(Note:The original message ended up in a moderator queue for being too long. Plain text version only -Elec)
Greetings, Electrawn here. I think this is a perfect opportunity to introduce myself since I am being flamed on the list here without a proper invite. I will mention the articles in reference. Defamation and False light are serious problems with wikipedia and need to be addressed now. Eventualism is not going to work in this case, this is a ticking bomb that has already gone off twice, first with Siegenthaler, and parodied with "Wikiality." If we are going to hand off cluesticks in posts, we should hand them to the reflections in the mirror. We need to resolve the issues before the messengers and lawyers arrive with a subpoena.
Reference/Disclaimer: The information in this post derives from talk at Kyra Phillips and Jeff Gannon. Kyra Phillips is a CNN news anchor who seems to lean conservative. Jeff Gannon was a reporter with dubious credentials involved in a white house scandal. Administrator Rob/Gamaliel is currently in arbitration with editor Crockspot over edits to Jeff Gannon.
For much of this post, I suggest readers read http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi .
Of course I fully support the spirit and motives behind BLP and obviously I see the urgent need to make sure serious allegations against living people are fully and reliably sourced. But people are stretching BLP far beyond what it should be used to combat - unsourced and unreliable assertions. Now people are using it to remove all sorts of critical information that would reasonably be included and to further their own ideological agendas. Some examples, all typed in with presumably a straight face.
The contrary to that is that criticisms of Kyra Phillips were petty, not really criticisms, and provided NPOV:Undue Weight to tiny minority arguments. In regards to defamation and potential libel, the statements/criticisms on the Kyra Phillips are likely ( http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi#QID526) Defamation per se:
- Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits.
Journalists pride themselves on objectivity and painting them as unobjective or biased may cause injury. The section itself may paint Kyra Phillips in a false light, (http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi#QID726). Yes, it seems by letting a tiny majority have equal say, this is potential defamation.
Legal or illegal, such biographies should be given benefit of the doubt and extreme careful vetting to negative criticism. Its an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. If an editor rushes to add one negative thing without adding two positive things, that should be a clear clue that its an agenda and NPOV.
BLP is not just for combating "unsourced and unreliable assertions." BLP is an policy to combat against defamation. WP:LIBEL needs to be defined to protect wikipedia from both agenda editors and lawsuit happy individuals.
Lets beat this in like a headon commercial.
BLP is a policy to protect biography subjects and wikipedia from defamation. BLP is a policy to protect biography subjects and wikipedia from defamation. BLP is a policy to protect biography subjects and wikipedia from defamation.
Addressing critical information: Most "critical information" in wikipedia is from a tiny minority. Some of these editors are cranks, some are well meaning or mastermind schemers. In an article about an inanimate object, like say pluto, wikipedia eventualism can have its way. Dead people don't have careers, just legacy. Eventualism can discuss whether Abraham Lincoln was gay all day. In a BLP article, the defamation per se ramifications put the subject, editors, wikipedia and wikimedia foundation in potential legal trouble. This requires immediatism, which is contrary to how most editors act and feel about wikipedia. (Consensus building, etc.).
"Ideological agenda." Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a tabloid newspaper, nor a bunch of other things. Wikipedia is moving from concept to authoritative. The more relevant wikipedia becomes, the more potential damage from defamation in BLP articles. The stakes become higher. Expert Editors are realizing the stakes are becoming high and becoming discontent and flaming out (see WP:Expert Retention). Openness is what made wikipedia reach critical mass and will be critical to its reaching fully authoritative status in the future. The US is still a nation of laws (as much as we hate them and those that create the laws) and we can't throw those out just because they are inconsistent with a majority of wikipedian editors.
Personally, I find Kyra Phillips and the criticisms on her page amusing but irrelevant. The criticisms are dangerous when seen from a libel perspective, and BLP has to be used like a fist to keep it out of the article until it is negative criticisms are carefully gone over with a fine toothed comb and polishing cloth. My thoughts on Jeff Gannon are he probably is a prostitute and there are certainly big problems with his white house access. Still, claims of sexual impropriety are strong defamation per se, and need the fine comb and polish cloth...and then again twice more for good measure.
