-----Original Message----- From: Seth Finkelstein [mailto:sethf@sethf.com] Sent: Monday, April 9, 2007 09:32 AM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Opt Out for Not So Notable Biographies
Christiano Moreschi Is there really a single situation where our existing system of BLP vigilance, emails to the Foundation, OTRS volunteers, AfDs, reliable sourcing, etc has failed to deal with people wanting their bios taken down/fixed with the exception of Daniel Brandt?
There are several unresolved situations. An aggrieved subject must be something of a diplomat to figure out who to appeal to and how.
Fred
Well, if you define "deal with people" as "has anyone else taken their unhappiness as far as has Daniel Brandt?", the answer is "No". But I don't think that would be a useful definition.
Beyond Daniel Brandt, do we really have a problem here that needs fixing?
Yes (IMHO).
My view is that I'm not going to go on a legal crusade over my own issues with Wikipedia - that for biographies of living people, it's an attractive nuisance and a weapon of asymmetrical warfare. But I sure do think it's a problem that needs fixing.
Seth Finkelstein
A common sense attitude. What can we do to reduce the problems that arise? Neglected articles with defamatory material, articles with little in them but some unfortunate incident, clumsy attempts to correct articles by subject.
Fred
Fred Bauder What can we do to reduce the problems that arise? Neglected articles with defamatory material, articles with little in them but some unfortunate incident, clumsy attempts to correct articles by subject.
Frankly, I don't know. In general, I don't like to play the know-it-all, to tell someone how to run their "business". There's too many times when I've gotten advice from some well-meaning but unknowledgeable person, "Seth, you should do X", and frequently they react very unfavorably to my reply "I thought of doing X, but it has problem Y, and downside Z, so all in all, it seemed like a bad idea". The next part of the exchange, running "No, Seth, do X! It'll work! Sez *me*!", tends to be very draining. So I don't want to be "that guy" to other people.
For example, I could say "I think you should ease up on people editing their own biography", but even writing that hypothetically sounds so arrogant on my part. I know it's been discussed endlessly, so what I say has little impact, even if it would ultimately be correct (and there's a high chance it isn't). Moreover, as an outsider, it might even be counter-productive for me to make suggestions due to giving them bad associations.
Wikipedia is so interesting to me in part because it's managed to find a functioning trade-off among some extremely difficult conditions (and I get into hot water for my belief that the way in which it's done that is sometimes not so nice). I feel I'm on very firm ground in pushing back against one of those trade-offs, the "cost-shifting" of negatives onto individuals, of attempting to make them bear the complete burdens of poor quality control and any reputational damage thereof. You can see in this thread how it works - trivialize, minimize, demonize, all directed to having Wikipedia insulated from any costs from flaws. Not that every person does that, but the institutional incentive is clear.
So I think of staying focused on advocating for an opt-out as having the humility to know my limits, and not venturing past my area of "expertise".