On 18 Jun 2008 at 00:30:34 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It's a common assumption that administrators will act responsibly, but that has not consistently been borne out by the facts. To say that we will have the opportunity to look at it again is either na?ve or a POV push. Nobody is trying to overthrow a ruling as it related to the parties involved in that particular case. Most of us do not follow Arbcom cases, and to not participate in their petty details, so it would be grossly improper to have such a ruling extrapolated onto everyone else.
And in this case, the remedy was attached to a case that didn't seem, on its face, to have anything whatsoever to do with the issue the remedy was addressing; it was a case about the formatting of reference quotes, about as "wiki-wonky" a topic as you can imagine, and got very little attention even from those who regularly follow what the ArbCom is up to, compared to some more drama-intensive ArbCom cases going on at the same time.
ArbCom says as a matter of ideology that it doesn't make policy and is not obliged to follow precedent, but in this case they seem to have made policy, and done so in a highly stealthy manner seemingly designed to be placed in force with as little community comment or notice as possible. They perhaps hoped that it would remain beneath the radar in the usual drama venues until it began to be quietly enforced.
A more above-board manner of adopting such a remedy, if the ArbCom were insistent on doing it, would be to have had a case specifically on the subject of BLP enforcement and its failures, with parties who were involved in BLP controversies and had a live dispute in that area (the function of ArbCom, after all, is to resolve disputes, not start them). Then, the community would know that a sanction in that area was being proposed and could present relevant evidence for or against it. Instead, the actual case has (as far as I could see) not a single piece of evidence on its evidence page that relates to the subject of this remedy.
On 6/18/08, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
And in this case, the remedy was attached to a case that didn't seem, on its face, to have anything whatsoever to do with the issue the remedy was addressing; it was a case about the formatting of reference quotes, about as "wiki-wonky" a topic as you can imagine, and got very little attention even from those who regularly follow what the ArbCom is up to, compared to some more drama-intensive ArbCom cases going on at the same time.
Yes any page titled "requests for arbitration/footnoted quotes" is almost guaranteed from day one to be dismissed as shit nobody cares about by anyone who might be aware of it. Looking at the result I can't decide whether this is Sophoclean irony or Epeian brilliance.
—C.W.
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
ArbCom says as a matter of ideology that it doesn't make policy
Correct.
and is not obliged to follow precedent,
Correct.
but in this case they seem to have made policy,
No, the policy on BLP is unchanged, and is at the community's disposal.
and done so in a highly stealthy manner
Not at all. I'll give you "undemocratic", but then as we know Wikipedia is not a democracy. I'll even give you "opportunistic" - but then the ArbCom only gets to state its views when it has a case to arbitrate, and its "remedies" are not limited to the scope of the one case.
seemingly designed to be placed in force with as little community comment or notice as possible.
Oh yeah? We seem to be discussing it.
They perhaps hoped that it would remain beneath the radar in the usual drama venues until it began to be quietly enforced.
Translation, please. What exactly has changed? What is "it" here? Can't be that BLP policy enforcement is a novelty. "It" seems to be the parameters of enforcement. But I suppose most of those with the best interests of the mission at heart and involved in enforcement of BLP have figured this out a while ago. I'm sure OTRS volunteers have. Against those determined to use our pages to smear people, it happens that tough measures may be required.
A more above-board manner of adopting such a remedy, if the ArbCom were insistent on doing it, would be to have had a case specifically on the subject of BLP enforcement and its failures, with parties who were involved in BLP controversies and had a live dispute in that area (the function of ArbCom, after all, is to resolve disputes, not start them).
To "have had" a case assumes rather that the ArbCom picks its cases, which it does only in the limited sense of rejecting proposed cases. Most serious BLP trouble now goes to OTRS and the WMF counsel, you know. And you frame this as if BLP troubles are typically between two editors here - this is far from being the case.
Then, the community would know that a sanction in that area was being proposed and could present relevant evidence for or against it. Instead, the actual case has (as far as I could see) not a single piece of evidence on its evidence page that relates to the subject of this remedy.
Enforcement laid out in remedies is usually not directly connected with evidence submitted in an Arbitration case relating to the findings of fact, and I don't know why you think it should be.
I can see you don't like it, but I don't think you have the mechanisms straight at all.
Charles
On 18/06/2008, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
ArbCom says as a matter of ideology that it doesn't make policy
Correct.
and is not obliged to follow precedent,
Correct.
but in this case they seem to have made policy,
No, the policy on BLP is unchanged, and is at the community's disposal.
Well, first off, as has been pointed out by SlimVirgin on the proposed decision talk page (sorry, can't link right now) - part of this decision contradicts the BLP policy; that is the section in BLP where even involved admins can take action, whereas this decision indicates that involved admins *may not* take action. (Incidentally, I agree with the decision on that point, it is better for uninvolved admins to step in.)
But it is not the BLP policy that is changed. Blocking, page protection, reversion and deletion have always been part of that policy and remain so. What has changed is the opportunity for admins to unilaterally create sanctions.
What this decision changes is the Administrator policy. There is nothing in [[WP:ADMIN]] that permits or encourages administrators to unilaterally establish sanctions other than blocks, and blocks are reviewable and can be overturned by any other administrator. They do not require a "clear consensus" to be overturned.
Even if our policies are descriptive and not prescriptive, the Arbcom remedy is policy *de novo*. The description of the existing policy up until Arbcom closed this case is that 1) admin or other editor identifies problem; 2) sanctions are proposed and discussed in a public forum in which interested editors and admins may comment; 3) there is a determination of consensus; 4) action is taken (or not taken) on the basis of the consensus. Other activities can be going on at the same time; an editor may be blocked, material may be reverted/deleted/oversighted from an article, a page may be protected. Please note also that not even this Arbcom remedy authorises action specific to articles, only to editors.
The closest parallels are those remedies that have been made to cover a small number of problematic topics, and there has already been one arbitration case resulting in a desysopping related to that. Yesterday, I read over an article where editing restrictions have been imposed unilaterally by an administrator that are so poorly formulated that they will practically guarantee a POV article, and one of the few really talented editors who's been willing to work on similar contentious articles (with considerable success, I will add) has essentially been told to edit to the restrictions or go away. Incidentally, it involves BLP information. Running good editors skilled at bringing problematic articles up to NPOV off of such articles is not to anyone's benefit.
Risker
Risker wrote:
Well, first off, as has been pointed out by SlimVirgin on the proposed decision talk page (sorry, can't link right now) - part of this decision contradicts the BLP policy; that is the section in BLP where even involved admins can take action, whereas this decision indicates that involved admins *may not* take action. (Incidentally, I agree with the decision on that point, it is better for uninvolved admins to step in.)
