don't we wait ten years and add the article if you're right?
Seriously. We're the sixth Google hit on Essjay's real name, and the first one related to him. For all his errors, he was a good member of the community. He wrote good articles, and was generally a fair, nice guy. He made a mistake not on Wikipedia but in talking to a reporter. And despite his false credentials, he also didn't fuck those articles up with nonsense.
I'm not OK with us being the first thing on him his future employers see when they Google him. He was a kid when he made his mistakes, and we shouldn't be the ones to tar and feather him for life over them.
-Phil
On 6/28/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 27, 2007, at 11:05 AM, The Mangoe wrote:
If we think that Wikipedia is important, then Essjay's sins are important. Either it will be an important crisis that we got past, or it will be the first major outbreak of a problem we never learned to deal with. Either way, people ten years from now who write about Wikipedia are going to mention the incident.
I'm skeptical. Why don't we wait ten years and add the article if you're right?
Seriously. We're the sixth Google hit on Essjay's real name, and the first one related to him. For all his errors, he was a good member of the community. He wrote good articles, and was generally a fair, nice guy. He made a mistake not on Wikipedia but in talking to a reporter. And despite his false credentials, he also didn't fuck those articles up with nonsense.
I'm not OK with us being the first thing on him his future employers see when they Google him. He was a kid when he made his mistakes, and we shouldn't be the ones to tar and feather him for life over them.
I'm uncomfortable about allowing our individual inclinations as editors, even if there is good moral standing for them, to seep into our editing. To me, it is the same as allowing ourselves to explicitly condemn, say, the Holocaust. I won't say I have the answer to this conundrum, but I am not sure if the answer has to involve imposing our own moral views, no matter how correct we feel they are, on the encyclopaedia.
The BLP policy is of course grounded, in a sense, in morals, but also in practicality. Information about a living individual's life is far more likely to be in flux; the George W. Bush of 2000 may not be the George W. Bush of 2010, and the John Lee of 2007 may not be the John Lee of 2057. It makes sense to have a higher sourcing standard for claims about living individuals, and to take a more aggressive approach to handling possible libel (especially considering legal issues). There is no need to involve issues of morality or our own personal subjective judgment in handling biographies of living people, although we undoubtedly subconsciously/consciously have because many of us feel it is "right" to have a strict BLP policy (there is nothing wrong with this provided there is also an objective basis for our actions).
I am not sure if the circumstances are quite congruent concerning the Essjay issue. I understand his youthful indiscretion, being a youth myself and having made many youthful mistakes. I certainly would not want this being held against him in the future. But at the same time, I can find no basis for deciding the article on the [[Essjay controversy]] should be deleted that does not lie in some subjective valuation of morals.
Johnleemk
Did you just compare George W. Bush and Essjay? :D
Morality is not a rationale of mine. The point is Essjay is not a notable individual to the point that consensus established that there shouldn't be an article on him.
Also it is a beefed up slanderous article on an individual. Since Essjay isn't a public figure this (the article) borderlines harassment of an individual. I am not exactly certain of the legal ground on this but Floridan law may have issues with this which puts the foundation at a legal risk. This aspect should also be investigated.
- White Cat
On 6/27/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 27, 2007, at 11:05 AM, The Mangoe wrote:
If we think that Wikipedia is important, then Essjay's sins are important. Either it will be an important crisis that we got past, or it will be the first major outbreak of a problem we never learned to deal with. Either way, people ten years from now who write about Wikipedia are going to mention the incident.
I'm skeptical. Why don't we wait ten years and add the article if you're right?
Seriously. We're the sixth Google hit on Essjay's real name, and the first one related to him. For all his errors, he was a good member of the community. He wrote good articles, and was generally a fair, nice guy. He made a mistake not on Wikipedia but in talking to a reporter. And despite his false credentials, he also didn't fuck those articles up with nonsense.
I'm not OK with us being the first thing on him his future employers see when they Google him. He was a kid when he made his mistakes, and we shouldn't be the ones to tar and feather him for life over them.
I'm uncomfortable about allowing our individual inclinations as editors, even if there is good moral standing for them, to seep into our editing. To me, it is the same as allowing ourselves to explicitly condemn, say, the Holocaust. I won't say I have the answer to this conundrum, but I am not sure if the answer has to involve imposing our own moral views, no matter how correct we feel they are, on the encyclopaedia.
The BLP policy is of course grounded, in a sense, in morals, but also in practicality. Information about a living individual's life is far more likely to be in flux; the George W. Bush of 2000 may not be the George W. Bush of 2010, and the John Lee of 2007 may not be the John Lee of 2057. It makes sense to have a higher sourcing standard for claims about living individuals, and to take a more aggressive approach to handling possible libel (especially considering legal issues). There is no need to involve issues of morality or our own personal subjective judgment in handling biographies of living people, although we undoubtedly subconsciously/consciously have because many of us feel it is "right" to have a strict BLP policy (there is nothing wrong with this provided there is also an objective basis for our actions).
I am not sure if the circumstances are quite congruent concerning the Essjay issue. I understand his youthful indiscretion, being a youth myself and having made many youthful mistakes. I certainly would not want this being held against him in the future. But at the same time, I can find no basis for deciding the article on the [[Essjay controversy]] should be deleted that does not lie in some subjective valuation of morals.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"beefed up slanderous article"? You're venturing onto very shaky ground right now. You might want to dial back the rhetoric a little.
On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Did you just compare George W. Bush and Essjay? :D
Morality is not a rationale of mine. The point is Essjay is not a notable individual to the point that consensus established that there shouldn't be an article on him.
Also it is a beefed up slanderous article on an individual. Since Essjay isn't a public figure this (the article) borderlines harassment of an individual. I am not exactly certain of the legal ground on this but Floridan law may have issues with this which puts the foundation at a legal risk. This aspect should also be investigated.
- White CatOn 6/27/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 27, 2007, at 11:05 AM, The Mangoe wrote:
If we think that Wikipedia is important, then Essjay's sins are important. Either it will be an important crisis that we got past,
or
it will be the first major outbreak of a problem we never learned to deal with. Either way, people ten years from now who write about Wikipedia are going to mention the incident.
I'm skeptical. Why don't we wait ten years and add the article if you're right?
Seriously. We're the sixth Google hit on Essjay's real name, and the first one related to him. For all his errors, he was a good member of the community. He wrote good articles, and was generally a fair, nice guy. He made a mistake not on Wikipedia but in talking to a reporter. And despite his false credentials, he also didn't fuck those articles up with nonsense.