BLP:When in doubt, keep it out. BLP:When in doubt, keep it out. BLP:When in doubt, keep it out.
...
Now I "threw the book" at Kyra Phillips as a sort of test case. While NPOV:Undue is much much stronger, WP:V requires that editors with dubious sourcing have the burden of proof in BLP instances to keep a dubious claim in. It is much easier to attack a dubious source than dubious claims. WP:V with WP:RS has much more of a yes or no factor than the NPOV:undue Maybe/maybe not.
- A man who posted nude pictures of himself on websites whose domains
he registered advertising himself as a $200-an-hour gay prostitute can not be identified as a prostitute.
This related to [[Jeff Gannon]], and the potential defamation per se is ugly:
- Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime; ( http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi#QID726) - Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity. - Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;
I suppose we could even use the disease claim, since prostitutes are known for likely having diseases. Claiming a guy is a prostitute nails the head of defamation per se. WP:V isn't enough here if using primary sources, editors better make sure this is TRUTH before allowing it in wikipedia as a fact.
The more "true" phrasing is to use the word alleged. Alleged prostitute is much easier to prove true. Did the media at the time bring up allegations of impropriety and prostitution? Sure did. Using wikipedia to say he IS a prostitute? Potential libel, lets have a media source with a fact checking department or a grand jury indictment/trial or a book publisher and author sort that out. Using an op-ed piece in a primary source form to back up the claim is dubious. A secondary source here is REQUIRED.
The "agenda" here is wikipedia CYA.
- The Financial Times cannot be used as a source in an article about a
journalist because they "report on finances issues" and thus are "unreliable" when it comes to other matters.
This is related to Kyra Phillips
Field of view. Sources get more unreliable as they report on matters outside their focus subject. While your surgeon is qualified to remove your gall bladder, is he qualified to replace your auto transmission? Can an auto mechanic remove your gall bladder? Now this analogy is specific to defamation. Think of the surgeon as a potential BLP source, the gall bladder as negative criticism and the body as the BLP subject. The auto mechanic here is just a regular source, maybe even the same BLP source, your transmission is negative criticism and the auto is a non BLP subject. If the surgeon screws up your car, you are just likely out time, money and a means of transportation. If the auto mechanic screws up your gall bladder surgery, you may die. The point here is BLP articles have much higher stakes, certainly not death itself, but death equivalent if they have no career.
This calls into play use of FT in a BLP article...use of FT may be fine in any article, say Pluto...but a UK papers commentary of a US journalist may be dubious.
Irrespective, the FT source use in the article wasn't criticism, more a notable instance of stupidity regarding what Kyra Phillips said. It did not back up claims of "conservative bias" or my assertion of possible bad objectivity. It was just a stupid thing to say, and journalists make them on rare occasions. The framing of the statement was used to support a "bias" claim, which may be false light.
Personally, attacking FT as a source is a devil's advocate argument. I certainly believe a UK paper can comment on a US journalist and do it fairly, objectively, and not be a dubious source. There are much bigger problems with the section/statements in general than claiming FT as a dubious source. However, since it is much more defined on what a dubious source is in policy, it is easy to chip away at the libel rocks using this method.
* The Columbia Journalism Review is a reliable source. A blog run by
the Columbia Journalism Review on the website of the Columbia Journalism Review is not.
I will state I don't think the blog of CJR is a dubious source. I would think by having the name CJR as part of the name of the blog, the reputation and editorial oversight of the CJR journal extends to the blog. Another brought up significant questions of the blogs oversight and self published sources. Since those tests were generally unanswered, even though I strongly don't agree, I still follow "when in doubt keep it out" regarding the source. This is contrary to the way most editors are acting, but this method of keeping out till proven reliable should be the standard, not the exception.
* The New Republic, among other reputable, long-standing publications,
cannot be used as a source because they are "too partisan".