Yes, it is certainly desirable that this inconsistency be addressed. Preferably in the terms that any admin can fix up a BLP issue if the urgency is sufficient, but that normally an uninvolved admin should take over. I think this represents best practice.
But it is not the BLP policy that is changed. Blocking, page protection, reversion and deletion have always been part of that policy and remain so. What has changed is the opportunity for admins to unilaterally create sanctions.
What this decision changes is the Administrator policy. There is nothing in [[WP:ADMIN]] that permits or encourages administrators to unilaterally establish sanctions other than blocks, and blocks are reviewable and can be overturned by any other administrator. They do not require a "clear consensus" to be overturned.
If what the ArbCom says is fundamentally at odds with the policy the community wants, the ArbCom surely has to give way. In an imperfect world of nearly 50 "official policies", the ArbCom has to make some practical sense out of the whole. In a way, we have to do the opposite of wikilawyering: not cherry-pick the bits we like out of the detailed wording, but to make the various "nutshell" ideas cohere. It is clear from the detailed comments made by Arbs on the case decision that some saw drawbacks, and others felt we should go this way, and reconsider if it all didn't work out well. WP:ADMIN is just what it always was.
My own view: I'm not a great fan of "noticeboards". If the page attached to this BLP enforcement approach fails to do what is hoped, we shouldn't junk the whole idea, but have it regulated by a charter. In other words, from noticeboard to a more considered process. No question that such a charter would be a policy page that the community as a whole should put together. Notice that the ArbCom itself _cannot_ draft such a charter.
Over to all of us, really. There is a bigger picture, too. That would be worth discussing.
Charles
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
If what the ArbCom says is fundamentally at odds with the policy the community wants, the ArbCom surely has to give way.
That's one opinion. Another opinion is that "ArbCom rulings do in fact hold greater authority than that of mobs, democratic or otherwise." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=213...]
On Thursday 19 June 2008 08:53, Mike R wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
If what the ArbCom says is fundamentally at odds with the policy the community wants, the ArbCom surely has to give way.
That's one opinion. Another opinion is that "ArbCom rulings do in fact hold greater authority than that of mobs, democratic or otherwise." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=213... 3246&oldid=213262937]
And that would be wholeheartedly wrong.
The community is the only legitimate authority on Wikipedia. The Arbitrary Committee has no legitimate authority whatsoever.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Thursday 19 June 2008 08:53, Mike R wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
If what the ArbCom says is fundamentally at odds with the policy the community wants, the ArbCom surely has to give way.
That's one opinion. Another opinion is that "ArbCom rulings do in fact hold greater authority than that of mobs, democratic or otherwise." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=213... 3246&oldid=213262937]
And that would be wholeheartedly wrong.
The community is the only legitimate authority on Wikipedia. The Arbitrary Committee has no legitimate authority whatsoever. -- Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
Much to my surprise, I found an old vote where the community approved the creation of ArbCom. It was "royal assented" by Jimbo, but with him effectively removed from his position of arbitrary authority these days, I wonder if the community could vote to disband ArbCom.
Probably not at that point, but it does seem the ArbCom is working hard to be unpopular these days.
WilyD
On Monday 23 June 2008 08:58, Wily D wrote:
Much to my surprise, I found an old vote where the community approved the creation of ArbCom.
No, it didn't. I know what you're talking about--it was a sham.
It was "royal assented" by Jimbo, but with him effectively removed from his position of arbitrary authority these days, I wonder if the community could vote to disband ArbCom.
It doesn't need to, since the Arbitrary Committee doesn't legitimately exist in the first place. It doesn't need to be disbanded; everyone just needs to start ignoring it.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Monday 23 June 2008 08:58, Wily D wrote:
It was "royal assented" by Jimbo, but with him effectively removed from his position of arbitrary authority these days, I wonder if the community could vote to disband ArbCom.
It doesn't need to, since the Arbitrary Committee doesn't legitimately exist in the first place. It doesn't need to be disbanded; everyone just needs to start ignoring it.
If the project community consisted solely of individuals like you and me that might work, Kurt. But in practice society isn't ready for anarchy, even on the Internet. If the ArbCom is to lose its power it will need to be replaced with something else.
Like it or not, Wikipedia actually makes a good case study for why anarchy doesn't work.
2008/6/24 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Monday 23 June 2008 08:58, Wily D wrote:
It was "royal assented" by Jimbo, but with him effectively removed from his position of arbitrary authority these days, I wonder if the community could vote to disband ArbCom.
It doesn't need to, since the Arbitrary Committee doesn't legitimately exist in the first place. It doesn't need to be disbanded; everyone just needs to start ignoring it.
If the project community consisted solely of individuals like you and me that might work, Kurt. But in practice society isn't ready for anarchy, even on the Internet. If the ArbCom is to lose its power it will need to be replaced with something else. Like it or not, Wikipedia actually makes a good case study for why anarchy doesn't work.
May I link yet again to "The Tyranny Of Structurelessness", about how hierarchies will form, and you can either account for this or have them bite you on the backside:
http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
(this time linked from the author's own site!)
- d.
On Wednesday 25 June 2008 03:21, David Gerard wrote:
May I link yet again to "The Tyranny Of Structurelessness", about how hierarchies will form,
I don't know where this ridiculous straw man came from.
I don't have a problem with hierarchies, in general.
I do have a problem with hierarchies imposed externally by the fiat of one man who's not all that special, upon what is claimed to be a "community" project.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Wednesday 25 June 2008 03:21, David Gerard wrote:
May I link yet again to "The Tyranny Of Structurelessness", about how hierarchies will form,
I don't know where this ridiculous straw man came from.
You said that Arb Com does not need to be disbanded, but need only be ignored. I thought you were suggesting that this would be a sufficient solution to the problem. If I'm wrong about your suggestion, I apologize. But even so, this is not a straw man. It is an additional statement.
I don't have a problem with hierarchies, in general.
I do have a problem with hierarchies imposed externally by the fiat of one man who's not all that special, upon what is claimed to be a "community" project.
C'mon, Arb Com was imposed by the incorporator, president, and board chair of the foundation which controlled the domain name and servers on which the project ran (the servers were actually *owned* at the time by a corporation of which I believe Jimbo was the majority shareholder, and which he was definitely in control of). At the time Arb Com was imposed, Jimbo had every right to install the arbitration committee. To say he's "not all that special" is to be incredibly ignorant of the historical context.
We've come a long way since then. Jimbo is no longer president, no longer chair, and sits on a board with 7 others. The servers are owned by the foundation, having been paid for by money raised from public contributions. Jimbo's no longer "all that special". But the Arb Com is a vestige from a day when he was. It has enough of a claim to legitimacy that it should be disbanded explicitly, by a mechanism which has an even greater claim to legitimacy, and not simply ignored. By far the easiest mechanism which would have a claim to legitimacy would be a new governance system which is at least approved by, if not designed by, the current WMF board.
Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Wednesday 25 June 2008 03:21, David Gerard wrote:
May I link yet again to "The Tyranny Of Structurelessness", about how hierarchies will form,
I don't know where this ridiculous straw man came from.
You said that Arb Com does not need to be disbanded, but need only be ignored. I thought you were suggesting that this would be a sufficient solution to the problem. If I'm wrong about your suggestion, I apologize. But even so, this is not a straw man. It is an additional statement.
I don't have a problem with hierarchies, in general.
I do have a problem with hierarchies imposed externally by the fiat of one man who's not all that special, upon what is claimed to be a "community" project.
C'mon, Arb Com was imposed by the incorporator, president, and board chair of the foundation which controlled the domain name and servers on which the project ran (the servers were actually *owned* at the time by a corporation of which I believe Jimbo was the majority shareholder, and which he was definitely in control of). At the time Arb Com was imposed, Jimbo had every right to install the arbitration committee. To say he's "not all that special" is to be incredibly ignorant of the historical context.
Sorry but, as someone who was there (volunteered and got appointed to try and make a go of the mediation committee), this is spun so far that it bears almost nil relation to the real historic record.
Jimbo did not impose the arbcom structure. He asked for volunteers to see if a workable group could be convened that could take some of the work he no longer had time for.
The arbcom, when it formed itself, immediately morphed into a body that had nearly zero resemblance to what Jimbo or others had at first described as how it should operate.
At first it did not satisfy nearly all the wishes that were hoped it would satisfy (though it was markedly more effective than the mediation committee I was a member of, that isn't saying much - and this does really reflect badly on me individually). Despite this Jimbo said that he would give it respect and support, and try very hard to not meddle or countermand its decisions except in a very extreme miscarriage of justice.
I honestly don't know if Jimbo ever overturned an Arbcom decision, but positing that Jimbo instituted the Arbcom as his own creation, is just not even close to any form of veracity.
We've come a long way since then. Jimbo is no longer president, no longer chair, and sits on a board with 7 others. The servers are owned by the foundation, having been paid for by money raised from public contributions. Jimbo's no longer "all that special". But the Arb Com is a vestige from a day when he was. It has enough of a claim to legitimacy that it should be disbanded explicitly, by a mechanism which has an even greater claim to legitimacy, and not simply ignored. By far the easiest mechanism which would have a claim to legitimacy would be a new governance system which is at least approved by, if not designed by, the current WMF board.
Given what I said above, I think it is obvious that "designing" a replacement for the arbcom would be an excercise in futility.
Yours;
Cimon Avaro
2008/6/27 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
I honestly don't know if Jimbo ever overturned an Arbcom decision,
Dunno if he did in 2004 (I doubt it), but he certainly hasn't since 2005.
- d.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
C'mon, Arb Com was imposed by the incorporator, president, and board chair of the foundation which controlled the domain name and servers on which the project ran (the servers were actually *owned* at the time by a corporation of which I believe Jimbo was the majority shareholder, and which he was definitely in control of). At the time Arb Com was imposed, Jimbo had every right to install the arbitration committee. To say he's "not all that special" is to be incredibly ignorant of the historical context.
Sorry but, as someone who was there (volunteered and got appointed to try and make a go of the mediation committee), this is spun so far that it bears almost nil relation to the real historic record.
Jimbo did not impose the arbcom structure. He asked for volunteers to see if a workable group could be convened that could take some of the work he no longer had time for.
The arbcom, when it formed itself, immediately morphed into a body that had nearly zero resemblance to what Jimbo or others had at first described as how it should operate.
At first it did not satisfy nearly all the wishes that were hoped it would satisfy (though it was markedly more effective than the mediation committee I was a member of, that isn't saying much - and this does really reflect badly on me individually). Despite this Jimbo said that he would give it respect and support, and try very hard to not meddle or countermand its decisions except in a very extreme miscarriage of justice.
I honestly don't know if Jimbo ever overturned an Arbcom decision, but positing that Jimbo instituted the Arbcom as his own creation, is just not even close to any form of veracity.
As someone who was a named party to one of the very first arb com cases, and who was in contact with Jimbo regarding its progress, I must strongly disagree with you.
I'm not sure if it's worth my time to go and find an exact quote, since you yourself have provided no evidence to support your assertions, but when I suggested back then that the Arb Com could be ignored, Jimbo basically said to me that my submission to the arb com was voluntary, but that failure to submit to it would result in a permanent ban. I asked him numerous times to look into the ruling, and while he often responded with a promise to look into it, he never even gave me so much as an explanation as to why he found it justified.
Given what I said above, I think it is obvious that "designing" a replacement for the arbcom would be an excercise in futility.
I frankly don't even understand how that follows even if what you said above was correct, which it isn't.
Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
C'mon, Arb Com was imposed by the incorporator, president, and board chair of the foundation which controlled the domain name and servers on which the project ran (the servers were actually *owned* at the time by a corporation of which I believe Jimbo was the majority shareholder, and which he was definitely in control of). At the time Arb Com was imposed, Jimbo had every right to install the arbitration committee. To say he's "not all that special" is to be incredibly ignorant of the historical context.
Sorry but, as someone who was there (volunteered and got appointed to try and make a go of the mediation committee), this is spun so far that it bears almost nil relation to the real historic record.
Jimbo did not impose the arbcom structure. He asked for volunteers to see if a workable group could be convened that could take some of the work he no longer had time for.
The arbcom, when it formed itself, immediately morphed into a body that had nearly zero resemblance to what Jimbo or others had at first described as how it should operate.
At first it did not satisfy nearly all the wishes that were hoped it would satisfy (though it was markedly more effective than the mediation committee I was a member of, that isn't saying much - and this does really reflect badly on me individually). Despite this Jimbo said that he would give it respect and support, and try very hard to not meddle or countermand its decisions except in a very extreme miscarriage of justice.
I honestly don't know if Jimbo ever overturned an Arbcom decision, but positing that Jimbo instituted the Arbcom as his own creation, is just not even close to any form of veracity.
As someone who was a named party to one of the very first arb com cases, and who was in contact with Jimbo regarding its progress, I must strongly disagree with you.
I'm not sure if it's worth my time to go and find an exact quote, since you yourself have provided no evidence to support your assertions, but when I suggested back then that the Arb Com could be ignored, Jimbo basically said to me that my submission to the arb com was voluntary, but that failure to submit to it would result in a permanent ban. I asked him numerous times to look into the ruling, and while he often responded with a promise to look into it, he never even gave me so much as an explanation as to why he found it justified.
You may disagree with what I say above. But what you in fact write, does not.
Nothing you have written above contradicts a single thing I wrote.