I'm not OK with us being the first thing on him his future employers see when they Google him. He was a kid when he made his mistakes, and we shouldn't be the ones to tar and feather him for life over them.
I'm uncomfortable about allowing our individual inclinations as editors, even if there is good moral standing for them, to seep into our editing. To me, it is the same as allowing ourselves to explicitly condemn, say, the Holocaust. I won't say I have the answer to this conundrum, but I am not sure if the answer has to involve imposing our own moral views, no
matter
how correct we feel they are, on the encyclopaedia.
The BLP policy is of course grounded, in a sense, in morals, but also in practicality. Information about a living individual's life is far more likely to be in flux; the George W. Bush of 2000 may not be the George
W.
Bush of 2010, and the John Lee of 2007 may not be the John Lee of 2057.
It
makes sense to have a higher sourcing standard for claims about living individuals, and to take a more aggressive approach to handling possible libel (especially considering legal issues). There is no need to involve issues of morality or our own personal subjective judgment in handling biographies of living people, although we undoubtedly subconsciously/consciously have because many of us feel it is "right" to have a strict BLP policy (there is nothing wrong with this provided
there
is also an objective basis for our actions).
I am not sure if the circumstances are quite congruent concerning the Essjay issue. I understand his youthful indiscretion, being a youth myself and having made many youthful mistakes. I certainly would not want this
being
held against him in the future. But at the same time, I can find no
basis
for deciding the article on the [[Essjay controversy]] should be deleted that does not lie in some subjective valuation of morals.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ 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
Cunctator, I do recall the mess you made over my userpage comment on the Siegenthaler case. Stop doing something like it again.
- White Cat
On 6/27/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
"beefed up slanderous article"? You're venturing onto very shaky ground right now. You might want to dial back the rhetoric a little.
On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Did you just compare George W. Bush and Essjay? :D
Morality is not a rationale of mine. The point is Essjay is not a
notable
individual to the point that consensus established that there shouldn't
be
an article on him.
Also it is a beefed up slanderous article on an individual. Since Essjay isn't a public figure this (the article) borderlines harassment of an individual. I am not exactly certain of the legal ground on this but Floridan law may have issues with this which puts the foundation at a legal risk. This aspect should also be investigated.
- White CatOn 6/27/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 27, 2007, at 11:05 AM, The Mangoe wrote:
If we think that Wikipedia is important, then Essjay's sins are important. Either it will be an important crisis that we got past,
or
it will be the first major outbreak of a problem we never learned
to
deal with. Either way, people ten years from now who write about Wikipedia are going to mention the incident.
I'm skeptical. Why don't we wait ten years and add the article if you're right?
Seriously. We're the sixth Google hit on Essjay's real name, and the first one related to him. For all his errors, he was a good member
of
the community. He wrote good articles, and was generally a fair,
nice
guy. He made a mistake not on Wikipedia but in talking to a
reporter.
And despite his false credentials, he also didn't fuck those
articles
up with nonsense.
I'm not OK with us being the first thing on him his future employers see when they Google him. He was a kid when he made his mistakes,
and
we shouldn't be the ones to tar and feather him for life over them.
I'm uncomfortable about allowing our individual inclinations as
editors,
even if there is good moral standing for them, to seep into our
editing.
To me, it is the same as allowing ourselves to explicitly condemn, say,
the
Holocaust. I won't say I have the answer to this conundrum, but I am
not
sure if the answer has to involve imposing our own moral views, no
matter
how correct we feel they are, on the encyclopaedia.
The BLP policy is of course grounded, in a sense, in morals, but also
in
practicality. Information about a living individual's life is far more likely to be in flux; the George W. Bush of 2000 may not be the George
W.
Bush of 2010, and the John Lee of 2007 may not be the John Lee of
It
makes sense to have a higher sourcing standard for claims about living individuals, and to take a more aggressive approach to handling
possible
libel (especially considering legal issues). There is no need to
involve
issues of morality or our own personal subjective judgment in handling biographies of living people, although we undoubtedly subconsciously/consciously have because many of us feel it is "right"
to
have a strict BLP policy (there is nothing wrong with this provided
there
is also an objective basis for our actions).
I am not sure if the circumstances are quite congruent concerning the Essjay issue. I understand his youthful indiscretion, being a youth myself
and
having made many youthful mistakes. I certainly would not want this
being
held against him in the future. But at the same time, I can find no
basis
for deciding the article on the [[Essjay controversy]] should be
deleted
that does not lie in some subjective valuation of morals.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ 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
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 6/28/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Cunctator, I do recall the mess you made over my userpage comment on the Siegenthaler case. Stop doing something like it again.
- White Cat
(long top-posted conversation snipped)
Folks, friendly reminder from the list mods (again): please trim your messages only to the relevant portions when replying. Any message larger than 10kb is placed on moderation, and this is really not worth it when you only have two sentences to say.
Johnleemk
On 6/27/07, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail
.com> wrote:
Did you just compare George W. Bush and Essjay? :D
Morality is not a rationale of mine. The point is Essjay is not a
notable
individual to the point that consensus established that there
shouldn't
be
an article on him.
Also it is a beefed up slanderous article on an individual. Since
Essjay
isn't a public figure this (the article) borderlines harassment of an individual. I am not exactly certain of the legal ground on this but Floridan law may have issues with this which puts the foundation at a legal risk. This aspect should also be investigated.
- White Cat
On 6/27/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
"beefed up slanderous article"? You're venturing onto very shaky ground right now. You might want to dial back the rhetoric a little.
On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Cunctator, I do recall the mess you made over my userpage comment on the Siegenthaler case. Stop doing something like it again.
I don't. Seriously, though, you shouldn't make legal threats.
Who is making a legal threat?
- White Cat
On 6/28/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/27/07, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail
.com> wrote:
Did you just compare George W. Bush and Essjay? :D
Morality is not a rationale of mine. The point is Essjay is not a
notable
individual to the point that consensus established that there
shouldn't
be
an article on him.
Also it is a beefed up slanderous article on an individual. Since
Essjay
isn't a public figure this (the article) borderlines harassment of
an
individual. I am not exactly certain of the legal ground on this but Floridan law may have issues with this which puts the foundation at
a
legal risk. This aspect should also be investigated.
- White CatOn 6/27/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
"beefed up slanderous article"? You're venturing onto very shaky ground right now. You might want to dial back the rhetoric a little.
On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Cunctator, I do recall the mess you made over my userpage comment on the Siegenthaler case. Stop doing something like it again.
I don't. Seriously, though, you shouldn't make legal threats. _______________________________________________ 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 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Morality is not a rationale of mine. The point is Essjay is not a notable individual to the point that consensus established that there shouldn't be an article on him.