Field of view again. How far is the politics of a publication too far? Much of this boils down is way too many articles using PRIMARY sources rather than secondary ones. Partisan magazines should be used in articles discussing politics, not in biographies of journalists, authors, etc. This is a fundamental wikipedia credibility problem. Using primary sources like these brings up NPOV issues for the entire article. This also brings up false light problems in BLP articles.
I think The New Republic and The Nation have a place in articles such as US Political Newspapers, US Politics, Democrats and Republicans, but their use in a biography of a journalist should be avoided.
Rob forgets to mention a more obvious case....Can Southern Voice, a gay newspaper with a LGBT audience, be a reliable source for a BLP article? My assertion is no way can a LGBT newspaper be assumed not to be far left and too partisan/too advocacy journalism for a wikipedia source. There may be perception that I have an anti-homosexual agenda, which is false. I don't find a church bulletin or "Christian newspaper" as an acceptable source either. 501(3) non profits need careful scrutiny as well.
- Partisan organizations and publications, even long-standing and
reputable ones, cannot be used in an article at all, even to substantiate the fact that there is partisan criticism of the subject of the article. I'm not taking about someone objecting to "John Doe did this bad thing", I'm talking about people objecting to the article saying "X, Y, and Z criticize John Doe, saying this thing he did may have been bad."
In this case I think Rob is misreading the talk discussion. I have never objected to the use of a direct quote, however, I will still bring up use of that quote versus NPOV:undue, and notability of the person making the criticism. Once in direct quote form, that won't end discussion on its use. In this case, there is no "X, Y, Z" more like just X. X is from the Poynter institute, a journalistic education and ethics think tank. Quite qualified to criticize a journalist, however, is one criticism enough about one specific issue worthy of a biography article? How about when the critic is not directly criticizing the biography subject, just news journalist in general?
In addition to well-intentioned people wildly misapplying BLP and RS, we may have handed a powerful new weapon to POV warriors, who wish to sanitize all the articles about their ideological fellow travelers. A well-meaning user has created the "Libel Protection Unit", but this is the same person who thinks that you are libeling someone by quoting something said by the "unreliable" Financial Times, and among the people he's unwittingly recruited for his new group and have eagerly signed up are some notorious POV warriors and at least one certified troll. I realize that what I'm writing may not show much good faith, but based on what I've seen from some of these folks and the statements I've noted above, I fear that this LPU will do much to remove legitimate material from the encyclopedia and do little to protect us from actual libel. Some people have weighed in with sensible remarks, like Jmabel at [[Wikipedia talk:Libel-Protection Unit]], but I think more people should do so before this gets out of hand.
Just the nature and framing of this post should be insight into the defamation potential and problems with Libel on Wikipedia. We obviously don't worry about NPOV on mailing lists, but you can see without my perspective, this post and thread has just generated a bunch of "yup yup" within the metapedian perspective. In short, please don't shoot the messenger. Concerns about this group getting out of control are unfounded, I repeatedly am attempting to build consensus before action. All sorts of people were invited to participate who have concerns about NPOV, Bias, BLP and Libel...possible "POV warriors" and "trolls" too. Of the initial people invited, I invited a "POV warrior" by the username of Gamaliel. Gamaliel has made repeated reversions to pages to versions containing potential libelous material rather than leaving it out when confronted with BLP policy. I fully understand the nature and culture of eventualism, hence why I took a bit of tea, put on the thinking cap and came up with a working group for Libel issues. Still, there are no innocents here, including admitted acts of bad faith. No attempts have been made to exclude anyone, the more eyeballs and consensus the better.
Since this post, Jossi has renamed the unit BLP Patrol, [[WP:BLPP]]. Before the group can act, defamation needs to be strictly defined on wikipedia. Reliable sources have a much more strict definition and are one method I use for bringing up potential libel issues if NPOV:Undue isn't obvious. There are severe problems with [[WP:LIBEL]], wikimedia and the legal team, as well as members of florida bar and wikipedia law project really need to get involved with the discussion and crafting of [[WP:LIBEL]]. Experts and legal advice are needed badly.
