Hello,
Advice please.
During a bout of Insomnia-Induced Insanity, I did a major expansion of the article about David Hager. Hager is the controversial fellow that Bush appointed to the FDA committee on Reproductive Health Drugs. (Self-disclosure: We both live in central Kentucky and our paths crossed through our professions from mid 80's - mid 90's.) Being a controversial figure, I was prepared to deal with POV crap. However, I never thought anyone would put him on a list of convicted rapists. Of course, I immediately took his name off the list. He was on the list for less than five hours, from Dec. 1 00:58 to 05:19. This brings up several issues.
1. Was this information spread to other web sites like Answers.com? Who do I ask to find out?
2. Do we all agree that this is a BIG problem. Can you imagine what would happen if another major media source published Hager’s name on a list of convicted rapists?
2. How do I (hopefully, we) stop this unregistered user (or any other) from doing this again? Being very, very generous, I will assume this was an isolated incidence of poor judgment. This doesn't change the fact that this libelous misinformation appeared in OUR encyclopedia.
3. I can‘t unring this bell. The Wikipedia article is listed 6 in an Yahoo search of the words David Hager. Being a registered user, I will be associated with this article forever. While, an unregistered user can damage Wikipedia, Hager, and me.
Immediate solution? Ask everyone here to put his name on your watch list. Long term solution?…….
SP AKA FloNight
On 12/1/05, poore5@adelphia.net poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
Hello,
Advice please.
During a bout of Insomnia-Induced Insanity, I did a major expansion of the article about David Hager. Hager is the controversial fellow that Bush appointed to the FDA committee on Reproductive Health Drugs. (Self-disclosure: We both live in central Kentucky and our paths crossed through our professions from mid 80's - mid 90's.) Being a controversial figure, I was prepared to deal with POV crap. However, I never thought anyone would put him on a list of convicted rapists. Of course, I immediately took his name off the list. He was on the list for less than five hours, from Dec. 1 00:58 to 05:19. This brings up several issues.
- Was this information spread to other web sites like Answers.com? Who do I ask to find out?
That is quite a difficult question to answer. For the most part no since I doubt it will have been included in a datebase dump however there are some sites that apear to pick up our content live
- Do we all agree that this is a BIG problem. Can you imagine what would happen if another major media source published Hager's name on a list of convicted rapists?
There are bigger problems but yes it is a big problem
- How do I (hopefully, we) stop this unregistered user (or any other) from doing this again? Being very, very generous, I will assume this was an isolated incidence of poor judgment. This doesn't change the fact that this libelous misinformation appeared in OUR encyclopedia.
We can't.
- I can't unring this bell. The Wikipedia article is listed 6 in an Yahoo search of the words David Hager. Being a registered user, I will be associated with this article forever. While, an unregistered user can damage Wikipedia, Hager, and me.
Immediate solution? Ask everyone here to put his name on your watch list. Long term solution?…….
SP AKA FloNight
No long term solution currently exists.
-- geni
On 12/4/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/1/05, poore5@adelphia.net poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
Hello,
Advice please.
During a bout of Insomnia-Induced Insanity, I did a major expansion of the article about David Hager. Hager is the controversial fellow that Bush appointed to the FDA committee on Reproductive Health Drugs. (Self-disclosure: We both live in central Kentucky and our paths crossed through our professions from mid 80's - mid 90's.) Being a controversial figure, I was prepared to deal with POV crap. However, I never thought anyone would put him on a list of convicted rapists. Of course, I immediately took his name off the list. He was on the list for less than five hours, from Dec. 1 00:58 to 05:19. This brings up several issues.
- Was this information spread to other web sites like Answers.com? Who do I ask to find out?
That is quite a difficult question to answer. For the most part no since I doubt it will have been included in a datebase dump however there are some sites that apear to pick up our content live
I know Wikipedia was developing a live feed for answers.com at some point. Not sure if this was ever implented. But that's just answers.com. Most of the mirrors likely use database dumps.
Also, if answers.com updates that quickly, then it'll fix the problem as quickly as it creates it.
I responded to this user previously on the helpdesk. The issue is that David Hager was accused of marital rape by his former wife, who got an article published in The Nation about this, among other places. Thus the allegations, true or not, are documented and citable, and thus cannot be removed as unsourced attacks.