And there isn't. But there IS an article on the incident, and his real identity is not only germane, but indeed crucial to the matter. I suppose you could take out the phrase "R*** J*****", and anyone with enough fingers to type "Essjay" into Google would get past that omission.
Also it is a beefed up slanderous article on an individual. Since Essjay isn't a public figure this (the article) borderlines harassment of an individual. I am not exactly certain of the legal ground on this but Floridan law may have issues with this which puts the foundation at a legal risk. This aspect should also be investigated.
Nonsense. I haven't checked every last detail of the article, mind you; but the basic outline of the story-- the misrepresentation, the interview, the Wikia account, the questions, the revelation, the departure, the note on the interview-- these are simple, uncontested truth. And it was all conducted in public, so there isn't the slightest possibility of a privacy angle on it.
When you call it "harassment", you ARE dealing in morality. You are saying that we, as an institution, have to express forgiveness for this person by erasing the record of his wrongdoing (or what many, maybe a majority, would view as wrongdoing). I just don't see the obligation. He did something conspicuously unethical, carelessly sowed the seeds of getting caught, and got caught. All the media that have paid any attention to Wikipedia took notice, because what he did cast doubt upon the whole proceeding. I don't see that we have to protect him from the consequences of his actions, but I also don't think we CAN protect him. The truth is out there, and it isn't going to be hidden just because we erase an article.
Harassment is a legal issue. Record of a persons wrongdoing is not the point of wikipedias articles. We are an encyclopedia not an archive. Wikipedia isn't about the truth. We are not the justice police.
This really isn't at all about protecting him. Because he is non-notable putting a slanderous article about him may lead to legal problems.
- White Cat
On 6/28/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Morality is not a rationale of mine. The point is Essjay is not a
notable
individual to the point that consensus established that there shouldn't
be
an article on him.
And there isn't. But there IS an article on the incident, and his real identity is not only germane, but indeed crucial to the matter. I suppose you could take out the phrase "R*** J*****", and anyone with enough fingers to type "Essjay" into Google would get past that omission.
Also it is a beefed up slanderous article on an individual. Since Essjay isn't a public figure this (the article) borderlines harassment of an individual. I am not exactly certain of the legal ground on this but Floridan law may have issues with this which puts the foundation at a
legal
risk. This aspect should also be investigated.
Nonsense. I haven't checked every last detail of the article, mind you; but the basic outline of the story-- the misrepresentation, the interview, the Wikia account, the questions, the revelation, the departure, the note on the interview-- these are simple, uncontested truth. And it was all conducted in public, so there isn't the slightest possibility of a privacy angle on it.
When you call it "harassment", you ARE dealing in morality. You are saying that we, as an institution, have to express forgiveness for this person by erasing the record of his wrongdoing (or what many, maybe a majority, would view as wrongdoing). I just don't see the obligation. He did something conspicuously unethical, carelessly sowed the seeds of getting caught, and got caught. All the media that have paid any attention to Wikipedia took notice, because what he did cast doubt upon the whole proceeding. I don't see that we have to protect him from the consequences of his actions, but I also don't think we CAN protect him. The truth is out there, and it isn't going to be hidden just because we erase an article.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The New Yorker is a serious magazine of highest standing. Discounting the initial section on New York cultural events, I would be prepared to make the case that any feature article in the New Yorker is a suitable subject for a WP article. DGG
On 6/28/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Harassment is a legal issue. Record of a persons wrongdoing is not the point of wikipedias articles. We are an encyclopedia not an archive. Wikipedia isn't about the truth. We are not the justice police.
This really isn't at all about protecting him. Because he is non-notable--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
Correction:
On 6/28/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote: The New Yorker is a serious magazine of highest standing. Discounting the initial section on New York cultural events, and not counting articles on local New York City or New York State politics, I would be prepared to make the case that any feature article in the New Yorker is a suitable subject for a WP article. DGG
On 6/28/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Harassment is a legal issue. Record of a persons wrongdoing is not the point of wikipedias articles. We are an encyclopedia not an archive. Wikipedia isn't about the truth. We are not the justice police.
This really isn't at all about protecting him. Because he is non-notable--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
David Goodman wrote:
The New Yorker is a serious magazine of highest standing. Discounting the initial section on New York cultural events, I would be prepared to make the case that any feature article in the New Yorker is a suitable subject for a WP article. DGG
On 6/28/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Harassment is a legal issue. Record of a persons wrongdoing is not the point of wikipedias articles. We are an encyclopedia not an archive. Wikipedia isn't about the truth. We are not the justice police.
This really isn't at all about protecting him. Because he is non-notable--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
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'm not entirely sure about that. The New Yorker certainly is a decent and reliable source, but a lot of stuff in it tends to be fleeting human-interest type stuff. That's a lot more appropriate for Wikinews than Wikipedia. The "everything that's on the front page" approach tends to lead to a disproportionate amount of recentism and a lot of unimprovable articles.
White Cat stated for the record:
Harassment is a legal issue. Record of a persons wrongdoing is not the point of wikipedias articles. We are an encyclopedia not an archive. Wikipedia isn't about the truth. We are not the justice police.
This really isn't at all about protecting him. Because he is non-notable putting a slanderous article about him may lead to legal problems.
It's not slander if it's written down, and it's neither slander nor libel if it's true. Please stop throwing around legal terms you don't understand.
On 0, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com scribbled:
White Cat stated for the record:
Harassment is a legal issue. Record of a persons wrongdoing is not the point of wikipedias articles. We are an encyclopedia not an archive. Wikipedia isn't about the truth. We are not the justice police.
This really isn't at all about protecting him. Because he is non-notable putting a slanderous article about him may lead to legal problems.
It's not slander if it's written down, and it's neither slander nor libel if it's true. Please stop throwing around legal terms you don't understand.
-- Sean Barrett | It Is Now Safe To Turn Off Your Computer
That's probably true for you and me, but it may not be where White Cat is (with the caveat that I'm assuming White Cat was formerly known as Cool Cat and I don't remember Cool Cat ever mentioning where he lived). From [[Libel]], one can read:
"In many, though not all, legal systems, statements presented as fact must be false to be defamatory....In some systems, however, notably the Philippines and the Canadian province of Quebec, truth alone is not a defense.[3] It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well-founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures."
-- gwern basement ISWG $ @ data-haven NSDD black-bag rack TEMPEST Goodwin rebels ID MD5
Right. What I meant was it is really a bad idea to dance in the "Slander and libel" territory. But you make an excellent point.
