In a message dated 12/16/2008 6:01:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com writes:
Are you denying that libel can seriously hurt real people? Or that Wikipedia suffers from libel? Or that Wikipedia fails to act effectively enough against libel?>>
--------------------- The statement was made that this is "common" not rare. I do deny that "Wikipedia fails to act effectively enough against libel"
Yes I deny that. But I also deny that this situation is "common" as opposed to rare, or rather I'd like to see some hard evidence, not a lot of hand-waving and hyperbole :)
Bearing in mind that this thread is not simply about vandalism or libel, but *rather* it is about the situation originally presented, where some scandalous statement, which is also without foundation, is allowed to persist for a significant length of time. Remembering that scandalous statements are only libel if they are without foundation and known to be without foundation by the speaker.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc...)
An interesting example: the article on Joe Lieberman was semi-protected one day because it was a "bad day for vandalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Lieberman&diff=prev&oldid=177264167." It was unprotected, and hours later it picked up an IP edit accusinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Lieberman&diff=next&oldid=177264167Leiberman of being a "flaming homo" who had just come out on the Ellen Degeneres Show.
You would think that an IP editor adding an outlandish and false claim on a high-profile biography like [[Joe Lieberman]] would be quickly reverted, right? Well, you would be wrong. It was not corrected for over five hours.
This is how well we handle blatant vandalism in our highest-profile subjects. How do you think we fare with subtle defamation on obscure subjects?
We already know the answer to thathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy. Let's fix this already. We need BLP semi-protection.
Cool Hand Luke
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:06 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/16/2008 6:01:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com writes:
Are you denying that libel can seriously hurt real people? Or that Wikipedia suffers from libel? Or that Wikipedia fails to act effectively enough against libel?>>
The statement was made that this is "common" not rare. I do deny that "Wikipedia fails to act effectively enough against libel"
Yes I deny that. But I also deny that this situation is "common" as opposed to rare, or rather I'd like to see some hard evidence, not a lot of hand-waving and hyperbole :)
Bearing in mind that this thread is not simply about vandalism or libel, but *rather* it is about the situation originally presented, where some scandalous statement, which is also without foundation, is allowed to persist for a significant length of time. Remembering that scandalous statements are only libel if they are without foundation and known to be without foundation by the speaker.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. ( http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc... ) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hmm. I am a committed Christian too but I completely failed to understand why calling Farah "a noted homosexual" is a "defamatory accusation"? Or libel or slander for that matter. Very puerile certainly maybe...but defamatory? C'mon.
BozMo
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Cool Hand Luke failure.to.communicate@gmail.com wrote:
An interesting example: the article on Joe Lieberman was semi-protected one day because it was a "bad day for vandalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Lieberman&diff=prev&oldid=177264167." It was unprotected, and hours later it picked up an IP edit accusinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Lieberman&diff=next&oldid=177264167Leiberman of being a "flaming homo" who had just come out on the Ellen Degeneres Show.
You would think that an IP editor adding an outlandish and false claim on a high-profile biography like [[Joe Lieberman]] would be quickly reverted, right? Well, you would be wrong. It was not corrected for over five hours.
This is how well we handle blatant vandalism in our highest-profile subjects. How do you think we fare with subtle defamation on obscure subjects?
We already know the answer to thathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy. Let's fix this already. We need BLP semi-protection.
Cool Hand Luke
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:06 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/16/2008 6:01:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com writes:
Are you denying that libel can seriously hurt real people? Or that Wikipedia suffers from libel? Or that Wikipedia fails to act effectively enough against libel?>>
The statement was made that this is "common" not rare. I do deny that "Wikipedia fails to act effectively enough against libel"
Yes I deny that. But I also deny that this situation is "common" as opposed to rare, or rather I'd like to see some hard evidence, not a lot of hand-waving and hyperbole :)
Bearing in mind that this thread is not simply about vandalism or libel, but *rather* it is about the situation originally presented, where some scandalous statement, which is also without foundation, is allowed to persist for a significant length of time. Remembering that scandalous statements are only libel if they are without foundation and known to be without foundation by the speaker.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. ( http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc... ) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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 mean even aside whether homosexual practice is outlawed by his particular church "orientation" which is what is described by being a "noted homosexual" could not possibly be condemned by any Christian organisation as far as I know, since it does not make any statement about practice.