However, he should NOT be listed in any categories that imply he has been convicted of a crime, because he has not.
-Matt
And that takes care of that.
Stevertigo
--- Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I responded to this user previously on the helpdesk. The issue is that David Hager was accused of marital rape by his former wife, who got an article published in The Nation about this, among other places. Thus the allegations, true or not, are documented and citable, and thus cannot be removed as unsourced attacks.
However, he should NOT be listed in any categories that imply he has been convicted of a crime, because he has not.
-Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
On 12/4/05, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
And that takes care of that.
Not exactly, but it renders it a much more complicated case than ones where negative statements about a public figure are unsourced. Since they are sourced in this case, the question becomes: does this article meet NPOV? I haven't researched the article or the subject enough to know for sure.
It certainly is not an issue solved with a quick complaint to this list or the helpdesk or anywhere else.
-Matt
Hello folks,
I’m sure it’s my fault for not handling the situation well, but Matt doesn’t seem to understand the issue. I appreciate Matt’s work on the help desk, so I didn‘t want to make an issue of it. But since he is discussing the situation, I want to clarify.
First off, I have been a member of WikiEN-l for a number of weeks. Until now, I didn’t write to the list because I didn’t have anything important to say. I am well aware of the ongoing discussion about articles containing misinformation, especially biographies. So last Friday, after Hager was listed as an convicted rapist, I wrote a post to the list. The post was delayed until today because it was my first post and a moderator needed to clear it. This was unfortunate but necessary given the potential abuse of this list by disgruntled editors and such.
One point worth noting. I didn’t ask the Help desk for assistance. Last Friday, after I realized my WikiEN-l post was going to be held, I wrote to Jimbo Wales. He promptly forwarded it to Help desk and Matt Brown answered it. From his reply I knew that Matt misunderstand my concern. His response therefore was unhelpful. Not wanting to be rude to a Wikipedia volunteer, I just deleted it.
To my immediate and the most important concern, enlisting other people to monitor Hager’s article, I still had no help. (I explicitly asked people to watchlist it in both my posts.) So, I asked several editors that I’ve worked with on medical articles to watchlist it. They graciously accepted and were supportive. So far, so good on that front.
Finally, I need to make it very clear that NPOV is not the issue. I wrote the article and included his ex-wife’s allegations and his denial, so of course I don’t want it removed. I put a lot effort into balancing the unseemly stuff with his long list of career achievements. My issue: Unregistered editors can put misinformation in articles that damages the encyclopedia, defames people, and disrupts the writing OUR encyclopedia. The long-term solutions discussed on this list need to be pursued.
Once again, I appreciate Matt’s volunteer work and don’t want to be hypercritical. But, I know My Concern better than he does, so I want to correct his misconceptions.
Regards, Sydney Poore AKA FloNight
Go Bengals!!!
Matt Brown wrote:
On 12/4/05, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
And that takes care of that.
Not exactly, but it renders it a much more complicated case than ones where negative statements about a public figure are unsourced. Since they are sourced in this case, the question becomes: does this article meet NPOV? I haven't researched the article or the subject enough to know for sure.
It certainly is not an issue solved with a quick complaint to this list or the helpdesk or anywhere else.
-Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Matt Brown wrote:
On 12/4/05, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
And that takes care of that.
Not exactly, but it renders it a much more complicated case than ones where negative statements about a public figure are unsourced. Since they are sourced in this case, the question becomes: does this article meet NPOV? I haven't researched the article or the subject enough to know for sure.
In some respects the Seigenthaler case is easier to deal with, *because* it was anonymous and unsourced. We don't even have evidence that there were rumours circulating at the time.
Sourced stories of an accusations are a bigger problem. A newspaper may report a perfectly verifiable fact that someone was arrested for rape. When he is released after spending one night in jail no newspaper reports it. There is no subsequent trial so there is nothing to report there. There is more to this issue than sourcing.
Ec
Hello folks,
I agree that there is more to this issue than sourcing.