In fact, reluctance to second guess the arbcom brings into relief its relative independence of Jimbo, rather than its sub-servience to him.
Given what I said above, I think it is obvious that "designing" a replacement for the arbcom would be an excercise in futility.
I frankly don't even understand how that follows even if what you said above was correct, which it isn't.
If what I wrote was incorrect, you have yet to state which part of what I wrote specifically was in error.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Given what I said above, I think it is obvious that "designing" a replacement for the arbcom would be an excercise in futility.
I frankly don't even understand how that follows even if what you said above was correct, which it isn't.
If what I wrote was incorrect, you have yet to state which part of what I wrote specifically was in error.
I'm sure there are other errors, or at least misleading statements, but here's two of your statements that are in error.
"this is spun so far that it bears almost nil relation to the real historic record"
For this one, I'll have to put it back on you. What part of what *I* wrote did you find in error?
"positing that Jimbo instituted the Arbcom as his own creation, is just not even close to any form of veracity."
I'm not sure how you can say this "is just not even close to any form of veracity", as it is quite literally true. Jimbo instituted the Arbcom as his own creation. It may have morphed into something different from what he initially intended, but that doesn't change the fact that he created it.
More substantively, I'd say it doesn't even resolve him of the responsibility for having created it. But on that point, I'll probably find myself in the minority of people on this list, since the consensus of Wikimedians seems to be that there's nothing ethically wrong with letting others run amok on the property for which one is the caretaker.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Given what I said above, I think it is obvious that "designing" a replacement for the arbcom would be an excercise in futility.
I frankly don't even understand how that follows even if what you said above was correct, which it isn't.
If what I wrote was incorrect, you have yet to state which part of what I wrote specifically was in error.
I'm sure there are other errors, or at least misleading statements, but here's two of your statements that are in error.
"this is spun so far that it bears almost nil relation to the real historic record"
For this one, I'll have to put it back on you. What part of what *I* wrote did you find in error?
"positing that Jimbo instituted the Arbcom as his own creation, is just not even close to any form of veracity."
I'm not sure how you can say this "is just not even close to any form of veracity", as it is quite literally true. Jimbo instituted the Arbcom as his own creation. It may have morphed into something different from what he initially intended, but that doesn't change the fact that he created it.
More substantively, I'd say it doesn't even resolve him of the responsibility for having created it. But on that point, I'll probably find myself in the minority of people on this list, since the consensus of Wikimedians seems to be that there's nothing ethically wrong with letting others run amok on the property for which one is the caretaker.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Quite realistically, I don't think this morphing into a discussion of the ArbCom in general is helpful anyway. We really should be focusing on -this particular bad decision- by the ArbCom. The ArbCom does do a lot of good, and they are as human as the rest of us. The main problem is this specific instance.
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Quite realistically, I don't think this morphing into a discussion of the ArbCom in general is helpful anyway. We really should be focusing on -this particular bad decision- by the ArbCom. The ArbCom does do a lot of good, and they are as human as the rest of us. The main problem is this specific instance.
I think I have about the exact opposite opinion, but I'm willing to bow back out of this discussion. I've waited years for the circus court called the Arb Com to be disposed of. I can wait a few more.
2008/7/3 Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
Quite realistically, I don't think this morphing into a discussion of the ArbCom in general is helpful anyway. We really should be focusing on -this particular bad decision- by the ArbCom. The ArbCom does do a lot of good, and they are as human as the rest of us. The main problem is this specific instance.
Yes, let's get back on topic.
Would you like to summarise what you think is bad about the decision?
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
2008/7/3 Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
Quite realistically, I don't think this morphing into a discussion of the ArbCom in general is helpful anyway. We really should be focusing on -this particular bad decision- by the ArbCom. The ArbCom does do a lot of good, and they are as human as the rest of us. The main problem is this specific instance.
Yes, let's get back on topic.
Would you like to summarise what you think is bad about the decision?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Certainly. A brief summary would be that I see this as harmful to NPOV. NPOV is one of our core founding principles, and should trump -all- other concerns, even BLP. This decision seems, instead, to raise something else as more important than that critical, core part of our mission, neutrality. Concerns of harm should be primary when they -do not- impact neutrality, or when neutrality is also harmed by excessive negative information about a living person, but should never be when concerns of "harm" and "neutrality" are in genuine conflict.. Tellingly, the ArbCom decision does not even mention NPOV.
Further, just because an article is a BLP does not mean that there cannot be a legitimate content dispute about what to include or not include. This gives a rather powerful weapon to the hands of the "don't include it" side in any given debate, unbalancing the consensus process. This, again, is harmful to neutrality and our normal community processes of deciding how to best write a good NPOV article. There are threats of severe sanctions against those who -undo- actions taken under this policy, but again quite tellingly, no similar threats against those who use this policy to stifle legitimate disputes rather than to remove blatantly bad material.
I think the problems caused by this policy and previous interpretations much like it are already visible. In many articles, it has been argued that we should not include a real name despite its wide dissemination by highly reliable sources. NPOV and NOR would demand that we -follow- our sources' example, whether we personally agree with it or not. Our goal should be to spread, not suppress, information, provided that it can be verified through reliable sources and follows our other content guidelines. We should never suppress reliable information on the basis of "harm" if it violates no other content policies-if a source has already spread the information, it's already available to the public, and if it can't be sourced or is OR, well, we don't even need BLP to say "That doesn't belong in an article", though it is helpful to say in the case of a BLP, unsourced information should be removed with increased speed and vigor.
Those of us concerned about BLP at its inception were assured that it was mainly intended to prevent another repeat like the Seigenthaler incident, to remove -unsourced or poorly sourced- information about living persons. Despite our concerns about creep, we were assured that a tight leash would be kept on this thing, and so we assented. After all, who could argue anything but that "John Smith is a member of the Nazi Party", with no sourcing, should be removed immediately and, unless sourceable, permanently? However, it is now being used to stifle -legitimate- dissent. Many believe real names should be used when reliable sources provide them. Certainly legitimate disputes can arise over whether -well sourced- negative information can be included in an article. (What if highly reliable sources confirm that our Mr. Smith really is a neo-Nazi?)
It is time for that scope creep to be reined in, not expanded. BLP enforcement should apply to -unsourced or poorly sourced- negative or possibly controversial information. To everything else, where reliable sources do exist, consensus-seeking should be the order of the day, as with any content dispute. We should not tie one side's hand behind their back in a legitimate content dispute backed by reliable sources. In this decision, the ArbCom involves itself directly in policymaking and indirectly in content disputes, two areas it has traditionally and very properly avoided. It should have stayed out. The expanded scope of the BLP policy does not enjoy anything like community consensus, even though its original form did.