- White Cat
On 6/28/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On 0, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com scribbled:
White Cat stated for the record:
Harassment is a legal issue. Record of a persons wrongdoing is not the
point
of wikipedias articles. We are an encyclopedia not an archive.
Wikipedia
isn't about the truth. We are not the justice police.
This really isn't at all about protecting him. Because he is
non-notable
putting a slanderous article about him may lead to legal problems.
It's not slander if it's written down, and it's neither slander nor libel if it's true. Please stop throwing around legal terms you don't understand.
-- Sean Barrett | It Is Now Safe To Turn Off Your Computer
That's probably true for you and me, but it may not be where White Cat is (with the caveat that I'm assuming White Cat was formerly known as Cool Cat and I don't remember Cool Cat ever mentioning where he lived). From [[Libel]], one can read:
"In many, though not all, legal systems, statements presented as fact must be false to be defamatory....In some systems, however, notably the Philippines and the Canadian province of Quebec, truth alone is not a defense.[3] It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well-founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures."
-- gwern basement ISWG $ @ data-haven NSDD black-bag rack TEMPEST Goodwin rebels ID MD5
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Gwern Branwen wrote:
On 0, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com scribbled:
White Cat stated for the record:
Harassment is a legal issue. Record of a persons wrongdoing is not the point of wikipedias articles. We are an encyclopedia not an archive. Wikipedia isn't about the truth. We are not the justice police.
This really isn't at all about protecting him. Because he is non-notable putting a slanderous article about him may lead to legal problems.
It's not slander if it's written down, and it's neither slander nor libel if it's true. Please stop throwing around legal terms you don't understand.
That's probably true for you and me, but it may not be where White Cat is (with the caveat that I'm assuming White Cat was formerly known as Cool Cat and I don't remember Cool Cat ever mentioning where he lived). From [[Libel]], one can read:
I think he's in Kurdistan.
I will say that I am indeed at sector 001 (Earth). Any other information is classified. :P
- White Cat
On 6/28/07, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Gwern Branwen wrote:
On 0, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com scribbled:
White Cat stated for the record:
Harassment is a legal issue. Record of a persons wrongdoing is not the
point
of wikipedias articles. We are an encyclopedia not an archive.
Wikipedia
isn't about the truth. We are not the justice police.
This really isn't at all about protecting him. Because he is
non-notable
putting a slanderous article about him may lead to legal problems.
It's not slander if it's written down, and it's neither slander nor libel if it's true. Please stop throwing around legal terms you don't understand.
That's probably true for you and me, but it may not be where White Cat
is (with the caveat that I'm assuming White Cat was formerly known as Cool Cat and I don't remember Cool Cat ever mentioning where he lived). From [[Libel]], one can read:
I think he's in Kurdistan.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Gwern Branwen wrote:
On 0, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com scribbled:
White Cat stated for the record:
Harassment is a legal issue. Record of a persons wrongdoing is not the point of wikipedias articles. We are an encyclopedia not an archive. Wikipedia isn't about the truth. We are not the justice police.
This really isn't at all about protecting him. Because he is non-notable putting a slanderous article about him may lead to legal problems.
It's not slander if it's written down, and it's neither slander nor libel if it's true. Please stop throwing around legal terms you don't understand.
-- Sean Barrett | It Is Now Safe To Turn Off Your Computer
That's probably true for you and me, but it may not be where White Cat is (with the caveat that I'm assuming White Cat was formerly known as Cool Cat and I don't remember Cool Cat ever mentioning where he lived). From [[Libel]], one can read:
"In many, though not all, legal systems, statements presented as fact must be false to be defamatory....In some systems, however, notably the Philippines and the Canadian province of Quebec, truth alone is not a defense.[3] It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well-founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures."
Your claim about Quebec is wrong. Criminal libel in Canada is a federal matter.
Ec
On 6/28/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Gwern Branwen wrote:
That's probably true for you and me, but it may not be where White Cat is
(with the caveat that I'm assuming White Cat was formerly known as Cool Cat and I don't remember Cool Cat ever mentioning where he lived). From [[Libel]], one can read:
"In many, though not all, legal systems, statements presented as fact
must be
false to be defamatory....In some systems, however, notably the
Philippines and
the Canadian province of Quebec, truth alone is not a defense.[3] It is
also
necessary in these cases to show that there is a well-founded public
interest in
the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case
even for
public figures."
Your claim about Quebec is wrong. Criminal libel in Canada is a federal matter.
Ec
That would, of course, be Wikipedia's claim... or was until you fixed the paragraph. There are a couple of comments still in the [[slander and libel]] article about Quebec being different from the rest of Canada in this regard; could someone a little more knowledgable than me please take a look?
-- Jonel
Nick Wilkins wrote:
On 6/28/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Gwern Branwen wrote:
That's probably true for you and me, but it may not be where White Cat is
(with the caveat that I'm assuming White Cat was formerly known as Cool Cat and I don't remember Cool Cat ever mentioning where he lived). From [[Libel]], one can read:
"In many, though not all, legal systems, statements presented as fact must be
false to be defamatory....In some systems, however, notably the Philippines and
the Canadian province of Quebec, truth alone is not a defense.[3] It is also
necessary in these cases to show that there is a well-founded public interest in
the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for
public figures."
Your claim about Quebec is wrong. Criminal libel in Canada is a federal matter.
That would, of course, be Wikipedia's claim... or was until you fixed the paragraph. There are a couple of comments still in the [[slander and libel]] article about Quebec being different from the rest of Canada in this regard; could someone a little more knowledgable than me please take a look?
Thanks, I hadn't thought to look to see if the error were repeated elsewhere in the article. I left the historical references in, but as for the current law there were no sources to support where the information came from.
Ec
On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Also it is a beefed up slanderous article on an individual. Since Essjay isn't a public figure this (the article) borderlines harassment of an individual.
There are truly public figures, and people who've done something that became widely newsworthy.
While Essjay may not be a public figure, he did something that was evidently widely newsworthy.
You can spin this, and our community can decide to spin how we deal with the situation, but the fact remains that what he did was widely reported.
This is both good for the community ("Look, if we screw up, we make the front page of the New York Times, we must have arrived!") and bad for the community ("Look, ...").
I do not believe being on the NYT front page is a good thing. We do not have an article per stuff on NYT front page. - White Cat
On 6/28/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Also it is a beefed up slanderous article on an individual. Since Essjay isn't a public figure this (the article) borderlines harassment of an individual.
There are truly public figures, and people who've done something that became widely newsworthy.
While Essjay may not be a public figure, he did something that was evidently widely newsworthy.