From a legal point of view, it is common for the prosecution, victim, and defendant to agree to plea bargain of a lesser charge than rape to keep the victim off the witness stand. The crime will be much lower status with the defendant avoiding jail time, permanent sex register, loss of state licenses (eg. medical license), etc. But from a medical/health point of view, nothing has changed. The rapist and victim need psychological/medical assistance tailored to the actual event.
This makes if more difficult for the media to describe the nature of the actual events, but we need to try. If the proper context can't be described due to space (or whatever) than its better to say nothing.
Sydney Poore
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
On 12/4/05, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
And that takes care of that.
Not exactly, but it renders it a much more complicated case than ones where negative statements about a public figure are unsourced. Since they are sourced in this case, the question becomes: does this article meet NPOV? I haven't researched the article or the subject enough to know for sure.
In some respects the Seigenthaler case is easier to deal with, *because* it was anonymous and unsourced. We don't even have evidence that there were rumours circulating at the time.
Sourced stories of an accusations are a bigger problem. A newspaper may report a perfectly verifiable fact that someone was arrested for rape. When he is released after spending one night in jail no newspaper reports it. There is no subsequent trial so there is nothing to report there. There is more to this issue than sourcing.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
sydney poore wrote:
I agree that there is more to this issue than sourcing.
From a legal point of view, it is common for the prosecution, victim, and defendant to agree to plea bargain of a lesser charge than rape to keep the victim off the witness stand.
In the case of a plea bargain all we can conclude is that he was convicted of whatever lesser crime was agreed. We can say that he was charged with something more serious, but we cannot presume the motivations that resulted in a lesser conviction.
This makes if more difficult for the media to describe the nature of the actual events, but we need to try. If the proper context can't be described due to space (or whatever) than its better to say nothing.
The media have more investigative resources than we have, and we are not in a position to do the original research that would allow us to say more.
Ec
From: Matt Brown morven@gmail.com
I responded to this user previously on the helpdesk. The issue is that David Hager was accused of marital rape by his former wife, who got an article published in The Nation about this, among other places. Thus the allegations, true or not, are documented and citable, and thus cannot be removed as unsourced attacks.
However, he should NOT be listed in any categories that imply he has been convicted of a crime, because he has not.
I've been have a months-long debate with another editor on this topic. I've been stating that we include people in "Criminals" categories if they have been convicted of a crime by an independent judiciary. The other editor insists that we have to decide (by some means) whether or not they have actually committed a crime, conviction is not enough a good enough yardstick. I'd be interested in other thoughts here.
Regards,
Jay.
Jay,
Conviction is the most verifiable form of evidence re crime there is. However, we can report doubts over a conviction reported in reputable sources as part of NPOV.
We shouldn't have editors playing amateur detective, however.
Regards
*Keith Old*
Keith Old
On 12/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Matt Brown morven@gmail.com
I responded to this user previously on the helpdesk. The issue is that David Hager was accused of marital rape by his former wife, who got an article published in The Nation about this, among other places. Thus the allegations, true or not, are documented and citable, and thus cannot be removed as unsourced attacks.
However, he should NOT be listed in any categories that imply he has been convicted of a crime, because he has not.
I've been have a months-long debate with another editor on this topic. I've been stating that we include people in "Criminals" categories if they have been convicted of a crime by an independent judiciary. The other editor insists that we have to decide (by some means) whether or not they have actually committed a crime, conviction is not enough a good enough yardstick. I'd be interested in other thoughts here.
Regards,
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: Keith Old keithold@gmail.com
What about, say, a criminal was killed before conviction by a court - say [[Michael Robert Ryan]]?
Regards,
Jay.
Jay,
Conviction is the most verifiable form of evidence re crime there is. However, we can report doubts over a conviction reported in reputable sources as part of NPOV.
We shouldn't have editors playing amateur detective, however.
Regards
*Keith Old*
Keith Old
On 12/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Matt Brown morven@gmail.com
I responded to this user previously on the helpdesk. The issue is that David Hager was accused of marital rape by his former wife, who got an article published in The Nation about this, among other places. Thus the allegations, true or not, are documented and citable, and thus cannot be removed as unsourced attacks.
However, he should NOT be listed in any categories that imply he has been convicted of a crime, because he has not.