Or a good case study in how quickly factions and power grabs form.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 7:26 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Monday 23 June 2008 08:58, Wily D wrote:
It was "royal assented" by Jimbo, but with him effectively removed from his position of arbitrary authority these days, I wonder if the community could vote to disband ArbCom.
It doesn't need to, since the Arbitrary Committee doesn't legitimately
exist
in the first place. It doesn't need to be disbanded; everyone just needs
to
start ignoring it.
If the project community consisted solely of individuals like you and me that might work, Kurt. But in practice society isn't ready for anarchy, even on the Internet. If the ArbCom is to lose its power it will need to be replaced with something else.
Like it or not, Wikipedia actually makes a good case study for why anarchy doesn't work.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 7:26 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Like it or not, Wikipedia actually makes a good case study for why anarchy doesn't work.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:41 AM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Or a good case study in how quickly factions and power grabs form.
How quickly factions and power grabs form *is* why anarchy doesn't work.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:21 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
May I link yet again to "The Tyranny Of Structurelessness", about how hierarchies will form, and you can either account for this or have them bite you on the backside:
Absolutely. I'm going to make one of my rare "me too" posts echoing this.
Kurt, as a self-declared objectivist, maybe you will appreciate this quote:
"It is a grave error," writes Ayn Rand, "to suppose that a dictatorship rules a nation by means of strict, rigid laws which are obeyed and enforced with rigorous, military precision. Such a rule would be evil, but almost bearable; men could endure the harshest edicts, provided these edicts were known, specific and stable; it is not the known that breaks men's spirits, but the unpredictable." (http://www.tafol.org/bulletins/b07.html quoting "Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason," in The Objectivist Newsletter (February, 1962) 5.)
Simply ignoring the "Arbitrary Committee" is not enough. It must be replaced with a stable, predictable, system of governance.
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Monday 23 June 2008 08:58, Wily D wrote:
Much to my surprise, I found an old vote where the community approved the creation of ArbCom.
No, it didn't. I know what you're talking about--it was a sham
It was "royal assented" by Jimbo, but with him effectively removed from his position of arbitrary authority these days, I wonder if the community could vote to disband ArbCom.
It doesn't need to, since the Arbitrary Committee doesn't legitimately exist in the first place. It doesn't need to be disbanded; everyone just needs to start ignoring it.
This seems to be an extreme position. Even though I strongly object to Arbcom's legislative power grab, that does not equate to no role for Arbcom at all.
Ec
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Monday 23 June 2008 08:58, Wily D wrote:
Much to my surprise, I found an old vote where the community approved the creation of ArbCom.
No, it didn't. I know what you're talking about--it was a sham
It was "royal assented" by Jimbo, but with him effectively removed from his position of arbitrary authority these days, I wonder if the community could vote to disband ArbCom.
It doesn't need to, since the Arbitrary Committee doesn't legitimately exist in the first place. It doesn't need to be disbanded; everyone just needs to start ignoring it.
This seems to be an extreme position. Even though I strongly object to Arbcom's legislative power grab, that does not equate to no role for Arbcom at all.
Ec
Indeed, extreme and unworkable. The ArbCom certainly has enough support that it has de facto community empowerment, it seems to have de jure community empowerment too. If the community rescinded its de jure empowerment?
Personally, I'm not pro revolt. I probably would support a move that took out Jimbo's proxy role for English ArbCom, and more closely modelled it on other such bodies, with direct, community empowered appointment. If you believe that the ArbCom was de jure created by the community, we probably can force these kind of changes through with clear consensus.
WilyD
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
It doesn't need to, since the Arbitrary Committee doesn't legitimately exist in the first place. It doesn't need to be disbanded; everyone just needs to start ignoring it.
Just my opinion, but referring to ArbCom as the "Arbitrary Committee" is about the same thing as Linux nerds referring to Microsoft as "Microsuck" or IE as "Internet Exploder." It detracts from your arguments quite profoundly by making you look like an uninformed zealot. (Which I am sure is not the case.)
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
Just my opinion, but referring to ArbCom as the "Arbitrary Committee" is about the same thing as Linux nerds referring to Microsoft as "Microsuck" or IE as "Internet Exploder." It detracts from your arguments quite profoundly by making you look like an uninformed zealot. (Which I am sure is not the case.)
A better term might be "informed zealot". That's someone who knows current policy and knows how things are suppose to work but simply has a strong belief that it should be otherwise.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
Just my opinion, but referring to ArbCom as the "Arbitrary Committee" is about the same thing as Linux nerds referring to Microsoft as "Microsuck" or IE as "Internet Exploder." It detracts from your arguments quite profoundly by making you look like an uninformed zealot. (Which I am sure is not the case.)
A better term might be "informed zealot". That's someone who knows current policy and knows how things are suppose to work but simply has a strong belief that it should be otherwise.
I still maintain the view that such terminology only detracts from his argument.
2008/6/23 Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com:
Much to my surprise, I found an old vote where the community approved the creation of ArbCom. It was "royal assented" by Jimbo, but with him effectively removed from his position of arbitrary authority these days, I wonder if the community could vote to disband ArbCom.
The most disturbing thing about this idea is what we'd vote in to replace it.
Andrew Gray wrote:
2008/6/23 Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com:
Much to my surprise, I found an old vote where the community approved the creation of ArbCom. It was "royal assented" by Jimbo, but with him effectively removed from his position of arbitrary authority these days, I wonder if the community could vote to disband ArbCom.
The most disturbing thing about this idea is what we'd vote in to replace it.
"Who" might be much the same under other systems. In other words, "what" is always going to be a reconfiguration, with arrivals, departures and some new features/suppressed features. It would not surprise me a bit if the "principle of unintended consequences" were to be seen in action, with ArbCom Mark II writing itself a new remit (even claiming a mandate to do so). . Since ArbCom Mark I does go through periodic bouts of trying to reconfigure itself, I recommend a thoughtful approach to constitutional discussion. There are several factors at work.
Charles
Mike R wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
If what the ArbCom says is fundamentally at odds with the policy the community wants, the ArbCom surely has to give way.
That's one opinion. Another opinion is that "ArbCom rulings do in fact hold greater authority than that of mobs, democratic or otherwise." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=213...
"Mob" is of course a pejorative, as are "pile-on" and other such terms. The difference can be seen in the discussion structure. Threaded discussions can be particularly poor at clarifying matters. Arbitration cases are generally better at clarification than other options, short of wiki editing done by a skilful bunch of people. Which is why policy pages that have been worked over have the standing they do, and it's not just a question of how many people have actually edited them.
Charles
Yes, the existing BLP policy page is the result of many compromises, where various more extreme proposals were reduced to something which does, after all, have the general consent of the community. (Not that I like all of it, perhaps nobody does, but it's been relatively stable recently and seems to be something that we can live with.)