Action is needed yesterday. See [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:LIBEL]], [[WP:BLPP]].
Jason "Electrawn" Potkanski
On 9/9/06, Jason Potkanski electrawn@electrawn.com wrote:
Greetings, Electrawn here. I think this is a perfect opportunity to introduce myself since I am being flamed on the list here without a proper invite
I don't feel that I've flamed you, but I have raised questions (in what was, I admit, a rather strident tone) about your judgement and your interpretation of policy, which is a different thing entirely and I'm sorry if I offended you. In my original message I chose not to identify users by name to avoid this becoming a debate about particular personalities. I also chose not to be specific about what articles I was referring to as I was interested in discussing the broader issues affecting all articles instead of the minutiae of a particular article, which belongs on that article's talk page. Instead, you've chosen to personally attack me and drag out the details of a single article, neither of which is particularly productive here.
I do want to clear up some of your misstatements regarding the Jeff Gannon matter. I am not "in arbitration" regarding this matter, or in anything at all except in a dispute with another user (more about him in a minute). An op-ed piece (one which I personally haven't read and have not proposed using for a source) was not the source for calling Gannon a prostitute, but was merely one of many mainstream media sources presented by multiple editors as substantiating the fact that Gannon advertised his sexual services. The "repeated reversions" I have made were reverting that user who wished to remove all mention of this from every WP article that mentioned Gannon.
And thank you for mentioning the issue of the Southern Voice, which is perhaps the most appalling of your policy interpretations, which would prohibit all LGBT publications from being used in Wikipedia. Would you propose the same thing about Ebony? Univision? If not, why not? What is the difference? Even if you subscribed to the ludicrous idea that all LGBT publications are too "partisan" and thus "unreliable", the proposed use of the Southern Voice was not to provide facts about Phillips, but to substantiate the fact that some LGBT organizations criticized Phillips. We do, of course, want to consider issues of undue weight and prevent WP articles for being overwhelmed with criticism, but the things you have proposed would serve to eliminate legitimate criticism from Wikipedia articles and disqualify many mainstream, reputable sources from being used in those articles.
As for your LPU, you mention (while taking a moment to attack me) that you invited "all sorts of people" to participate. You invited 17. They included the user who wished to scrub all mention of Gannon's former occupation from WP, who mentions on his user page that he's from a conservative messageboard and declares his mission here is to "correct" WP's "liberal bias". Another was an editor who uses his user space to denounce about 20 or so editors by name and until fairly recently had them under a "list of weasels" or somesuch. These were the people you thought would be good to recruit, and of course they eagerly signed up. I thought the small number of members and the relatively high proportion of problem users among them was alarming. This was the main reason I thought it was imperative to bring your project to the attention of more users.
Several times in your long message you repeat the acronym soup, to, in your words "beat this in like a headon commercial." We're not idiots here, we are aware of these policies. What is needed is a thoughtful application of these policies, not a simplistic mantra. Chanting BLP! BLP! BLP! doesn't automatically make you right, or does it mean those who disagree with you want to stuff WP with libel. (Now with 20 percent more libel!) Mentioning reliably sourced unflattering facts is not libel. Mentioning criticism of the subject of the article is not libel. But you've recruited a bunch of POV warriors to go around stripping WP articles of unflattering things about their fellow political party members (BLP! BLP! BLP!) with no oversight and no means to watch the watchmen. This coupled with your wildly over-expansive interpretation of BLP makes me conclude that you should not be playing a key role in interpreting the policy or implementing how it is enforced.
On 9/10/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/06, Jason Potkanski electrawn@electrawn.com wrote:
Greetings, Electrawn here. I think this is a perfect opportunity to introduce myself since I am being flamed on the list here without a proper invite
I don't feel that I've flamed you, but I have raised questions (in what was, I admit, a rather strident tone) about your judgement and your interpretation of policy, which is a different thing entirely and I'm sorry if I offended you. In my original message I chose not to identify users by name to avoid this becoming a debate about particular personalities. I also chose not to be specific about what articles I was referring to as I was interested in discussing the broader issues affecting all articles instead of the minutiae of a particular article, which belongs on that article's talk page. Instead, you've chosen to personally attack me and drag out the details of a single article, neither of which is particularly productive here.