I've been have a months-long debate with another editor on this topic. I've been stating that we include people in "Criminals" categories if they
have
been convicted of a crime by an independent judiciary. The other editor insists that we have to decide (by some means) whether or not they have actually committed a crime, conviction is not enough a good enough yardstick. I'd be interested in other thoughts here.
Regards,
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jay,
Ideally, in those cases of a murder suicide, we should cite reliable sources showing the basis for the claims.
We should make sure as far as possible that any claims we make of criminal conduct or suspicion of are very soundly based. We should also make sure that the offence is significant enough to warrant an article if the person is not known for something else.
Verifiability is particularly important when we are dealing with claims of criminal conduct.
Regards
*Keith Old*
Keith Old User:Capitalistroadster
On 12/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Keith Old keithold@gmail.com
What about, say, a criminal was killed before conviction by a court - say [[Michael Robert Ryan]]?
Regards,
Jay.
Jay,
Conviction is the most verifiable form of evidence re crime there is. However, we can report doubts over a conviction reported in reputable sources as part of NPOV.
We shouldn't have editors playing amateur detective, however.
Regards
*Keith Old*
Keith Old
On 12/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Matt Brown morven@gmail.com
I responded to this user previously on the helpdesk. The issue is that David Hager was accused of marital rape by his former wife, who got an article published in The Nation about this, among other
places.
Thus the allegations, true or not, are documented and citable, and thus cannot be removed as unsourced attacks.
However, he should NOT be listed in any categories that imply he has been convicted of a crime, because he has not.
I've been have a months-long debate with another editor on this topic. I've been stating that we include people in "Criminals" categories if they
have
been convicted of a crime by an independent judiciary. The other
editor
insists that we have to decide (by some means) whether or not they
have
actually committed a crime, conviction is not enough a good enough yardstick. I'd be interested in other thoughts here.
Regards,
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/4/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Keith Old keithold@gmail.com
What about, say, a criminal was killed before conviction by a court - say [[Michael Robert Ryan]]?
Regards,
Jay.
If the person is dead, they certainly can't sue us for libel (of course, they can't sue *us* for libel anyway, only the person who actually added the libelous statement).
But the NPOV issues are more serious. I don't see how a category such as "criminals" can possibly be NPOV. "Convicted criminals" maybe. "Indicted criminals" might be possible. "Alleged criminals" would probably be way too broad (might as well redirect it to "List of people").
Anthony
On 05/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
But the NPOV issues are more serious. I don't see how a category such as "criminals" can possibly be NPOV. "Convicted criminals" maybe. "Indicted criminals" might be possible. "Alleged criminals" would probably be way too broad (might as well redirect it to "List of people").
There was some discussion on this list about [[Category:Soviet spies]], a month or so ago; might be worth having a glance at that in this context. A proposed change there was shot down mainly for reasons unique to the situation there, and IMO somewhat tangential ones at best.
The thing is, in many cases we implicitly state "convicted" but don't include it; many of our existing categories of criminals are already stipulated to contain those either convicted or where the commission of the crime is essentially uncontested.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/4/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
What about, say, a criminal was killed before conviction by a court - say [[Michael Robert Ryan]]?
Regards,
Jay.
If the person is dead, they certainly can't sue us for libel (of course, they can't sue *us* for libel anyway, only the person who actually added the libelous statement).
That's a poor criterion for justifying our actions. It may be legally correct, but ethically it sucks.
Ec
On 12/5/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/4/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
What about, say, a criminal was killed before conviction by a court - say [[Michael Robert Ryan]]?
Regards,
Jay.
If the person is dead, they certainly can't sue us for libel (of course, they can't sue *us* for libel anyway, only the person who actually added the libelous statement).
That's a poor criterion for justifying our actions. It may be legally correct, but ethically it sucks.
Ec
Perhaps you should have read the following paragraph (quoting people out of context sucks too).
Anthony
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
If the person is dead, they certainly can't sue us for libel (of course, they can't sue *us* for libel anyway, only the person who actually added the libelous statement).
That's a poor criterion for justifying our actions. It may be legally correct, but ethically it sucks.
Agreed. Our core passion is to *get it right*.
