Will Beback wrote:
Delirium wrote:
Will Beback wrote:
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create articles full of content, not full of external links. I'd argue that the article on Michael Moore does not require a link to his website, nor does any article require having any external link. External links are a convenience to readers, but aren't part of the goal of the encyclopedia.
Sure they are. The technical matter of a link is merely a convenience to our users, true, but the mention in the article body that Michael Moore runs a popular website is encyclopedic content. And furthermore posts on the website of a popular person are reliable sources for that person's view, and frequently used as such in academic writing (articles on michaelmoore.com are cited in hundreds of journal articles and academic-press books). Having a separate self-referential standard for sources is bizarre: we should generally not have policies about sources that special-case them based on what they say about Wikipedia.
-Mark
This proposal isn't about criticism of Wikipedia or its editors. It is about active harassment of Wikipedia editors. Real live volunteers just like you and me.
For some reason MichaelMoore.com seems to be the single example folks are interested in. But we also need a policy that can address non-celebrity blogs like ASM, forums like WP, wikis like ED, and any other self-published website that actively engages in harassing Wikipedia editor. Most of them are only usable as sources for themselves anyway, so the collateral damage of re-categorizing them as unreliable would be minimal.
There are many ways that we could help readers get more information on a BLP subject. We could post the subject's phone number or address so that readers could contact the subjects directly. We could provide links to their publisher's website. We could add external link to sites that charge money, or that are published in a foreign language. Yet we don't normally do those things for good reasons. Simply providing every possible iota of information isn't our purpose. We redact personal contact info from BLPs because we respect our subjects, and we shouldn't include links to self-published sites that are harassing Wikipedia editors because we respect our editors.
Will Beback.
Will Beback wrote:
Will Beback wrote:
Delirium wrote:
Will Beback wrote:
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create articles full of content, not full of external links. I'd argue that the article on Michael Moore does not require a link to his website, nor does any article require having any external link. External links are a convenience to readers, but aren't part of the goal of the encyclopedia.
Sure they are. The technical matter of a link is merely a convenience to our users, true, but the mention in the article body that Michael Moore runs a popular website is encyclopedic content. And furthermore posts on the website of a popular person are reliable sources for that person's view, and frequently used as such in academic writing (articles on michaelmoore.com are cited in hundreds of journal articles and academic-press books). Having a separate self-referential standard for sources is bizarre: we should generally not have policies about sources that special-case them based on what they say about Wikipedia.
-Mark
This proposal isn't about criticism of Wikipedia or its editors. It is about active harassment of Wikipedia editors. Real live volunteers just like you and me.
For some reason MichaelMoore.com seems to be the single example folks are interested in. But we also need a policy that can address non-celebrity blogs like ASM, forums like WP, wikis like ED, and any other self-published website that actively engages in harassing Wikipedia editor. Most of them are only usable as sources for themselves anyway, so the collateral damage of re-categorizing them as unreliable would be minimal.
There are many ways that we could help readers get more information on a BLP subject. We could post the subject's phone number or address so that readers could contact the subjects directly. We could provide links to their publisher's website. We could add external link to sites that charge money, or that are published in a foreign language. Yet we don't normally do those things for good reasons. Simply providing every possible iota of information isn't our purpose. We redact personal contact info from BLPs because we respect our subjects, and we shouldn't include links to self-published sites that are harassing Wikipedia editors because we respect our editors.
To be frank, I don't see how your response was at all a response to my post. Nobody is proposing that we include Michael Moore's home phone number in his article, or "every possible iota of information". What some of us are proposing, rather, is that encyclopedic information that would otherwise be included in an encyclopedia article on the subject, such as a website of a famous person that is cited hundreds of times in academic literature, should not be removed from the Wikipedia article on the subject solely for reasons that include the word "Wikipedia" self-referentially in them. If it *isn't* encyclopedic, then remove it for that reason, which is a completely separate issue.