I am not offended. I don't feel I was personally attack, nor was the response a personal attack. The post was framed to a single point of view, designed to solicit yes men drum beating. We agree to disagree.
I do want to clear up some of your misstatements regarding the Jeff Gannon matter. I am not "in arbitration" regarding this matter, or in anything at all except in a dispute with another user (more about him in a minute). An op-ed piece (one which I personally haven't read and have not proposed using for a source) was not the source for calling Gannon a prostitute, but was merely one of many mainstream media sources presented by multiple editors as substantiating the fact that Gannon advertised his sexual services. The "repeated reversions" I have made were reverting that user who wished to remove all mention of this from every WP article that mentioned Gannon.
Personal: If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...quacks like a duck...
Real World: (My opinion, legal expert needed) If not true, this is libel. Big...center of the bullseye in the dartboard Libel.
Wikipedia BLP Articles: When in doubt, keep it out...when not in doubt, bring back in. Don't revert.
Wikipedia Other Articles: Let eventualism ring. Do revert.
Analysis: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jeff+gannon+prostitute .
Actual Prostitute:
- Primary Reliable Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1416370,00.html, a reliable UK source, dares call him a prostitute.
- Primary RS: The Independant, another UK reliable source, possibly calls him a hooker in an article title. I am having trouble finding the article text.
Numerous Unreliable primary sources such as blogs make the claim.
Involved with prostitution:
- PRS: NY Daily News, http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/279556p-239417c.html "after left-leaning Internet bloggers discovered possible ties to gay prostitution."
- PRS: Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36733-2005Feb18.html . "naked pictures have appeared on a number of gay escort sites"
Deeper:
AP Archives have nothing on "Jeff Gannon" AND prost* or "Jeff Gannon" AND escort.
LexisNexis alacarte for "Jeff Gannon Prostitute" turns up 500 hits. Now we have some real meaty RS all over the place, some claiming he is a prostitute.
No secondary sources were easily located.
Conclusions: Big mainstream US media doesn't dare make the jump to "A prostitute." They hover around escort and involved with prostitution. Mainstream UK Media seems to jump right out and say "a prostitute." Smalltime US media, but still many reliable sources, seem to occasionally say "a prostitute."
Questions: * What is right for wikipedia: ...a prostitute? alleged prostitute (Note:No charges filed)? involved with prostitution? involved with an gay escort service? involved with an homosexual escort service? nude pictures on a escort service website? Leave out alltogether? -(I personally say leave out all together, lack of journalistic credentials enough is to tell the story. Parading as a prostitute is notable and widely reported, however, the guy is human and needs to make a living. Does this need to be in a biography, especially when defamation considerations are in play?) * How many sources is enough to back up potential defamation? One? Two? Three? -(I say at least three.) * United States versus British media as defamation backing sources? Basically, if the US big boys aren't going to stick their necks out, can wikipedia? Are foreign backed sources enough? Are smalltime US sources enough?
However, if all these sources are relying on just one source, thats a big hmm for another discussion.
Final: Before searching Lexis Nexis, I was pretty sure that prostitute should stay out. After, I feel its use may hold weight.
And thank you for mentioning the issue of the Southern Voice, which is perhaps the most appalling of your policy interpretations, which would prohibit all LGBT publications from being used in Wikipedia. Would you propose the same thing about Ebony? Univision? If not, why not? What is the difference? Even if you subscribed to the ludicrous idea that all LGBT publications are too "partisan" and thus "unreliable", the proposed use of the Southern Voice was not to provide facts about Phillips, but to substantiate the fact that some LGBT organizations criticized Phillips. We do, of course, want to consider issues of undue weight and prevent WP articles for being overwhelmed with criticism, but the things you have proposed would serve to eliminate legitimate criticism from Wikipedia articles and disqualify many mainstream, reputable sources from being used in those articles.
