http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/unflattering-wiki-entry-puts-italy-c...
Our BLP rules are *really important*.
- d.
2008/9/30 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/unflattering-wiki-entry-puts-italy-c...
Our BLP rules are *really important*.
They certainly are, but there is no suggestion in that article that our article was in any way inaccurate or unbalanced. If someone has a bad record we should report that bad record and it appears that that's what we've done. I've only had a quick glance at the article, but it seems well referenced. If we've help someone make an informed decision, then go us! (I would really advise against using Wikipedia for team selection, of course, but it seems to have worked fine this time.)
Thomas Dalton schreef:
2008/9/30 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/unflattering-wiki-entry-puts-italy-c...
Our BLP rules are *really important*.
They certainly are, but there is no suggestion in that article that our article was in any way inaccurate or unbalanced.
The opposite, in fact: the subject implies that our article about him paints a generally correct picture:
"[The Wikipedia entry] might not make for good reading, but that's all behind me now," Gower said.
Eugene
Perhaps my proposed principle at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop#Wikipedia and the political process]] should be expanded to include team selection also......
Newyorkbrad
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2008/9/30 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/unflattering-wiki-entry-puts-italy-c...
Our BLP rules are *really important*.
They certainly are, but there is no suggestion in that article that our article was in any way inaccurate or unbalanced. If someone has a bad record we should report that bad record and it appears that that's what we've done. I've only had a quick glance at the article, but it seems well referenced. If we've help someone make an informed decision, then go us! (I would really advise against using Wikipedia for team selection, of course, but it seems to have worked fine this time.)
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, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:59 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/unflattering-wiki-entry-puts-italy-c...
Our BLP rules are *really important*.
- d.
In fact they are important, but on reading it looks like we got it right. No comment in the entire article as to error orundue emphasis, the subject is reported as saying "[The Wikipedia entry] might not make for good reading, but that's all behind me now."
What this prove is exactly as you say -- these rules really matter, and a very high standard is essential and needs maintaining with vigilance. FT2
On Sep 30, 2008, at 4:44 PM, FT2 wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:59 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/unflattering-wiki-entry-puts-italy-c...
Our BLP rules are *really important*.
- d.
In fact they are important, but on reading it looks like we got it right. No comment in the entire article as to error orundue emphasis, the subject is reported as saying "[The Wikipedia entry] might not make for good reading, but that's all behind me now."
Looking at the article as of the beginning of the month, it was half Gower's rugby career, half his alcoholism.
I suspect that this is not, in fact, a reasonable weighting of the issues surrounding him. Unless he was a really, really exceptional alcoholic.
-Phil
on 9/30/08 4:51 PM, Philip Sandifer at snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 30, 2008, at 4:44 PM, FT2 wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:59 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/unflattering-wiki-entry-puts-italy-c oach-off-gower/2008/09/28/1222540247240.html
Our BLP rules are *really important*.
- d.
In fact they are important, but on reading it looks like we got it right. No comment in the entire article as to error orundue emphasis, the subject is reported as saying "[The Wikipedia entry] might not make for good reading, but that's all behind me now."
Looking at the article as of the beginning of the month, it was half Gower's rugby career, half his alcoholism.
I suspect that this is not, in fact, a reasonable weighting of the issues surrounding him. Unless he was a really, really exceptional alcoholic.
-Phil
Phil,
There is not such thing as an "exceptional alcoholic" - a person either is, or they are not. It's like calling someone an "exceptional diabetic".
Marc Riddell
On Sep 30, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
There is not such thing as an "exceptional alcoholic" - a person either is, or they are not. It's like calling someone an "exceptional diabetic".
The comment was meant in sarcasm. He's a noted, skilled professional rugby player - something a comparative handful of people in the world can claim. He's also an alcoholic. One of these is clearly the more exceptional, notable, and worth talking about facts. That we provide equal weight to both is absurd.
-Phil
on 9/30/08 5:11 PM, Philip Sandifer at snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 30, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
There is not such thing as an "exceptional alcoholic" - a person either is, or they are not. It's like calling someone an "exceptional diabetic".
The comment was meant in sarcasm. He's a noted, skilled professional rugby player - something a comparative handful of people in the world can claim. He's also an alcoholic. One of these is clearly the more exceptional, notable, and worth talking about facts. That we provide equal weight to both is absurd.
-Phil
I'm sorry, Phil, I misunderstood your reference to the term.
Marc
There is not such thing as an "exceptional alcoholic" - a person either is, or they are not. It's like calling someone an "exceptional diabetic".
I disagree. An alcoholic whose alcoholism has never resulted in anything notable happening would be unexceptional from the point of view of writing an article about one whereas someone that's been constantly in the headlines because of the alcoholism would be very exceptional.
on 9/30/08 5:12 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
There is not such thing as an "exceptional alcoholic" - a person either is, or they are not. It's like calling someone an "exceptional diabetic".