That's why we're focusing on examples like michaelmoore.com in this thread. Random non-notable forums that aren't encyclopedic are completely irrelevant to WP:BADSITES, since they shouldn't be included anyway (due to lack of notability / encyclopedic content). The problem with WP:BADSITES is that it proposes that encyclopedic information that would normally be included in an encyclopedia should be removed from our particular encyclopedia. My argument is that if we're removing information that Encarta would include because of some reason that doesn't have to do with making a better article, we're doing something wrong.
Compare to how the New York Times writes its articles: they don't decide not to cover otherwise newsworthy subjects because of how their reporters are treated.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
To be frank, I don't see how your response was at all a response to my post. Nobody is proposing that we include Michael Moore's home phone number in his article, or "every possible iota of information". What some of us are proposing, rather, is that encyclopedic information that would otherwise be included in an encyclopedia article on the subject, such as a website of a famous person that is cited hundreds of times in academic literature, should not be removed from the Wikipedia article on the subject solely for reasons that include the word "Wikipedia" self-referentially in them. If it *isn't* encyclopedic, then remove it for that reason, which is a completely separate issue.
That's why we're focusing on examples like michaelmoore.com in this thread. Random non-notable forums that aren't encyclopedic are completely irrelevant to WP:BADSITES, since they shouldn't be included anyway (due to lack of notability / encyclopedic content). The problem with WP:BADSITES is that it proposes that encyclopedic information that would normally be included in an encyclopedia should be removed from our particular encyclopedia. My argument is that if we're removing information that Encarta would include because of some reason that doesn't have to do with making a better article, we're doing something wrong.
Compare to how the New York Times writes its articles: they don't decide not to cover otherwise newsworthy subjects because of how their reporters are treated.
-Mark
We don't know what the ''New York Times'' or ''Encarta'' use as their standards for sourcing (or if we do please send a link). Can anyone provide a link to an Encarta article that uses as a source a website that harasses Encarta editors? If we're to compare harassment and outing issues on Wikipedia to those in the traditional media then the Plame case may be more relevant.
My proposal is considerably different from "WP:BADSITES". I'm not sure why folks continue to use that term to describe every single proposal advanced to resolve this problem, but it may not be the most helpful plain of engagement. I dub this proposal "WP:COISITES" because it covers self-published websites that have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia due to their attempts to coerce WP editors.
Here is a formulation: "WP:COISITES: Self-published sources, such as blogs, forums, and open wikis, that are actively engaged in lawsuits or harassment of Wikipedia or its editors are not reliable sources [unless proven otherwise] and should not be used as a source or external link in articles."
That text excludes non-self published sources, like the ''New Yorker''. It allows for some flexibility in special cases. It doesn't deal with non-article space links at all. Further language would be needed to define "harassment", and to map out dispute resolution procedures.
What's missing or in error from that proposal?
-Will Beback
Will Beback wrote:
My proposal is considerably different from "WP:BADSITES". I'm not sure why folks continue to use that term to describe every single proposal advanced to resolve this problem, but it may not be the most helpful plain of engagement. I dub this proposal "WP:COISITES" because it covers self-published websites that have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia due to their attempts to coerce WP editors.
I think the major similarity to me is reducing the utility of our site to punish people we designate as bad.
Here is a formulation: "WP:COISITES: Self-published sources, such as blogs, forums, and open wikis, that are actively engaged in lawsuits or harassment of Wikipedia or its editors are not reliable sources [unless proven otherwise] and should not be used as a source or external link in articles."
[...] What's missing or in error from that proposal?
For me the error is in the mismatch between the stated purpose and the effects. We already know how to evaluate sources and not link to bad ones. I don't see this as adding anything to WP:RS or WP:COI.
No matter how much Michael Moore doesn't like us, it doesn't alter the utility of his site for our readers. And it doesn't suddenly convert reliable information into unreliable information, just as people being extra-nice to us doesn't make their information more reliable.
If your goal is to take punitive measures against people who attack Wikipedia editors -- which seems to be the effect of this proposal -- I think you should just propose it as such.
