(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 . 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. 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. 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 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, 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. 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? 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