--Jimbo
This is the same issue which came up with the [[Category:Soviet spies]]*. I think it would be a good policy (it may already be one) that categories which deal with extremely POV topics that avoid mixing the "crime" with the "person". "Criminals" is semantically not different in English from "People convicted of a crime" though in a psychological sense it certainly is.
FF
*(which, by the way, was ruled "lack of consensus" on CFD after a slurry by a slurry of paleoconservative editors rallied by the aforementioned Nobs, most of whom had no idea what they were really voting on, in my mind)
On 12/5/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/4/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Keith Old keithold@gmail.com
What about, say, a criminal was killed before conviction by a court - say [[Michael Robert Ryan]]?
Regards,
Jay.
If the person is dead, they certainly can't sue us for libel (of course, they can't sue *us* for libel anyway, only the person who actually added the libelous statement).
But the NPOV issues are more serious. I don't see how a category such as "criminals" can possibly be NPOV. "Convicted criminals" maybe. "Indicted criminals" might be possible. "Alleged criminals" would probably be way too broad (might as well redirect it to "List of people").
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of JAY JG Sent: Monday, 5 December 2005 09:43 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] David Hager is listed as convicted rapist
From: Matt Brown morven@gmail.com
I responded to this user previously on the helpdesk. The
issue is that
David Hager was accused of marital rape by his former wife,
who got an
article published in The Nation about this, among other places. Thus the allegations, true or not, are documented and citable, and thus cannot be removed as unsourced attacks.
However, he should NOT be listed in any categories that imply he has been convicted of a crime, because he has not.
I've been have a months-long debate with another editor on this topic. I've been stating that we include people in "Criminals" categories if they have been convicted of a crime by an independent judiciary. The other editor insists that we have to decide (by some means) whether or not they have actually committed a crime, conviction is not enough a good enough yardstick. I'd be interested in other thoughts here.
Prisons are full of innocent people. Just ask them.
If a person has not admitted a crime, then it may be that they did not do it and the legal system made a mistake. It happens. Or that the prosecution case accepted by judge and jury was inaccurate. Or the defence was incompetent. Or that the convicted criminal has rationalised his crime in his own mind to something else, something justifiable.
How can we possibly know?
If a person had admitted guilt, then there is no problem. We may describe them as a criminal. But if they maintained their innocence and were found guilty instead of pleading guilty, then we should use conventional phrasing to indicate this, by describing someone as a convicted rapist, rather than a rapist.
In a case like marital rape, where much of the evidence would neccesarily revolve around the conflicting statements of the two participants of an act presumably performed in private, then how could we know what did or did not take place? We know that he was found guilty of rape, we don't know if he did it. Best to stick to the facts.
Peter (Skyring)
From: "Peter Mackay" peter.mackay@bigpond.com
If a person had admitted guilt, then there is no problem. We may describe them as a criminal. But if they maintained their innocence and were found guilty instead of pleading guilty, then we should use conventional phrasing to indicate this, by describing someone as a convicted rapist, rather than a rapist.
People also falsely confess to crimes; there have been many famous cases of this which have actually been later overturned (and one must assume even more cases which have not been overturned). If we start trying to second guess legal systems, then all we'll be left with is original research to determine if someone is a criminal.
Jay.
On 12/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
People also falsely confess to crimes; there have been many famous cases of this which have actually been later overturned (and one must assume even more cases which have not been overturned). If we start trying to second guess legal systems, then all we'll be left with is original research to determine if someone is a criminal.
Jay.
The problems is that you're trying to apply a fundamentally 20th-century view of legal systems across the board. Only recently have the majority of criminals begun to appear before courts; in earlier periods, it was quite common for them to simply be killed, or to kill themselves.
What about cases like [[Marcus Junius Brutus]]? There is little, if any, doubt about his role in Ceasar's death; should we then refrain from adding him to the Assassins category merely because he was never convicted in a court?
Kirill Lokshin
From: Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com
On 12/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
People also falsely confess to crimes; there have been many famous cases
of
this which have actually been later overturned (and one must assume even more cases which have not been overturned). If we start trying to
second
guess legal systems, then all we'll be left with is original research to determine if someone is a criminal.
Jay.