You can spin this, and our community can decide to spin how we deal with the situation, but the fact remains that what he did was widely reported.
This is both good for the community ("Look, if we screw up, we make the front page of the New York Times, we must have arrived!") and bad for the community ("Look, ...").
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.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 Wednesday 27 June 2007 11:01, Phil Sandifer wrote:
I'm not OK with us being the first thing on him his future employers see when they Google him. He was a kid when he made his mistakes, and we shouldn't be the ones to tar and feather him for life over them.
Why should the fact that he's "one of our own" entitle him to special consideration?
He's not a "kid who made a mistake", he's an adult who knew fully well what he was doing and did it anyway.
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Jun 27, 2007, at 11:05 AM, The Mangoe wrote:
If we think that Wikipedia is important, then Essjay's sins are important. Either it will be an important crisis that we got past, or it will be the first major outbreak of a problem we never learned to deal with. Either way, people ten years from now who write about Wikipedia are going to mention the incident.
I'm skeptical. Why don't we wait ten years and add the article if you're right?
Seriously. We're the sixth Google hit on Essjay's real name, and the first one related to him. For all his errors, he was a good member of the community. He wrote good articles, and was generally a fair, nice guy. He made a mistake not on Wikipedia but in talking to a reporter. And despite his false credentials, he also didn't fuck those articles up with nonsense.
Nor did he set up a vendetta site after be was found out. If the article had been left alone it would likely have quicly faded into obscurity. The more we argue about the article, the more it remains in the public eye.
Ec
On 6/27/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
A quick check discloses the the NYT gives Essjay's real name (which is not all that identifying: a raw google on his name produces at least six different people in the first page alone). Wikipedia hiding his name isn't going to "protect" him at all.
It would just about take him off the first page of Google hits. The only remaining link would be News.com.com.com.com.com.com.com...
On 6/27/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/27/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
A quick check discloses the the NYT gives Essjay's real name (which is not all that identifying: a raw google on his name produces at least six different people in the first page alone). Wikipedia hiding his name isn't going to "protect" him at all.
It would just about take him off the first page of Google hits. The only remaining link would be News.com.com.com.com.com.com.com...
There are a couple of hits on the second page, and if you make any attempts to rule out some of the ones that aren't him, you can get more links about the real him to show up. The only thing that's hiding him (much) on Google is that he has an extremely common name.
I suppose one's view of whether what a 24-year-old "kid" should be reckoned against him depends on what one's view of the seriousness of what he did. But then can't we let the rest of the world decide that? If the world decides that it was an easily forgivable lapse, then it won't hurt that we name him; and if the world thinks that it is an important failure (which I personally doubt), then maybe it is important that we do name him.
In any case we have an overblown sense of our importance if we think that taking his name (or for that matter the whole article) out of Wikipedia is going to make it noticeably more difficult for people to find out about him. People are more interested in Brian Peppers, because they are prurient; they are more interested in Jimbo, because he is a public figure whose name is going to be mentioned any time someone feels the need to give backstory on Wikipedia; but if they are interested either in "Essjay" or Mr. Jordan, they don't need Wikipedia to find out about him. And if we remove the article, it invites the inevitable conclusion that it embarasses us, no matter what we say to the contrary.
Oh-- and 14 is a kid. 24 is an adult who ought to know better.
Sorry wikipedia is not a median to talk about peoples sins. We are not the judges of Salem in witchcraft years. Very flawed approach. This isn't the first major incident involving wikipedia. There were many other more notable ones in the past. [[WP:OFFICE]] deals with this crap on a daily basis.
- White Cat
On 6/27/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
A quick check discloses the the NYT gives Essjay's real name (which is not all that identifying: a raw google on his name produces at least six different people in the first page alone). Wikipedia hiding his name isn't going to "protect" him at all.
If we think that Wikipedia is important, then Essjay's sins are important. Either it will be an important crisis that we got past, or it will be the first major outbreak of a problem we never learned to deal with. Either way, people ten years from now who write about Wikipedia are going to mention the incident.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What more notable incident was there that isn't covered in Wikipedia? The only other notable "controversy" involving Wikipedia that I know (if we consider "notable" to be stuff noted by the outside, rather than being significant to the development of Wikipedia) is the Siegenthaler mess, which has its own article.
It's "medium", by the way.
On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry wikipedia is not a median to talk about peoples sins. We are not the judges of Salem in witchcraft years. Very flawed approach. This isn't the first major incident involving wikipedia. There were many other more notable ones in the past. [[WP:OFFICE]] deals with this crap on a daily basis.
- White CatOn 6/27/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
A quick check discloses the the NYT gives Essjay's real name (which is not all that identifying: a raw google on his name produces at least six different people in the first page alone). Wikipedia hiding his name isn't going to "protect" him at all.
If we think that Wikipedia is important, then Essjay's sins are important. Either it will be an important crisis that we got past, or it will be the first major outbreak of a problem we never learned to deal with. Either way, people ten years from now who write about Wikipedia are going to mention the incident.
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
Siegenthaler is one of them, that one doesn't slander anyone and covers the topic as a case of vandalism and its affect. Might make an interesting paper, makes a poor article. We get all sorts of vandalism daily. Why aren't those notable?
Congressman and their employees editing wikipedia for their political campaign is another controversy. Lots of other stuff [[WP:OFFICE]] looks into. Just ask anyone who worked for the office.
Don't be a dick about spelling. It isn't appreciated.
- White Cat
On 6/27/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
What more notable incident was there that isn't covered in Wikipedia? The only other notable "controversy" involving Wikipedia that I know (if we consider "notable" to be stuff noted by the outside, rather than being significant to the development of Wikipedia) is the Siegenthaler mess, which has its own article.
It's "medium", by the way.
On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry wikipedia is not a median to talk about peoples sins. We are not
the
judges of Salem in witchcraft years. Very flawed approach. This isn't
the
first major incident involving wikipedia. There were many other more notable ones in the past. [[WP:OFFICE]] deals with this crap on a daily basis.
- White CatOn 6/27/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
A quick check discloses the the NYT gives Essjay's real name (which is not all that identifying: a raw google on his name produces at least six different people in the first page alone). Wikipedia hiding his name isn't going to "protect" him at all.
If we think that Wikipedia is important, then Essjay's sins are important. Either it will be an important crisis that we got past, or it will be the first major outbreak of a problem we never learned to deal with. Either way, people ten years from now who write about Wikipedia are going to mention the incident.
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
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 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Siegenthaler is one of them, that one doesn't slander anyone and covers the topic as a case of vandalism and its affect. Might make an interesting paper, makes a poor article. We get all sorts of vandalism daily. Why aren't those notable?