I disagree. An alcoholic whose alcoholism has never resulted in anything notable happening would be unexceptional from the point of view of writing an article about one whereas someone that's been constantly in the headlines because of the alcoholism would be very exceptional.
You are wrong here, Thomas. You are confusing the medical/psychological condition of alcoholism with the social pejorative use of some behaviors.
Marc Riddell
2008/9/30 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
on 9/30/08 5:12 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
There is not such thing as an "exceptional alcoholic" - a person either is, or they are not. It's like calling someone an "exceptional diabetic".
I disagree. An alcoholic whose alcoholism has never resulted in anything notable happening would be unexceptional from the point of view of writing an article about one whereas someone that's been constantly in the headlines because of the alcoholism would be very exceptional.
You are wrong here, Thomas. You are confusing the medical/psychological condition of alcoholism with the social pejorative use of some behaviors.
No, I'm not. This isn't a mailing list about medicine, it's a mailing list about an encyclopaedia. From the point of view of writing encyclopaedia articles the results of someone's alcoholism are far more important than the condition itself.
on 9/30/08 5:46 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2008/9/30 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
on 9/30/08 5:12 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
There is not such thing as an "exceptional alcoholic" - a person either is, or they are not. It's like calling someone an "exceptional diabetic".
I disagree. An alcoholic whose alcoholism has never resulted in anything notable happening would be unexceptional from the point of view of writing an article about one whereas someone that's been constantly in the headlines because of the alcoholism would be very exceptional.
You are wrong here, Thomas. You are confusing the medical/psychological condition of alcoholism with the social pejorative use of some behaviors.
No, I'm not. This isn't a mailing list about medicine, it's a mailing list about an encyclopaedia. From the point of view of writing encyclopaedia articles the results of someone's alcoholism are far more important than the condition itself.
It is an encyclopedia article that makes reference to a medical condition. To focus only on the resultant behaviors, without understanding the condition, is pejorative journalism, and unfair to the person who is the subject of that article.
Marc Riddell
It is an encyclopedia article that makes reference to a medical condition. To focus only on the resultant behaviors, without understanding the condition, is pejorative journalism, and unfair to the person who is the subject of that article.
It's an encyclopaedia article about a person with a medical condition, the article should discuss the person, not the condition. We have an article on alcoholism that can discuss the condition. A discussion about the person should only include things that are notable about that person. Things that are the same about all alcoholics should go in the article about alcoholism, only unique things, which will generally be the results of the condition rather than the condition itself, should go in the article about the person.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
There is not such thing as an "exceptional alcoholic" - a person either is, or they are not. It's like calling someone an "exceptional diabetic".
I disagree. An alcoholic whose alcoholism has never resulted in anything notable happening would be unexceptional from the point of view of writing an article about one whereas someone that's been constantly in the headlines because of the alcoholism would be very exceptional.
Not to mention that alcoholism is an addiction and not a disease. There are different levels of addiction, although "exceptional" makes it sound like an awesome addiction. :)
on 9/30/08 5:33 PM, Chris Howie at cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
There is not such thing as an "exceptional alcoholic" - a person either is, or they are not. It's like calling someone an "exceptional diabetic".
I disagree. An alcoholic whose alcoholism has never resulted in anything notable happening would be unexceptional from the point of view of writing an article about one whereas someone that's been constantly in the headlines because of the alcoholism would be very exceptional.
Not to mention that alcoholism is an addiction and not a disease.
Chris,
That is a false and a dangerous belief. Addiction describes the behavior associated with the disease. In short: the emotions trigger the first drink, and the brain takes it from there.
Marc
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 9/30/08 5:33 PM, Chris Howie at cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
Not to mention that alcoholism is an addiction and not a disease.
Chris,
That is a false and a dangerous belief. Addiction describes the behavior associated with the disease. In short: the emotions trigger the first drink, and the brain takes it from there.
Marc
As a theory I have no problem with the statement that alcoholism is a disease, but I have seen little evidence to confirm it. Our own article uses language more like "suggests that" and "thinks."
Obviously I don't intend to hijack this thread, but either I haven't done much research on this subject or the research I have done hasn't produced much useful data. So Occam's Razor seems pretty appropriate.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 9/30/08 5:33 PM, Chris Howie at cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
Not to mention that alcoholism is an addiction and not a disease.
Chris,
That is a false and a dangerous belief. Addiction describes the behavior associated with the disease. In short: the emotions trigger the first drink, and the brain takes it from there.
Marc
on 9/30/08 6:20 PM, Chris Howie at cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
As a theory I have no problem with the statement that alcoholism is a disease, but I have seen little evidence to confirm it. Our own article uses language more like "suggests that" and "thinks."