The problems is that you're trying to apply a fundamentally 20th-century view of legal systems across the board. Only recently have the majority of criminals begun to appear before courts; in earlier periods, it was quite common for them to simply be killed, or to kill themselves.
What about cases like [[Marcus Junius Brutus]]? There is little, if any, doubt about his role in Ceasar's death; should we then refrain from adding him to the Assassins category merely because he was never convicted in a court?
I hate to make a slippery slope argument, but they are not always invalid. If we start with "obvious" criminals who were merely never convicted of anything, soon we end up with Categories of Criminals that include Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Henry Morgentaler, etc.
Jay.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of JAY JG Sent: Tuesday, 6 December 2005 02:32 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] David Hager is listed as convicted rapist
From: "Peter Mackay" peter.mackay@bigpond.com
If a person had admitted guilt, then there is no problem. We may describe them as a criminal. But if they maintained their
innocence and
were found guilty instead of pleading guilty, then we should use conventional phrasing to indicate this, by describing someone as a convicted rapist, rather than a rapist.
People also falsely confess to crimes; there have been many famous cases of this which have actually been later overturned (and one must assume even more cases which have not been overturned). If we start trying to second guess legal systems, then all we'll be left with is original research to determine if someone is a criminal.
Concur. Despite the evidence, Wikipedians are not private dicks.
I note that the media in general seems to have little trouble in using whatever form of words best suits the case, and it should be no hardship for us to follow suit. Perhaps we could call someone a "confessed criminal" if they claim they did something but there was no official finding of guilt? If the confession is a matter of public record, but we have some doubt that they actually shot John Kennedy, then this phrasing should keep us out of trouble.
Peter (Skyring)
JAY JG wrote:
From: Matt Brown morven@gmail.com
I responded to this user previously on the helpdesk. The issue is that David Hager was accused of marital rape by his former wife, who got an article published in The Nation about this, among other places. Thus the allegations, true or not, are documented and citable, and thus cannot be removed as unsourced attacks.
However, he should NOT be listed in any categories that imply he has been convicted of a crime, because he has not.
I've been have a months-long debate with another editor on this topic. I've been stating that we include people in "Criminals" categories if they have been convicted of a crime by an independent judiciary. The other editor insists that we have to decide (by some means) whether or not they have actually committed a crime, conviction is not enough a good enough yardstick. I'd be interested in other thoughts here.
I think that any list that requires charactterizations needs to be approached with caution and sensitivity. Unless we abide by a strict definition of what we mean by the term the [[List of Criminals]] has too much room to become POV, or at worst, libellous. Other criteria than conviction in a court of law are possible, but they too must be strictly defined. We are not in a position to provide the original research that some of these situations may need.
Lee Harvey Oswald was never convicted of murder, and conspiracy theories around JFK's assisination continue to this day. In many minds there is reasonable doubt. Who knows what a jury would have done?
Hurricane Carter was convicted of murder, and it took him nearly 20 years to prove his innocence.
If we are going to keep this characterization at all, the benefit of the doubt should go to the person whose name is being considered for the list.
Ec
On 12/4/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
I've been have a months-long debate with another editor on this topic. I've been stating that we include people in "Criminals" categories if they have been convicted of a crime by an independent judiciary. The other editor insists that we have to decide (by some means) whether or not they have actually committed a crime, conviction is not enough a good enough yardstick. I'd be interested in other thoughts here.
Jay, it would be original research to claim that someone is a "criminal" even though they haven't been convicted. Committing a crime is not just the apparent performance of a prohibited act, but is also (usually) connected to the actor's state of mind at the time, something a court rules on based on the available evidence. Wikipedia editors are not in a position to judge what a court would have ruled, no matter how obvious the case might seem (e.g. a public figure admitting they once stole something from a store).
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Jay, it would be original research to claim that someone is a "criminal" even though they haven't been convicted. Committing a crime is not just the apparent performance of a prohibited act, but is also (usually) connected to the actor's state of mind at the time, something a court rules on based on the available evidence. Wikipedia editors are not in a position to judge what a court would have ruled, no matter how obvious the case might seem (e.g. a public figure admitting they once stole something from a store).