Congressman and their employees editing wikipedia for their political campaign is another controversy. Lots of other stuff [[WP:OFFICE]] looks into. Just ask anyone who worked for the office.
Don't be a dick about spelling. It isn't appreciated.
Whoa, man. Believe me, I wasn't being a dick. Sorry you took it that way.
- White Cat
On 6/27/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
What more notable incident was there that isn't covered in Wikipedia?
The
only other notable "controversy" involving Wikipedia that I know (if we consider "notable" to be stuff noted by the outside, rather than being significant to the development of Wikipedia) is the Siegenthaler mess, which has its own article.
It's "medium", by the way.
On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry wikipedia is not a median to talk about peoples sins. We are not
the
judges of Salem in witchcraft years. Very flawed approach. This isn't
the
first major incident involving wikipedia. There were many other more notable ones in the past. [[WP:OFFICE]] deals with this crap on a daily basis.
- White CatOn 6/27/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
A quick check discloses the the NYT gives Essjay's real name (which
is
not all that identifying: a raw google on his name produces at least six different people in the first page alone). Wikipedia hiding his name isn't going to "protect" him at all.
If we think that Wikipedia is important, then Essjay's sins are important. Either it will be an important crisis that we got past,
or
it will be the first major outbreak of a problem we never learned to deal with. Either way, people ten years from now who write about Wikipedia are going to mention the incident.
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
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 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Headline on CNN right now is "Poll: War support at new low" do we have an article of this poll? We write articles on events unless they are notable enough for the entire year rather than day.
I assume that last line was meant to be prescriptive rather than descriptive.
The way I see it, the whole fiasco over Essjay was a much much bigger story than a single poll over the war. It's still being talked about today, see for instance http://p10.tech.mud.yahoo.com/blogs/raskin/10963. It also involves many more facts which cannot be succinctly summarized like a war poll.
A notable event would be Jimbo deciding to shut down the site (wikipedia) for example which would IMHO only be notable enough to be mentioned on the article on [[Wikipedia]]. Probably the coverage would be one or two lines, max a paragraph. Not a full article, that can be on wikinews (maybe). Essjay incident however isn't even worth a single line mention on article namespace.
I don't see a purpose to setting an artificial limit on how much to cover such an incident. If all we know is that Jimbo shut down the site, and not much else, one or two lines would be enough. If, on the other hand, there is a lot more detail to the story, then we should take as much room as it requires to explain what happened, splitting out to a full article if necessary.
Looking at the [[Essjay incident]], the section on ==Reaction== does seem to be poorly organized if not fluff. But the rest of the article seems necessary for providing a complete account of what happened. The title is poor, but that's because we as a group have realized it's bad taste to write about someone like Essjay but haven't yet decided that writing an article on the only incident someone is known for is basically the same thing.
I also think that Essjay article is in violation of the spirit of "right to vanish". I do not particularly ''like'' Essjay but this mocking of him even bothers me. I ask myself this question: "will I be mistreated like him if circumstances are right?"
I really don't think Wikipedians have adopted the spirit of "right to vanish".
Whether or not to destroy the historical accounts of the Essjay controversy is a difficult question because the facts go beyond Essjay. Why didn't Jimmy Wales do something sooner? Doesn't the New Yorker do *any* background checks on people? I guess these facts could remain without mentioning real names, but finding out Essjay's real name would be trivial to do.
Ultimately I think the best argument for deletion is that Wikipedia is not a good place for an article which is essentially about itself. Maybe back before semi-protection and username blocks and 3RR enforcement you could have something there which resembled a neutral article, but those days are gone forever.
On 0, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com scribbled:
Headline on CNN right now is "Poll: War support at new low" do we have an article of this poll? We write articles on events unless they are notable enough for the entire year rather than day.
A notable event would be Jimbo deciding to shut down the site (wikipedia) for example which would IMHO only be notable enough to be mentioned on the article on [[Wikipedia]]. Probably the coverage would be one or two lines, max a paragraph. Not a full article, that can be on wikinews (maybe). Essjay incident however isn't even worth a single line mention on article namespace.
Only in [[Wikipedia]]? I don't normally descend to personal attacks, but either you are making a rhetorical point here or are ignorant of the subject matter.
(Note that in the following rant, you can generally replace 'big' or 'large' with 'popular' or 'useful' and it will still be true.)
Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia *in history*. As in, since the encyclopedia form was invented some 2 or 3 millennia ago, and of the hundreds and thousands of monumental projects culminating in multiple thick volumes, not one is the size of Wikipedia; at best they are perhaps 3/4s the size of Wikipedia (in October 2006, en WP had 609 million words to the Yongle Encyclopedia's 370 million characters). And I'm not even counting the foreign language non-English editions, which increase the size several-fold, and not counting Commons and any of the other ancillary projects. En's bigger than the Diderot Encyclopedia, bigger than any version of Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta, bigger than Cyclopedia, bigger than the Yongle Encyclopedia, bigger than that 100-volume-Spanish-one-whose-name-escapes-me-at-the-moment. It is not inconceivable that within 5-20 years, just the English *encyclopedia* will be larger than the [[Siku Quanshu]], which isn't even an encyclopedia! And the factor by which En is bigger than even the nearest competitors is not a constant, but ever increasing (and the derivative of this increase may even be accelerating). So even at the most pessimistic, the failure of Wikipedia would merit a line in [[Encyclopedia]].
Further, Wikipedia is the largest [[wiki]] ever, the largest agglomeration of [[Free content]] ever, the largest example of public participation in a scholarly project (I'm sure we must have an article on this phenomenon somewhere, but I can't figure out the right name to search for), etc.
I realize avoiding self-reference is a useful guideline since it's so easy to be biased towards including Wikipedia-related trivia, but in this case (and others, such as the Essjay article) I think peoples' urge to be NPOV have led them to disregard manifest facts and to be biased in entirely the opposite direction.
....
- White Cat
-- gwern GPMG Speakeasy humint GEODSS SORO M5 BROMURE ANC zone SBI DSS S.A.I.C. Minox
That is an excellent point. What dispute from those early days of older encyclopedias encyclopedia (some 2 or 3 millennia old) do we have articles on? Did they cover such disputes themselves? Ultimately such events are far too small to be worth an actual coverage. There isn't much to write about them as well.
Wikipedia is an important site as you point out and for that reason. In the future any minor conflict on wikipedia will be news. No one can actually predict the potential of the project, myself included.