The proper way to change the policy there is not to try to subvert it by persuading arb com to overturn the policy by their autonomous action,, but discuss it widely and get actual consensus.
This should be resisted as we would resist any other attempt by a cabal to take over Wikipedia. (I don't of course mean by defiance. Perhaps at least the 1/3 change will be enough to affect the usually fragile majorities there, though I hope it will not be necessary to wait until December. One strong person can make a difference on ArbCom. I doubt this would have happened if NYBrad had not been forced to resign. The only serious question I have is whether we should concentrate on this, on the sourcing adjuration board, or make it a matter of general policy that their scope extends only to individuals and procedure.)
On 6/19/08, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Mike R wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
If what the ArbCom says is fundamentally at odds with the policy the community wants, the ArbCom surely has to give way.
That's one opinion. Another opinion is that "ArbCom rulings do in fact hold greater authority than that of mobs, democratic or otherwise." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=213...
"Mob" is of course a pejorative, as are "pile-on" and other such terms. The difference can be seen in the discussion structure. Threaded discussions can be particularly poor at clarifying matters. Arbitration cases are generally better at clarification than other options, short of wiki editing done by a skilful bunch of people. Which is why policy pages that have been worked over have the standing they do, and it's not just a question of how many people have actually edited them.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/19/08, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
One strong person can make a difference on ArbCom. I doubt this would have happened if NYBrad had not been forced to resign. The only serious question I have is whether we should concentrate on this, on the sourcing adjuration board, or make it a matter of general policy that their scope extends only to individuals and procedure.
You should run.
—C.W.
David Goodman wrote:
Yes, the existing BLP policy page is the result of many compromises, where various more extreme proposals were reduced to something which does, after all, have the general consent of the community. (Not that I like all of it, perhaps nobody does, but it's been relatively stable recently and seems to be something that we can live with.)
The proper way to change the policy there is not to try to subvert it by persuading arb com to overturn the policy by their autonomous action,, but discuss it widely and get actual consensus.
I think we should slow down here. Wikipedia is the "free encyclopedia". What does that mean? "Free" has several connotations there, but not the same as in "free press". That's Point One, really, the baseline in the whole discussion. We know what Wikipedia is about: it's about the unimpeded posting of content that falls within its "content policies". That's Point Two: there have always been content policies, and they have been modified over time, but the idea that Wikipedia operates to facilitate the posting of content within policy, and only within that policy, is always with us.
Therefore (Point Three) there really is a valid distinction, at this top level, between "policy" (read here "content policy") and "enforcement". In the big picture, what is allowed in Wikipedia, and what Wikipedia does about conformity to the content policy, are two different things. I see this getting lost in the second para above. The ArbCom are not "overturning" BLP as content policy. No such idea in the Arbitrators' heads.
To address what I'd see as the typical concerns on content of biographies of living people, we have indeed "extremes" like the "whitewash" at one end, and the activist-style "getting the word out", at the other. Any admin using sanctions to apply a consistent whitewash of an article should, I think, be called out on this, by WP:OWN. Indeed the emphasis on "uninvolved admins" only making use of powers addresses this issue - it would be entirely justifiable to ask an admin to hand over any sanctions to another one, in the case of serial enforcement on one article. The idea of Wikipedia leading the charge in placing personal information online, in a very prominent place, tends in practice to be sullied by activist "conflict of interest": it is important to know this about this politician or this businessman because of other interests. In cases I know about detail (e.g. [[Acharya S]], [[Johann Hari]]) the problems are in the end driven by conflict of interest in this sense.
This should be resisted as we would resist any other attempt by a cabal to take over Wikipedia. (I don't of course mean by defiance. Perhaps at least the 1/3 change will be enough to affect the usually fragile majorities there, though I hope it will not be necessary to wait until December. One strong person can make a difference on ArbCom. I doubt this would have happened if NYBrad had not been forced to resign. The only serious question I have is whether we should concentrate on this, on the sourcing adjuration board, or make it a matter of general policy that their scope extends only to individuals and procedure.)
You might like to consider the relationship between our BLP handling and NYB's departure, for a moment of silence. (I'll ignore the rest of the strong words here. The community is perfectly free to elect in future only Arbitrators who promise never to be pro-active on any front.)
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
Therefore (Point Three) there really is a valid distinction, at this top level, between "policy" (read here "content policy") and "enforcement". In the big picture, what is allowed in Wikipedia, and what Wikipedia does about conformity to the content policy, are two different things. I see this getting lost in the second para above. The ArbCom are not "overturning" BLP as content policy. No such idea in the Arbitrators' heads.
There are policies about enforcement as well, though. Things like [[WP:3RR]] are policies not about content, but about how editors are expected to interact. The Arbitration Committee generally enforces such policies; it cannot create them itself.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
Therefore (Point Three) there really is a valid distinction, at this top level, between "policy" (read here "content policy") and "enforcement". In the big picture, what is allowed in Wikipedia, and what Wikipedia does about conformity to the content policy, are two different things. I see this getting lost in the second para above. The ArbCom are not "overturning" BLP as content policy. No such idea in the Arbitrators' heads.
There are policies about enforcement as well, though. Things like [[WP:3RR]] are policies not about content, but about how editors are expected to interact. The Arbitration Committee generally enforces such policies; it cannot create them itself.
-Mark
Yes, there are the "social policies". But that whole area, surely, is less vexed. The idea that admins have wide discretion, when uninvolved at least, in sanctioning those who break 3RR and similar codes, is broadly accepted and has been for quite some time. The ArbCom couldn't suddenly decide that reformatting references, for example, was against policy. But in practical terms it doesn't have to, and almost any aspect of enforcement of social policy comes under some or other form of "disruption" patrolling. The "content policies" are on a quite different footing.
Charles
2008/6/18 Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com:
Translation, please. What exactly has changed? What is "it" here? Can't be that BLP policy enforcement is a novelty. "It" seems to be the parameters of enforcement. But I suppose most of those with the best interests of the mission at heart and involved in enforcement of BLP have figured this out a while ago. I'm sure OTRS volunteers have. Against those determined to use our pages to smear people, it happens that tough measures may be required.
BLP is 36K of messed up text. I doubt many people with the interests of the project at heart have actually read it.
As written it is broadly equivalent to our copyright policy reading as a long version of "we must keep in mind and respect people's intellectual property rights" which would result in either wikipedia being overrun by copyvios or the deletion of about 90% of wikimedia commons.
Worse than that it can't even be fixed because people don't seem to be sure what it is actually meant to be doing. About the only thing it's clear on is that it doesn't apply to dead people. Heck we haven't even settled the status of legal persons yet and you want to make this enforceable beyond our normal methods?
geni wrote:
2008/6/18 Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com:
Translation, please. What exactly has changed? What is "it" here? Can't be that BLP policy enforcement is a novelty. "It" seems to be the parameters of enforcement. But I suppose most of those with the best interests of the mission at heart and involved in enforcement of BLP have figured this out a while ago. I'm sure OTRS volunteers have. Against those determined to use our pages to smear people, it happens that tough measures may be required.