We're not in a position to make the judgment ourselves, but we *are* in a position to summarize judgments other people have made. Courts are one obvious source, but there is no reason they must be the only one---if it were, in fact, widespread consensus that someone who was acquitted was actually guilty (perhaps they were acquitted on a technicality, and everyone agrees they actually committed the crime), we can cite a published source claiming that, which would not be original research.
-Mark
On 12/5/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Jay, it would be original research to claim that someone is a "criminal" even though they haven't been convicted.
We're not in a position to make the judgment ourselves, but we *are* in a position to summarize judgments other people have made. Courts are one obvious source, but there is no reason they must be the only one ...
Yes, that's true, Mark, but it would be very unusual for a reputable publication to come right out and say someone was guilty of something they had been acquitted of. There have been some high-profile cases where that has happened (or where newspapers have strongly hinted at it), but usually news organizations go along with court rulings to keep themselves safe from legal action. But even so, quoting someone else wouldn't allow us to put someone not convicted of a crime in the "criminals" category, which I think was the point being raised.
Sarah
JAY JG wrote:
I've been have a months-long debate with another editor on this topic. I've been stating that we include people in "Criminals" categories if they have been convicted of a crime by an independent judiciary. The other editor insists that we have to decide (by some means) whether or not they have actually committed a crime, conviction is not enough a good enough yardstick. I'd be interested in other thoughts here.
I have a simple thought. My simple thought is that of course you are right. :-)
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
JAY JG wrote:
I've been have a months-long debate with another editor on this topic. I've been stating that we include people in "Criminals" categories if they have been convicted of a crime by an independent judiciary. The other editor insists that we have to decide (by some means) whether or not they have actually committed a crime, conviction is not enough a good enough yardstick. I'd be interested in other thoughts here.
I have a simple thought. My simple thought is that of course you are right. :-)
I agree with you, but community consensus doesn't. I recently tried to get the criminal categories renamed to include the words convicted but was told that was unworkable since Butch Cassiday was never convicted, or something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_Nove...
Steve Block wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
JAY JG wrote:
I've been have a months-long debate with another editor on this topic. I've been stating that we include people in "Criminals" categories if they have been convicted of a crime by an independent judiciary. The other editor insists that we have to decide (by some means) whether or not they have actually committed a crime, conviction is not enough a good enough yardstick. I'd be interested in other thoughts here.
I have a simple thought. My simple thought is that of course you are right. :-)
I agree with you, but community consensus doesn't. I recently tried to get the criminal categories renamed to include the words convicted but was told that was unworkable since Butch Cassiday was never convicted, or something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_Nove...
Well, I guess community consensus trumps NPOV ... except of course it doesn't. That would get a "don't be dense" category deletion.
- d.
On 12/6/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Steve Block wrote:
I agree with you, but community consensus doesn't. I recently tried to get the criminal categories renamed to include the words convicted but was told that was unworkable since Butch Cassiday was never convicted, or something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_Nove...
Well, I guess community consensus trumps NPOV ... except of course it doesn't. That would get a "don't be dense" category deletion.
I'm not quite sure why this would be a NPOV issue, unless we're going to start deleting any category for which the membership may be contentious.
To continue with the example cited above, is describing Butch Cassidy as a "prolific bank and train robber" in the article text permitted while placing him in the bank robbers category is not? That seems to be a rather unintuitive approach to categorization. Or are the statement and the category both NPOV violations since he was never convicted of robbing banks (even though no sources dispute the assertion)?
Kirill Lokshin
Um, so what exactly are you proposing is the procedure here? I should just rely on my (your?) judgment about when NPOV is being trumped by community lack of consensus?
I think [[Category:Soviet spies]] should be trashed. 95% of the people in the category were never charged much less convicted. Most of them have a name which appears on some cryptic NSA file but that deserves a category of "Listed by the NSA as a spy" or something like that.
I think that the community (lack of) consensus was affected by a small horde of POV-pushers rallied for the occasion.
So... should I just take it upon myself to delete it? That would raise nothing but hell. I'm not interested in that. Do we have mechanisms set up for this? Or is it the Ed Poor, "delete first, figure out the politics of it later" strategy?