Media gives too much coverage on useless news. Anna Nicole Smith's death had more coverage on CNN than September 11th or a State of the Union address. This doesn't mean her death is more notable than either. Her death is obviously newsworthy: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Anna_Nicole_Smith_dies but not all that notable encyclopedia-wise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Nicole_Smith#Death_and_funeral A mere section is enough, infact her death itself is given a few line coverage, everything else is events that were caused by her death.
Our criteria of judgment on notability should have a logical reasoning behind it which press lacks.
- White Cat
On 6/27/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On 0, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com scribbled:
Headline on CNN right now is "Poll: War support at new low" do we have
an
article of this poll? We write articles on events unless they are
notable
enough for the entire year rather than day.
A notable event would be Jimbo deciding to shut down the site
(wikipedia)
for example which would IMHO only be notable enough to be mentioned on
the
article on [[Wikipedia]]. Probably the coverage would be one or two
lines,
max a paragraph. Not a full article, that can be on wikinews (maybe).
Essjay
incident however isn't even worth a single line mention on article namespace.
Only in [[Wikipedia]]? I don't normally descend to personal attacks, but either you are making a rhetorical point here or are ignorant of the subject matter.
(Note that in the following rant, you can generally replace 'big' or 'large' with 'popular' or 'useful' and it will still be true.)
Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia *in history*. As in, since the encyclopedia form was invented some 2 or 3 millennia ago, and of the hundreds and thousands of monumental projects culminating in multiple thick volumes, not one is the size of Wikipedia; at best they are perhaps 3/4s the size of Wikipedia (in October 2006, en WP had 609 million words to the Yongle Encyclopedia's 370 million characters). And I'm not even counting the foreign language non-English editions, which increase the size several-fold, and not counting Commons and any of the other ancillary projects. En's bigger than the Diderot Encyclopedia, bigger than any version of Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta, bigger than Cyclopedia, bigger than the Yongle Encyclopedia, bigger than that 100-volume-Spanish-one-whose-name-escapes-me-at-the-moment. It is not inconceivable that within 5-20 years, just the English *encyclopedia* will be larger than the [[Siku Quanshu]], which isn't even an encyclopedia! And the factor by which En is bigger than even the nearest competitors is not a constant, but ever increasing (and the derivative of this increase may even be accelerating). So even at the most pessimistic, the failure of Wikipedia would merit a line in [[Encyclopedia]].
Further, Wikipedia is the largest [[wiki]] ever, the largest agglomeration of [[Free content]] ever, the largest example of public participation in a scholarly project (I'm sure we must have an article on this phenomenon somewhere, but I can't figure out the right name to search for), etc.
I realize avoiding self-reference is a useful guideline since it's so easy to be biased towards including Wikipedia-related trivia, but in this case (and others, such as the Essjay article) I think peoples' urge to be NPOV have led them to disregard manifest facts and to be biased in entirely the opposite direction.
....
- White Cat-- gwern GPMG Speakeasy humint GEODSS SORO M5 BROMURE ANC zone SBI DSS S.A.I.C. Minox _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
White Cat wrote:
That is an excellent point. What dispute from those early days of older encyclopedias encyclopedia (some 2 or 3 millennia old) do we have articles on? Did they cover such disputes themselves? Ultimately such events are far too small to be worth an actual coverage. There isn't much to write about them as well.
How many encyclopedias are more than a millenium old. What is different for us is that Wikipedia is not paper. Before Guttenberg there was a tremendous challenge to getting any kind of information distributed. These difficulties were bound to have an influence on the notability standards of the time.
Wikipedia is an important site as you point out and for that reason. In the future any minor conflict on wikipedia will be news. No one can actually predict the potential of the project, myself included.
Whether anything will become encyclopedic is difficult to predict. I'm sure that if you went through old newspapers you would find many articles about others in similar circumstances that are long since forgotten. We are big enough to influence notability. Our own debates on a subject affect its notability. Essjay becomes more notable _because_ we maintain such a lively debate about him. For that matter, trolls become more important _because_ so many people insist on feeding them.
Media gives too much coverage on useless news. Anna Nicole Smith's death had more coverage on CNN than September 11th or a State of the Union address.
Wikisource includes the full text of all of the State of the Union Addresses. I don't think that your statement comparing CNN's coverage of Smith and 9/11 has any basis in fact. Yes, the media do spend too much coverage on useless news, but as long as people keep watching that stuff they will keep showing it. Where would the sponsorship go if the news programmes told the truth about the sponsors' industries.
Ec
Indeed wikipedia is not paper, it isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. An article on a fictional character is more notable than Essjay controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_self-references exists for us to avoid that. As you imply it is not notable now. It may become more notable and we may write about it then. Deleting an article doesn't feed the trolls. Giving trolls an article to freely troll on the other hand is a full-course troll bait.
This comparison was made by Jon Stewart on the daily show. I am merely quoting him. As you agree "covered on media" isn't necessarily a notability measurement criteria. Sep/11th is notable as an even not because of the amount of news coverage.
- White Cat
On 6/28/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
White Cat wrote:
That is an excellent point. What dispute from those early days of older encyclopedias encyclopedia (some 2 or 3 millennia old) do we have
articles
on? Did they cover such disputes themselves? Ultimately such events are
far
too small to be worth an actual coverage. There isn't much to write about them as well.
How many encyclopedias are more than a millenium old. What is different for us is that Wikipedia is not paper. Before Guttenberg there was a tremendous challenge to getting any kind of information distributed. These difficulties were bound to have an influence on the notability standards of the time.
Wikipedia is an important site as you point out and for that reason. In
the
future any minor conflict on wikipedia will be news. No one can actually predict the potential of the project, myself included.
Whether anything will become encyclopedic is difficult to predict. I'm sure that if you went through old newspapers you would find many articles about others in similar circumstances that are long since forgotten. We are big enough to influence notability. Our own debates on a subject affect its notability. Essjay becomes more notable _because_ we maintain such a lively debate about him. For that matter, trolls become more important _because_ so many people insist on feeding them.
Media gives too much coverage on useless news. Anna Nicole Smith's death
had
more coverage on CNN than September 11th or a State of the Union address.
Wikisource includes the full text of all of the State of the Union Addresses. I don't think that your statement comparing CNN's coverage of Smith and 9/11 has any basis in fact. Yes, the media do spend too much coverage on useless news, but as long as people keep watching that stuff they will keep showing it. Where would the sponsorship go if the news programmes told the truth about the sponsors' industries.
Ec
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 6/27/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
White Cat wrote:
That is an excellent point. What dispute from those early days of older encyclopedias encyclopedia (some 2 or 3 millennia old) do we have
articles
on? Did they cover such disputes themselves? Ultimately such events are
far
too small to be worth an actual coverage. There isn't much to write about them as well.