BLP is 36K of messed up text. I doubt many people with the interests of the project at heart have actually read it.
As written it is broadly equivalent to our copyright policy reading as a long version of "we must keep in mind and respect people's intellectual property rights" which would result in either wikipedia being overrun by copyvios or the deletion of about 90% of wikimedia commons.
Worse than that it can't even be fixed because people don't seem to be sure what it is actually meant to be doing. About the only thing it's clear on is that it doesn't apply to dead people. Heck we haven't even settled the status of legal persons yet and you want to make this enforceable beyond our normal methods?
The basic point of any serious, official, central point fits into much less than 1K. And, yes, we want those key aspects to be enforceable; and in the case of BLP we want enforcement to keep Wikipedia out of aspects of the lives of people that are nothing like encyclopedic, and can cause potential defamation issues. The bloat that goes on has never been an argument for not respecting and being tough about the central planks of policy.
I'll repeat here my basic credo on admin powers: admins should be given discretion to do the job. The very small proportion who abuse that discretion can expect to lose the powers. I think this is a very positive view of admins, and (in fact) if they as individuals don't live up to it, they can be replaced (per "no big deal", quaint though that now sounds).
The whole draft of the remedy at issue could probably be replaced by a one-liner, to do with the discretionary powers used for BLP enforcement, and the respect accorded to those admins in the front line. Trouble is, there are so many wannabe constitutional lawyers out there now on the wiki, we'd never get away with the supposed vagueness.
Charles
2008/6/18 Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com:
The basic point of any serious, official, central point fits into much less than 1K.
And where can I find this 1K?
And, yes, we want those key aspects to be enforceable;
There is more than 1 way of making things enforceable.
and in the case of BLP we want enforcement to keep Wikipedia out of aspects of the lives of people that are nothing like encyclopedic, and can cause potential defamation issues.
Interesting claim. See I've also run into claims that BLP is mostly about people staying within the law.
The bloat that goes on has never been an argument for not respecting and being tough about the central planks of policy.
If it's bloat you can isolate the core policy. Wikipedia:Non-free content is fairly long but the core policy is less than 2 screens.
I'll repeat here my basic credo on admin powers: admins should be given discretion to do the job.
And indeed they are.
The very small proportion who abuse that discretion can expect to lose the powers. I think this is a very positive view of admins, and (in fact) if they as individuals don't live up to it, they can be replaced (per "no big deal", quaint though that now sounds).
The whole draft of the remedy at issue could probably be replaced by a one-liner, to do with the discretionary powers used for BLP enforcement, and the respect accorded to those admins in the front line. Trouble is, there are so many wannabe constitutional lawyers out there now on the wiki, we'd never get away with the supposed vagueness.
No your problem is that there are a large number of people from different backgrounds with very different world views who will read ultra vague text in very different ways.
Sure you can technically get a one line version along the lines of "Articles should not contain content which would not be reasonably possible to successfully defend under US civil law" but I'd probably need a second line to clarify which states.
However at least that would be clear enough to build an enforcement system on so perhaps thats what you should go for.
You see policy is our first line of defense when it comes to getting admins to do what we want since it lets them know what we want. The odds of two admins looking out our BLP page and coming to the same conclusion about that are minimal. The odds of them looking at WP:EDP and coming to the same conclusion are rather higher which is why it is brutally enforceable.
geni wrote:
2008/6/18 Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com:
The basic point of any serious, official, central point fits into much less than 1K.
And where can I find this 1K?
If it's not in the "nutshell" summary, it should be. Drafting that nutshell should be a priority - in fact just as we wish our articles having the "topic sentence" defining the topic. My one serious experience of drafting policy (WP:COI) convinces me that you get the short version right first (that was about suppressing the "vanity" thing in favour of "putting outside interests ahead of WP's").
Charles
geni wrote:
No your problem is that there are a large number of people from different backgrounds with very different world views who will read ultra vague text in very different ways.
That's an interesting point in the context of the topic of this thread. When it comes to policy documents, there is no "authoritative interpretation".
Let's remember a few things here. Firstly, responding to complaints of "vagueness" by supplying huge amounts of detail comes close to "feeding the trolls". The editors who want it all spelled out in black and white aren't those busy with compiling an encyclopedia (with the exception of a few areas such as "fair use").
Secondly, we aren't talking in this thread about "policy" but what the Arbitration Committee hands down. There you can get an "authoritative interpretation" - ask the AC what they meant (and whether they still mean it).
And thirdly - well, I'd see the current position as transitional. There are a few areas of content - maybe four distinct issues - where some more sophisticated arrangements are going to be required by the time enWP enters its second decade. BLP seems to be the most pressing (I calculate 200 biographies of living people per admin, so really policing those could become a huge drain on admin time, as it arguably is already). Putting aside the usual comments (ArbCom is damned if it behaves like an unadventurous committee, and damned if it doesn't; and any proposed change needs its "activation energy" to be viable, which individual editors can find an obstacle), we ought to be addressing the "governance issue" or the "constitutional deficit" or the "management of long-term content problems" - whatever your favourite formulation is - with some courage and imagination.
Charles
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
enWP enters its second decade. BLP seems to be the most pressing (I calculate 200 biographies of living people per admin, so really policing those could become a huge drain on admin time, as it arguably is already).
And about 10 *completely unsourced* BLPs per admin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced_BLPs
... plus another 8 or so poorly sourced BLPs per admin, for good measure.
Just a general reminder that if everyone chipped in and took care of 10 or 15 of these, we could clear the backlog, and then perhaps be able to breathe a bit easier and have a better discussion focussed on the best long-term policy. Obviously, it's not just admins who can help out; a lot of these articles just need general cleanup.
-- phoebe
"we want ... to keep Wikipedia out of aspects of the lives of people that are nothing like encyclopedic, and can cause potential defamation issues. "
That only sounds good until one analyses it.
I think most of us just want to keep Wikipedia away from unsourced negative material about living people, and possibly some of us also want to keep away from even sourced material not relevant to notability, & derogatory in a serious way to people the intimate details of whose lives are not a matter of public concern.
That's a much narrower restriction than what you said, and much more compatible with NPOV, and with the actual wording of BLP.
And anything and everything dealing with living people is potentially defamatory if for reasons right or wrong they don't like what is being said. I think most of us would think it more compatible with NPOV to keep out only what can plausibly be considered as actually libelous, again a much narrower restriction.