FF
On 12/6/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Steve Block wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
JAY JG wrote:
I've been have a months-long debate with another editor on this topic. I've been stating that we include people in "Criminals" categories if they have been convicted of a crime by an independent judiciary. The other editor insists that we have to decide (by some means) whether or not they have actually committed a crime, conviction is not enough a good enough yardstick. I'd be interested in other thoughts here.
I have a simple thought. My simple thought is that of course you are right. :-)
I agree with you, but community consensus doesn't. I recently tried to get the criminal categories renamed to include the words convicted but was told that was unworkable since Butch Cassiday was never convicted, or something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_Nove...
Well, I guess community consensus trumps NPOV ... except of course it doesn't. That would get a "don't be dense" category deletion.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Fastfission wrote:
Um, so what exactly are you proposing is the procedure here? I should just rely on my (your?) judgment about when NPOV is being trumped by community lack of consensus?
I suspect David was attempting to use cruel, unmitigated sarcasm to deal with the problem, but as you have shown this doesn't work in every case.
I think [[Category:Soviet spies]] should be trashed. 95% of the people in the category were never charged much less convicted. Most of them have a name which appears on some cryptic NSA file but that deserves a category of "Listed by the NSA as a spy" or something like that.
I think that the community (lack of) consensus was affected by a small horde of POV-pushers rallied for the occasion.
I'd say you're not alone. Unless you can find some objective way to include/exclude possible candidates (e.g. "convicted of being", "indicted of being", "identified by a known authority as being"), the category is useless -- except for people who are POV pushers. Or can I create [[Category:Moron talk show hosts]]?
So... should I just take it upon myself to delete it? That would raise nothing but hell. I'm not interested in that. Do we have mechanisms set up for this? Or is it the Ed Poor, "delete first, figure out the politics of it later" strategy?
If you want to nominate this on RfC, I'd be happy to second it. However, while the cruel, unmittigated sarcasm strategy might be less effective than the motions of an RfC, it would doubtlessly be far more satisfying.
Geoff
Steve Block wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
JAY JG wrote:
I've been have a months-long debate with another editor on this topic. I've been stating that we include people in "Criminals" categories if they have been convicted of a crime by an independent judiciary. The other editor insists that we have to decide (by some means) whether or not they have actually committed a crime, conviction is not enough a good enough yardstick. I'd be interested in other thoughts here.
I have a simple thought. My simple thought is that of course you are right. :-)
I agree with you, but community consensus doesn't. I recently tried to get the criminal categories renamed to include the words convicted but was told that was unworkable since Butch Cassiday was never convicted, or something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_Nove...
I just added my vote in favour of the change. Maybe more of us who weren't aware of the vote when it was started should do that, and not be deterred by an artificial deadline.
If Butch Cassidy wasn't convicted that decides it unless there are other *clearly* defined criteria.. I think it's important to be scrupulous in avoiding a lynch mob mentality.
BTW I see that Martha Stewart is not in the Criminal category even though she was convicted.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
If Butch Cassidy wasn't convicted that decides it unless there are other *clearly* defined criteria.. I think it's important to be scrupulous in avoiding a lynch mob mentality.
Yes! I see now that my earlier agreement with JayJG was a touch premature, as least to the extent that I agreed with what was probably a very short summary of his view.
Conviction is a sufficient standard. A lack of a conviction should strong predispose us against listing a person in this sort of category, but there could be other *clearly defined* criteria which would do work for us similar to a conviction.
The lynch mob mentality is worse than failing to have some criminals listed. Calling someone a 'criminal' is a contentious matter which ought to be done only very carefully, cautiously, and conservatively.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Yes! I see now that my earlier agreement with JayJG was a touch premature, as least to the extent that I agreed with what was probably a very short summary of his view.
Conviction is a sufficient standard. A lack of a conviction should strong predispose us against listing a person in this sort of category, but there could be other *clearly defined* criteria which would do work for us similar to a conviction.
The lynch mob mentality is worse than failing to have some criminals listed. Calling someone a 'criminal' is a contentious matter which ought to be done only very carefully, cautiously, and conservatively.
Moreover, practicality must reign. If the person is living and never sentenced to spend a day in jail for the crime, one minute on a list is too long. If someone is decades dead and buried, weeks of debate on talk pages to form consensus is probably fine.
Sydney