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.

On 6/25/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene(a)vanderpijll.nl> wrote: 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

There was plenty of media coverage of it - that's the usual criterion for notability of an event. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 6/25/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene(a)vanderpijll.nl> wrote: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

There was plenty of media coverage of it - that's the usual criterion for notability of an event.

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?"

On 6/27/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=jimmy+wales+wikipedia%2C+brian+peppers+wikip… Now thats a more accurate way to look at it.

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.

- White Cat

On 0, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com> scribbled: an notable (wikipedia) the lines, Essjay 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. .... -- gwern GPMG Speakeasy humint GEODSS SORO M5 BROMURE ANC zone SBI DSS S.A.I.C. Minox _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

"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

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.

"Brian Peppers" isn't notable though. We do not even have an article on him. Nor should we have one. He isn't notable...

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.

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.

On 6/27/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: 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(a)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.

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: or matter W. It there being basis _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: notable be to of nice reporter. articles and editors, editing. the not in 2057. possible involve to and deleted _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 6/27/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: 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 Jun 27, 2007, at 11:05 AM, The Mangoe wrote: 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.

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.

Anthony wrote: 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, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com> wrote: notable be 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. legal 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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--

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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.

On 0, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.com> scribbled: point Wikipedia non-notable 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

White Cat wrote: articles far 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. the 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. had 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.

On 0, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.com> scribbled: 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."

On 6/28/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: 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?

On 6/27/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: 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.

On 6/28/07, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> 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? With that amendment, I'm apt to stop disagreeing. Google Trends tell us that. Lots of people are searching for information on Brian Peppers. No, I've never said anything about being an internet meme. I frankly don't even know what the term means. 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.

On 6/28/07, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote: No, I've never said anything about being an internet meme. I frankly don't even know what the term means.

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.

On 29/06/07, Silas Snider &lt;swsnider(a)gmail.com&gt; 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.

Gwern Branwen wrote: point Wikipedia non-notable 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

an a On 6/27/07, The Cunctator &lt;cunctator(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: On 6/27/07, White Cat &lt;wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I don't. Seriously, though, you shouldn't make legal threats. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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.

On 6/29/07, michael west &lt;michawest(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: case those about 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 &lt;michawest(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: him? 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)

On 6/28/07, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: > 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 7/1/07, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: 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.

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, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: 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.

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.