How many encyclopedias are more than a millenium old. What is different for us is that Wikipedia is not paper. Before Guttenberg there was a tremendous challenge to getting any kind of information distributed. These difficulties were bound to have an influence on the notability standards of the time.
Wikipedia is an important site as you point out and for that reason. In
the
future any minor conflict on wikipedia will be news. No one can actually predict the potential of the project, myself included.
Whether anything will become encyclopedic is difficult to predict. I'm sure that if you went through old newspapers you would find many articles about others in similar circumstances that are long since forgotten. We are big enough to influence notability. Our own debates on a subject affect its notability. Essjay becomes more notable _because_ we maintain such a lively debate about him. For that matter, trolls become more important _because_ so many people insist on feeding them.
Media gives too much coverage on useless news. Anna Nicole Smith's death
had
more coverage on CNN than September 11th or a State of the Union address.
Wikisource includes the full text of all of the State of the Union Addresses. I don't think that your statement comparing CNN's coverage of Smith and 9/11 has any basis in fact. Yes, the media do spend too much coverage on useless news, but as long as people keep watching that stuff they will keep showing it. Where would the sponsorship go if the news programmes told the truth about the sponsors' industries.
Also, you're making a value judgment about what's useless. For all we know a personality cult will form around Anna Nicole Smith in 100 years. After all the Gospels were all written well after Jesus's death. It's best not to try to predict the future.
(That said, obviously it's inane. But the inanity of content shouldn't be our guide.)
Possible notability in the distant future does not matter today. If it becomes notable, it can have an article in the future. A cult may also form around my pet. That would not make my pet notable.
We do not need to have an article on every minor event wikipedia is mentioned. We will see frequent mention of wikipedia in the news with its increasing popularity. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/28/wrestler.ap/index.html for instance is this kind of an incident. There are two wikinews entries on it and no wikipedia articles. Nor should there be one.
- White Cat
On 6/28/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/27/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
White Cat wrote:
That is an excellent point. What dispute from those early days of older encyclopedias encyclopedia (some 2 or 3 millennia old) do we have
articles
on? Did they cover such disputes themselves? Ultimately such events are
far
too small to be worth an actual coverage. There isn't much to write
about
them as well.
How many encyclopedias are more than a millenium old. What is different for us is that Wikipedia is not paper. Before Guttenberg there was a tremendous challenge to getting any kind of information distributed. These difficulties were bound to have an influence on the notability standards of the time.
Wikipedia is an important site as you point out and for that reason. In
the
future any minor conflict on wikipedia will be news. No one can
actually
predict the potential of the project, myself included.
Whether anything will become encyclopedic is difficult to predict. I'm sure that if you went through old newspapers you would find many articles about others in similar circumstances that are long since forgotten. We are big enough to influence notability. Our own debates on a subject affect its notability. Essjay becomes more notable _because_ we maintain such a lively debate about him. For that matter, trolls become more important _because_ so many people insist on feeding them.
Media gives too much coverage on useless news. Anna Nicole Smith's
death
had
more coverage on CNN than September 11th or a State of the Union
address.
Wikisource includes the full text of all of the State of the Union Addresses. I don't think that your statement comparing CNN's coverage of Smith and 9/11 has any basis in fact. Yes, the media do spend too much coverage on useless news, but as long as people keep watching that stuff they will keep showing it. Where would the sponsorship go if the news programmes told the truth about the sponsors' industries.
Also, you're making a value judgment about what's useless. For all we know a personality cult will form around Anna Nicole Smith in 100 years. After all the Gospels were all written well after Jesus's death. It's best not to try to predict the future.
(That said, obviously it's inane. But the inanity of content shouldn't be our guide.) _______________________________________________ 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 6/25/07, Anirudh anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
the media coverage was because Wikipedia is a famous website, Essjay was not, is not. He came into limelight only because of the controversy created on the website.
Yep. That's why the article is called [[Essjay controversy]] and isn't called "Essjay" or "(I'd put his real name here but someone would probably scream "OUTING")" or "Essjay fraud" or any of the other half-dozen pejorative titles that people came up with.
Would this piece be of any value after 10 years? I think not.
Who knows - 10 years from now Wikipedia could be another one of those vaguely remembered, once trendy websites. The subject of this article is no less noteworthy than that of thousands of other articles that nobody has any inclination to get rid of
It is a serious BLP violation and should be deleted. Imagine something like
this having repercussions for the rest of your life for something which you did in your teens.
Umm..what BLP violations? I'm hard pressed to find any violations in the article right now, although I'll admit it was a very nasty battle to keep some of that stuff out.
Risker
Sir Nicholas
On 6/25/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I'd delete [[Essjay controversy]] - we only think it's notable because it's a Wikipedia-related topic. Any other website and we wouldn't have it.
There was plenty of media coverage of it - that's the usual criterion for notability of an event.
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 Jun 25, 2007, at 11:27 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Personally, I'd delete [[Essjay controversy]] - we only think it's notable because it's a Wikipedia-related topic. Any other website and we wouldn't have it.
There was plenty of media coverage of it - that's the usual criterion for notability of an event.
And I think that "plenty of media coverage" is sometimes relevant, but certainly not dispositive.
--Jimbo
No, it definitely rises to the level of other stuff that gets Wikipedia pages. A lot of news coverage, genuine historical significance, etc.
On 6/25/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I'd delete [[Essjay controversy]] - we only think it's notable because it's a Wikipedia-related topic. Any other website and we wouldn't have it.
-Phil
On Jun 24, 2007, at 7:24 PM, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
The big wars over linking to so-called "attack sites" have moved to yet another venue... and this time, instead of just chilling discussion on various and sundry talk and project pages (but being pretty much peripheral to anything to do with maintaining an encyclopedia, other than diverting energy away from it), they're actually having a direct and negative effect on our quality as an encyclopedia. It seems that, regarding the [[Essjay controversy]], one of the Wikipedia-related conflicts that is notable enough to have a mainspace article, a key part of the history of the unfolding of this story took place on one of the "attack sites". (Our favorite enemy Daniel Brandt played a big role in that.) So, naturally, some people wanting a well-referenced historical record wish to include the relevant link. Others are fighting it, making the same tired arguments about ArbCom rulings and pseudo-policy. I was trying to mellow out about this whole issue so that I could get back to doing something actually relevant to the encyclopedia, but it seems like the damn thing keeps intruding no matter what, like the monster in a bad horror movie. -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
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