I am not sure you are following me correctly. LGBT sources and other narrow audience sources should be used quite sparingly and are not a reliable source for MOST articles. An LGBT papers Field Of View is on LGBT people and LGBT issues. This makes it great and reliable for LGBT biographies and LGBT pages. Articles on say...a CNN journalist push use of such a source, in my opinion, towards unreliable. Overreliance on these as primary sources may make articles have a POV.
I think we can agree on: - Use of advocacy journalism primary sources should be replaced with objective journalism sources where possible.
As for your LPU, you mention (while taking a moment to attack me) that you invited "all sorts of people" to participate. You invited 17. They included the user who wished to scrub all mention of Gannon's former occupation from WP, who mentions on his user page that he's from a conservative messageboard and declares his mission here is to "correct" WP's "liberal bias". Another was an editor who uses his user space to denounce about 20 or so editors by name and until fairly recently had them under a "list of weasels" or somesuch. These were the people you thought would be good to recruit, and of course they eagerly signed up. I thought the small number of members and the relatively high proportion of problem users among them was alarming. This was the main reason I thought it was imperative to bring your project to the attention of more users.
I suppose, humorously (and should be interpreted as), to quote Dennis Leary: "Thank you, thank you, thank you and ..."
Justice is(er, should be) blind. Treat editors with blindness (and good faith and civility) until malice. Most of the people invited were recent contributers to NPOV, BLP, LIBEL, BLP noticeboard talk pages as well as Kyra Phillips. More metapedians needed at BLPP.
Catch-22, I think. The framing of the post sends people on wikien to BLPP with a chip on their shoulder, without the framing though, there would be no interest.
Several times in your long message you repeat the acronym soup, to, in your words "beat this in like a headon commercial." We're not idiots here, we are aware of these policies. What is needed is a thoughtful application of these policies, not a simplistic mantra. Chanting BLP! BLP! BLP! doesn't automatically make you right, or does it mean those who disagree with you want to stuff WP with libel. (Now with 20 percent more libel!) Mentioning reliably sourced unflattering facts is not libel. Mentioning criticism of the subject of the article is not libel. But you've recruited a bunch of POV warriors to go around stripping WP articles of unflattering things about their fellow political party members (BLP! BLP! BLP!) with no oversight and no means to watch the watchmen. This coupled with your wildly over-expansive interpretation of BLP makes me conclude that you should not be playing a key role in interpreting the policy or implementing how it is enforced.
Then why I am I seeing quick reversions from adminstrators when defamation and reliable sourcing are being raised? Both these things seem to have been much agreed upon to keep out till in and for editors who want to keep them to prove it? What is needed is to educate most editors that actions on defamation issues run contrary to prominient wikipedia philosphies, hence the use of a simple mantra. Chanting BLP,BLP... is designed to get eyeballs on the problem and the severity of its nature. Most editors are acting in good faith but are generally unaware of defamation laws and various journalistic and historical codes of conduct. When defamation is in play, reliable sourcing needs to be rock solid and in generous quantity. Depending on the seriousness of potential libel, verifiability may not be enough, the standard may have to be truth! Criticism is good but most belongs outside of wikipedia. I have recruited a bunch of editors to help build consensus on how to handle problematic BLP articles. If editors are off willynilly editing articles under a BLPP mantra without consensus, shoot them and ban them. I am sorry you think I am unable to play a key role, but I think you misunderstand how I actually think about this.
Underneath, mostly, I am quite moderate. I am frequently stepping into zealot shoes and taking devils advocate positions to bring up defamation issues that need to be addressed NOW. Not only do BLP articles requires immediatism, the wikipedia policies behind it require immediatism too. The run a red flag up the highest flagpole and aim those hollywood spotlights at it kind of immediatism. Its a ticking bomb.