BozMo
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Andrew Cates Andrew@soschildren.org wrote:
Hmm. I am a committed Christian too but I completely failed to understand why calling Farah "a noted homosexual" is a "defamatory accusation"? Or libel or slander for that matter. Very puerile certainly maybe...but defamatory? C'mon.
BozMo
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Cool Hand Luke failure.to.communicate@gmail.com wrote:
An interesting example: the article on Joe Lieberman was semi-protected one day because it was a "bad day for vandalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Lieberman&diff=prev&oldid=177264167." It was unprotected, and hours later it picked up an IP edit accusinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Lieberman&diff=next&oldid=177264167Leiberman of being a "flaming homo" who had just come out on the Ellen Degeneres Show.
You would think that an IP editor adding an outlandish and false claim on a high-profile biography like [[Joe Lieberman]] would be quickly reverted, right? Well, you would be wrong. It was not corrected for over five hours.
This is how well we handle blatant vandalism in our highest-profile subjects. How do you think we fare with subtle defamation on obscure subjects?
We already know the answer to thathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy. Let's fix this already. We need BLP semi-protection.
Cool Hand Luke
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:06 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/16/2008 6:01:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com writes:
Are you denying that libel can seriously hurt real people? Or that Wikipedia suffers from libel? Or that Wikipedia fails to act effectively enough against libel?>>
The statement was made that this is "common" not rare. I do deny that "Wikipedia fails to act effectively enough against libel"
Yes I deny that. But I also deny that this situation is "common" as opposed to rare, or rather I'd like to see some hard evidence, not a lot of hand-waving and hyperbole :)
Bearing in mind that this thread is not simply about vandalism or libel, but *rather* it is about the situation originally presented, where some scandalous statement, which is also without foundation, is allowed to persist for a significant length of time. Remembering that scandalous statements are only libel if they are without foundation and known to be without foundation by the speaker.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. ( http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc... ) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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 Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Andrew Cates wrote:
Hmm. I am a committed Christian too but I completely failed to understand why calling Farah "a noted homosexual" is a "defamatory accusation"? Or libel or slander for that matter. Very puerile certainly maybe...but defamatory? C'mon.
This is disingenuous. There are quite a few people who think homosexuality is bad and wouldn't like being accused of it. There are also quite a few people who think homosexuality is bad and therefore use it as an accusation.
Just because we ourselves don't think the accusation is bad should be irrelevant when deciding how to handle BLPs.
(Besides, in this case, the target is married to a woman, which automatically gives the accusation defamatory implications.)
On the other hand, semi-protection means that only checkusers can track down who did the vandalism. IP editors can be named 'n' shamed (as far as their internet origin goes, anyway). Logged-in vandalism is much more private for the vandal.
I'm inclined to support semi-protection even so, since it cuts down the rate of drive-by vandalism, but the point's worth making.
-Matt
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand, semi-protection means that only checkusers can track down who did the vandalism. IP editors can be named 'n' shamed (as far as their internet origin goes, anyway). Logged-in vandalism is much more private for the vandal.
I'm inclined to support semi-protection even so, since it cuts down the rate of drive-by vandalism, but the point's worth making.
-Matt
That's a very good point, actually. For this reason, I think something like flagged revisions would be better permanent solution, but semi-protection is a good stop-gap. (And I'd also like to argue that slippery slope arguments are pretty weak.)
Incidentally, there's a new pre-survey page about the BLP issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protecting_BLP_articles_feeler_survey
Cool Hand Luke