Obviously I don't intend to hijack this thread, but either I haven't done much research on this subject or the research I have done hasn't produced much useful data. So Occam's Razor seems pretty appropriate.
I promise, this is my final contribution to this off-topic discussion.
Chris, this is from our own Wikipedia Article on the subject:
"The Journal of the American Medical Association defines alcoholism as "a primary, chronic disease characterized by impaired control over drinking, preoccupation with the drug alcohol, use of alcohol despite adverse consequences, and distortions in thinking." "
Marc
On Sep 30, 2008, at 6:37 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 9/30/08 5:33 PM, Chris Howie at cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
Not to mention that alcoholism is an addiction and not a disease.
Chris,
That is a false and a dangerous belief. Addiction describes the behavior associated with the disease. In short: the emotions trigger the first drink, and the brain takes it from there.
Marc
on 9/30/08 6:20 PM, Chris Howie at cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
As a theory I have no problem with the statement that alcoholism is a disease, but I have seen little evidence to confirm it. Our own article uses language more like "suggests that" and "thinks."
Obviously I don't intend to hijack this thread, but either I haven't done much research on this subject or the research I have done hasn't produced much useful data. So Occam's Razor seems pretty appropriate.
I promise, this is my final contribution to this off-topic discussion.
Indeed, I apologize for the poor phrasing that led to this thread derailing.
-Phil
You guys really know how to run a thread off the rails.
Whether the article was accurate or not is important, but not the larger point. Our biographies of living people, folks with families and careers, can become the major reference on their lives - so our vigilance on these articles is of extreme real world importance. This event is a very good example of that principle.
Nathan
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Whether the article was accurate or not is important, but not the larger point. Our biographies of living people, folks with families and careers, can become the major reference on their lives - so our vigilance on these articles is of extreme real world importance. This event is a very good example of that principle.
That's how I read it as well. This is a real-world example of an Wikipedia article apparently having a real-world impact, which underscores once again the importance of getting these things right. We don't exist in a bubble.
-Luna
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, FT2 wrote:
Our BLP rules are *really important*.
In fact they are important, but on reading it looks like we got it right. No comment in the entire article as to error orundue emphasis, the subject is reported as saying "[The Wikipedia entry] might not make for good reading, but that's all behind me now."
A random BLP subject isn't going to understand Wikipedia polices. Which also means he isn't going to understand that "undue weight" is a legitimate complaint. He's just going to assume that as long as the article is factual, there's nothing he can do about it.
It's our responsibility to read between the lines and figure out that he has something to complain about, even if (due to lack of knowledge) he doesn't know it.
I'd read "it's all behind me now" as "the material that is mentioned is no longer important", which is implicitly an accusation of undue weight.
2008/9/30 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/unflattering-wiki-entry-puts-italy-c...
Our BLP rules are *really important*.
- d.
Maybe the the people who view them as an excuse to remove content with an unreasonably large number of citations isn't helping their credibility.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 2:46 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/9/30 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/unflattering-wiki-entry-puts-italy-c...
Our BLP rules are *really important*.
- d.
Maybe the the people who view them as an excuse to remove content with an unreasonably large number of citations isn't helping their credibility.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It's certainly disillusioned me with it after my recent experiences. BLP is important, but it's equally important to keep it in tight rein to only unsourced or poorly sourced information. I'm certainly not too happy with the whole idea of it right now, it should be an extension of NPOV and V (information should be properly weighted and properly sourced, and we should give especial urgency to this requirement on a BLP), not some type of "I personally don't think this should go in an article on this person, so even though our sources do I'm going to cry BLP and remove it."
In this case, it doesn't look like we reported false information, so what's the problem? What is with those who think BLP means "We can't report negative or controversial information even if it -is- well-sourced"?
Todd, I don't personally see that sort of thing happen often. Geni and I, among others, have been dealing for quite some time with one particular article where it has been happening for awhile, but it seems like the exception rather than the rule. Most editors understand that the NPOV and undue weight requirements for BLPs don't bar all negative information. We're on our way into mediation on the article we're dealing with, yet it seems like the view that BLPs can't have any negative information is pretty fringe.
Nathan
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
It's certainly disillusioned me with it after my recent experiences. BLP is important, but it's equally important to keep it in tight rein to only unsourced or poorly sourced information. I'm certainly not too happy with the whole idea of it right now, it should be an extension of NPOV and V (information should be properly weighted and properly sourced, and we should give especial urgency to this requirement on a BLP), not some type of "I personally don't think this should go in an article on this person, so even though our sources do I'm going to cry BLP and remove it."
In this case, it doesn't look like we reported false information, so what's the problem? What is with those who think BLP means "We can't report negative or controversial information even if it -is- well-sourced"?
-- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l