As for qualifications, over my career I have been a journalist, beat reporter, opinion columnist, editor, web editor, read AP stylebook, code of ethics and various ethics textbooks. I have been a political scientist (mm...SCOTUS!), parlimentarian, read Roberts Rules of Order cover to cover. Have been a business/technical analyst, where six sigma, TQM, BPI, scientific management, taylorism and most other process management buzzwords come into play. Also a computer programmer: PHP, Perl, Java, C/C++, ircbots like eggdrop and TCL/TK, to use of mediawiki with xoops on a personal wiki.
So not only do I fully understand the ethical issues and the significance of the legal ones, I understand political culture and how to create and enforce processes and policies alike. From a technical standpoint, I know the limitations and potential of mediawiki and other software well.
-Jtp Electrawn
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/11/06, Jason Potkanski electrawn@electrawn.com wrote:
I am not sure you are following me correctly. LGBT sources and other narrow audience sources should be used quite sparingly and are not a reliable source for MOST articles. An LGBT papers Field Of View is on LGBT people and LGBT issues. This makes it great and reliable for LGBT biographies and LGBT pages. Articles on say...a CNN journalist push use of such a source, in my opinion, towards unreliable. Overreliance on these as primary sources may make articles have a POV.
This is even sillier, I think. LGBT publications can only be used for articles regarding LGBT issues and personalities? If they are so hysterically partisan and unreliable as you claim, why should they not be excluded from all articles? And if Kyra Phillips experimented with lesbianism in college, then we could use those publications as sources in her article? No one is advocating "overreliance" on publications such as the Southern Voice, but you would exclude it even as a source regarding LGBT criticism of Phillips. And you haven't addressed the question of why we should treat LGBT publications differently than the publications of other racial/ethnic/whatever groups. You say you have worked as a journalist, but would mainstream journalistic thought really exclude LGBT publications on the basis you suggest? I wonder what the respected Poynter Institute would say on the matter. Given that someone from the Poynter Institute is quoted in the Southern Voice article, I suspect their answer would be "no".
Justice is(er, should be) blind. Treat editors with blindness (and good faith and civility) until malice.
AGF should not be a substitute for good judgment, nor should it allow us to be blind to the faults and agendas of those users who have a clear track record.
Underneath, mostly, I am quite moderate. I am frequently stepping into zealot shoes and taking devils advocate positions to bring up defamation issues that need to be addressed NOW. Not only do BLP articles requires immediatism, the wikipedia policies behind it require immediatism too. The run a red flag up the highest flagpole and aim those hollywood spotlights at it kind of immediatism. Its a ticking bomb.
We can address a problem immediately without this kind of rhetoric or slogan chanting. It is important to address the problem, but it is equally important that we not create new ones in our haste to solve this one.
On 9/11/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/11/06, Jason Potkanski electrawn@electrawn.com wrote:
I am not sure you are following me correctly. LGBT sources and other narrow audience sources should be used quite sparingly and are not a reliable source for MOST articles. An LGBT papers Field Of View is on LGBT people and LGBT issues. This makes it great and reliable for LGBT biographies and LGBT pages. Articles on say...a CNN journalist push use of such a source, in my opinion, towards unreliable. Overreliance on these as primary sources may make articles have a POV.
This is even sillier, I think. LGBT publications can only be used for articles regarding LGBT issues and personalities? If they are so hysterically partisan and unreliable as you claim, why should they not be excluded from all articles? And if Kyra Phillips experimented with lesbianism in college, then we could use those publications as sources in her article? No one is advocating "overreliance" on publications such as the Southern Voice, but you would exclude it even as a source regarding LGBT criticism of Phillips. And you haven't addressed the question of why we should treat LGBT publications differently than the publications of other racial/ethnic/whatever groups. You say you have worked as a journalist, but would mainstream journalistic thought really exclude LGBT publications on the basis you suggest? I wonder what the respected Poynter Institute would say on the matter. Given that someone from the Poynter Institute is quoted in the Southern Voice article, I suspect their answer would be "no".