This illustrates what arbcom did wrong: they legislated that anyone with a more broadly restrictive view can impose it. Possibly some of them may have actually known what they were doing, and specifically tried to impose their minority view.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:14 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
"we want ... to keep Wikipedia out of aspects of the lives of people that are nothing like encyclopedic, and can cause potential defamation issues. "
That only sounds good until one analyses it.
I think most of us just want to keep Wikipedia away from unsourced negative material about living people, and possibly some of us also want to keep away from even sourced material not relevant to notability, & derogatory in a serious way to people the intimate details of whose lives are not a matter of public concern.
That's a much narrower restriction than what you said, and much more compatible with NPOV, and with the actual wording of BLP.
And anything and everything dealing with living people is potentially defamatory if for reasons right or wrong they don't like what is being said. I think most of us would think it more compatible with NPOV to keep out only what can plausibly be considered as actually libelous, again a much narrower restriction.
This illustrates what arbcom did wrong: they legislated that anyone with a more broadly restrictive view can impose it. Possibly some of them may have actually known what they were doing, and specifically tried to impose their minority view.
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think you're correct, in a lot of ways. I think BLP is great to say "If we're going to have negative or potentially controversial information in an article about a living perspon, it absolutely, 100%, must be impeccably sourced from very reliable sources." That's fine, and I would hope we would require that anyway, with or without the policy. On the other hand, I've seen it used to mean "We shouldn't put this person's name in an article, despite it being publically known", or "We cannot put negative information in this person's article despite the fact that it -can- be impeccably sourced." That I cannot support, and unfortunately it leads to an erosion of BLP in general.
Charles writes higher in the thread that we may need tough enforcement against those who intend to use our articles to smear people. Well, yes we do. On the other hand, we need to be very careful that such enforcement is only used against the -right- people, that is, those truly intending to do so. There can be legitimate content disputes in BLPs, but unfortunately, the hammer of "It's a BLP issue, so it goes, period" tends to be used as a sledgehammer to end such disputes.
If BLP is to be strictly enforced, it also needs to be strictly defined. An ambiguous policy combined with "shoot-to-kill" enforcement is a recipe for disaster. We should make very, very sure that there is clear consensus on everything which is to be enforced in such a manner, and from what I've seen, while the core idea (unsourced and potentially negative content regarding living people must be removed immediately and may not be reinserted until and unless very reliable sources back it) does enjoy clear consensus, on many parts (names, applicability to -sourced- information), it is nowhere near clear.
David Goodman wrote:
"we want ... to keep Wikipedia out of aspects of the lives of people that are nothing like encyclopedic, and can cause potential defamation issues. "
That only sounds good until one analyses it.
I think most of us just want to keep Wikipedia away from unsourced negative material about living people, and possibly some of us also want to keep away from even sourced material not relevant to notability, & derogatory in a serious way to people the intimate details of whose lives are not a matter of public concern.
That's a much narrower restriction than what you said, and much more compatible with NPOV, and with the actual wording of BLP.
The mission is to write an encyclopedia, right, not a scandal sheet? The disagreements I see aren't really about the term "encyclopedic".
NPOV is not negotiable. Any reliably-sourced facts that truly are required to write a neutral piece should be included. But the whole point of the BLP policy is to have a minimum standard of inclusion for topics (excluding the prurient, and the sort of tittle-tattle that you find in low-class blogging), as well as minimum standards for sourcing. You can go a long way about writing a neutral article about someone without mentioning they once kicked a dog in the street.
In real life examples of enforcement this becomes fairly clear.
And anything and everything dealing with living people is potentially defamatory if for reasons right or wrong they don't like what is being said. I think most of us would think it more compatible with NPOV to keep out only what can plausibly be considered as actually libelous, again a much narrower restriction.
Err ... this is an international project, and "libel" means different things in different legal systems. Therefore it isn't especially helpful, especially if you're default to US law as the baseline. As Jimmy Wales as often mentioned, we should not be posting defamatory matter, just as a question of ethics. Let alone the possibility that the whole project might be closed down by a successful libel suit.
This illustrates what arbcom did wrong: they legislated that anyone with a more broadly restrictive view can impose it. Possibly some of them may have actually known what they were doing, and specifically tried to impose their minority view.
We did no such thing. An admin isn't "anybody". but a trusted person with (we assume) a good working knowledge of the site policy and mission. No one can impose on Wikipedia, and admins, in particular, are fully accountable for their actions.
Let me explain it this way. If the ArbCom had voted through a principle like this:
"Admins enforcing WP:BLP should encounter the minimum of formalities and dickering, and should have their judgement treated with the maximum of respect by other admins",
then I think there would be only a vague murmur of discussion. The same ideas were put in a remedy, dressed up in some drafting to put flesh on the bones, and with a practical suggestion. Namely, admins should be stating more explicitly what they are doing as enforcement, logging it as sanctions on a noticeboard, and discussion there should be treated under the protocol that the sanction stands until there is a clear consensus against.
Just as ArbCom principles are, this is only "advisory". What people seem to miss, in close reading of existing policy documents, is that "policy" has never been entirely written on the site. Community norms and notions of good practice have always mattered greatly. Arbitrators play their part in contributing to that wider discourse, as they are expected to. The judicial analogy, that this is "judge-made law", is wrong. It mistakes the legalistic trappings for what is really happening. Arbitration cases are the only case studies on the site that come with anything like adequate documentation, and therefore they provide an unmatched, serious commentary on the site's management.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
NPOV is not negotiable. Any reliably-sourced facts that truly are required to write a neutral piece should be included.
The subject's name is still completely absent from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_kid, though, for ostensibly BLP-based reasons. And I'm guessing even mentioning his name here on this mailing list would cause some folks to get hostile (I originally mentioned it in my first draft but decided it would be better to be WP:POINTless just to be on the safe side. Ah, the chilling effect is so _bracing_). It's one of the most basic facts imaginable about the guy and a bajillion reliable sources for it can be found. I can see no NPOV reason for excluding it.
But the whole point of the BLP policy is to have a minimum standard of inclusion for topics (excluding the prurient, and the sort of tittle-tattle that you find in low-class blogging), as well as minimum standards for sourcing.
The article went through AfD twice, the issue of whether the topic's worthy of inclusion is not particularly doubtful.
I'm usually quite quick to defend Wikipedia and the processes it uses, but this sort of thing is ridiculous. Let's not make it any harder to fix than it already is.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
But the whole point of the BLP policy is to have a minimum standard of inclusion for topics (excluding the prurient, and the sort of tittle-tattle that you find in low-class blogging), as well as minimum standards for sourcing.
The article went through AfD twice, the issue of whether the topic's worthy of inclusion is not particularly doubtful.
Ah., that wasn't what I was meaning here - I was meaning the inclusion or not of sub-topic areas in a biography, not the question of whether the biography itself should be in Wikipedia. Sorry for the confusion caused.
Charles