Once the statement was changed to reflect a direct quote from a critic at the Poynter institute, the context and source reliability matched. I tried to find a column/article at the Poynter Institute itself, no dice. No other press carried that quote. So in absence of a better source, SoVo is adequate. The use of the quote still has issues, but the statement/source/context problem is resolved.
Basic journalism is about finding good sources and excluding potential bad ones. There is no set way to determine right or wrong, only by example. For examples on bad sources, lets get outlandish...
*Would [[Ebony magazine]] be a good source for [[Theory of relativity]]? *Would [[Seventeen magazine]] be a good source for [[China]]? *Would [[Dog Fancy]] be a good source for [[Linux]]?
It is this kind of reasoning that makes me look at [[Southern Voice]] and wonder if it is a good source for [[Kyra Phillips]]. Same thing for Financial Times.
I think this discussion calls for improvements to WP:RS to better explain good sourcing.
For fun, some authoritative ones that look innocent but fall apart under scrunity... *Use of NNDB, by a company "Soylent communications" aka rotten.com on [[Ann Coulter]]...er, any wikipedia article. *Use of Media Matters, a 501(3)c "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
While researching outlandish sourcing...why does [[Barbra Streisand]] mention nothing on politics (one sentence about clinton), [[Al Franken]] relatively free of criticism...yet [[Ann Coulter]] and [[Pat Buchanan]] are loaded with it, even with POV forks? [[Al Gore]] seems cleanish too, but he has a POV fork as well. [[Howard Dean]]. [[Al Sharpton]], [[Jesse Jackson]] criticism sections are small. It is hard finding a liberal polemic figure on wikipedia with the same amount of criticisms as [[Ann Coulter]], [[Pat Buchanan]], [[Tom Delay]]. I am amazed at the left/right off balance!
Interesting read: http://insidehighered.com/views/2005/11/17/mclemee
-jtp Electrawn
On 9/11/06, Jason Potkanski electrawn@electrawn.com wrote:
*Would [[Ebony magazine]] be a good source for [[Theory of relativity]]? *Would [[Seventeen magazine]] be a good source for [[China]]? *Would [[Dog Fancy]] be a good source for [[Linux]]?
It is this kind of reasoning that makes me look at [[Southern Voice]] and wonder if it is a good source for [[Kyra Phillips]]. Same thing for Financial Times.
These ridiculous analogies are hardly apt. A better analogy: Would Dog Fancy be a good source for criticism by dog owners of journalistic coverage of dog issues?
For fun, some authoritative ones that look innocent but fall apart under scrunity... *Use of Media Matters, a 501(3)c "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
I don't see how this falls apart. You aren't scruntinizing anything, you are dismissing under a simplistic equation: openly stated political viewpoint=partisan=unreliable. NPOV states that articles "must represent all significant views fairly and without bias." Stripping articles of significant views is a violation of this policy.
While researching outlandish sourcing...why does [[Barbra Streisand]] mention nothing on politics (one sentence about clinton), [[Al Franken]] relatively free of criticism...yet [[Ann Coulter]] and [[Pat Buchanan]] are loaded with it, even with POV forks? [[Al Gore]] seems cleanish too, but he has a POV fork as well. [[Howard Dean]]. [[Al Sharpton]], [[Jesse Jackson]] criticism sections are small. It is hard finding a liberal polemic figure on wikipedia with the same amount of criticisms as [[Ann Coulter]], [[Pat Buchanan]], [[Tom Delay]]. I am amazed at the left/right off balance!
I hope you aren't embracing the tired old criticism that Wikipedia is a hotbed of "liberal bias". You can select a small set of articles to back up any preexisiting opinion. There are plenty of articles on liberal figures with large amounts of criticism: Michael Moore and Dan Rather, for example. I don't agree at all that Al Franken is "relatively free of criticism" - there are four paragraphs about one letter he wrote to John Ashcroft alone! I haven't looked at the others you mentioned yet, but if you are correct that, for example, Barbra Streisand lacks a significant section on her politics, the solution is not to declare that WP has a "liberal bias" and strip criticism out of articles on random journalists, but to fix the Barbra Striesand article.