William
On 15/10/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Will Beback wrote:
My proposal is considerably different from "WP:BADSITES". I'm not sure why folks continue to use that term to describe every single proposal advanced to resolve this problem,
Probably because *in practice* the advocates (a) tend to keep doing the same ridiculous things (b) coming up with novel theories as to why policy fully supports them damaging the encyclopedia in pursuit of the same goals, each and every time.
but it may not be the most helpful plain of engagement. I dub this proposal "WP:COISITES" because it covers self-published websites that have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia due to their attempts to coerce WP editors.
I think the major similarity to me is reducing the utility of our site to punish people we designate as bad.
Yes. The community is important to the encyclopedia, but the encyclopedia is more important than the community writing it.
Here is a formulation: "WP:COISITES: Self-published sources, such as blogs, forums, and open [...] What's missing or in error from that proposal?
For me the error is in the mismatch between the stated purpose and the effects. We already know how to evaluate sources and not link to bad ones. I don't see this as adding anything to WP:RS or WP:COI.
Seconded.
The only purpose to this new formulation is to attempt to retcon justification for BADSITES-like behaviour.
I'll keep calling it BADSITES as long as the behaviour fails to change.
No matter how much Michael Moore doesn't like us, it doesn't alter the utility of his site for our readers. And it doesn't suddenly convert reliable information into unreliable information, just as people being extra-nice to us doesn't make their information more reliable.
Indeed.
If your goal is to take punitive measures against people who attack Wikipedia editors -- which seems to be the effect of this proposal -- I think you should just propose it as such.
This would have the added benefit of evidencing self-insight.
- d.
on 10/15/07 12:39 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The community is important to the encyclopedia, but the encyclopedia is more important than the community writing it.
This seems to be your personal POV throughout, David. Would you consider the possibility of at least an equal balance between the two?
Marc Riddell
On 15/10/2007, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/15/07 12:39 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The community is important to the encyclopedia, but the encyclopedia is more important than the community writing it.
This seems to be your personal POV throughout, David. Would you consider the possibility of at least an equal balance between the two?
No, he's right. It's fundamental to the nature of the project, which is *a project to build an encyclopedia*. The community accreted around that project, around that overarching goal.
On 15/10/2007, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/15/07 12:39 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The community is important to the encyclopedia, but the encyclopedia is more important than the community writing it.
This seems to be your personal POV throughout, David. Would you consider the possibility of at least an equal balance between the two?
I'm not sure how that could really work, though. The point of gathering the community is to write the encyclopedia. It may be useful to pretend otherwise at times, but that's actually the purpose.
-d.
On 15/10/2007, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/15/07 12:39 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The community is important to the encyclopedia, but the encyclopedia is more important than the community writing it.
This seems to be your personal POV throughout, David. Would you consider the possibility of at least an equal balance between the two?
on 10/15/07 2:47 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure how that could really work, though. The point of gathering the community is to write the encyclopedia.
I realize that.
It may be useful to pretend otherwise at times
I don't know what you mean by this statement.
David, I spend time reading many of the Talk, Discussion and whatever other Pages I have access to as a non-admin; and my informed read is that there are a great many very unhappy people in there. The mood is angry, the climate is cold, and the culture in trouble. And statements like "the Project is more important than the Community" not only reinforces the Members' feeling of second-class status, but serves, also, to give permission to those who would behave abusively to others.
It's about attitudes, inclusion and respect. You are a very visible and vocal Member of the Wikipedia Community, and what you say carries more weight, with the more impressionable among us, than you may imagine within that Community.
Marc
Quoting Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
On 15/10/2007, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/15/07 12:39 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The community is important to the encyclopedia, but the encyclopedia is more important than the community writing it.
This seems to be your personal POV throughout, David. Would you consider the possibility of at least an equal balance between the two?
on 10/15/07 2:47 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure how that could really work, though. The point of gathering the community is to write the encyclopedia.
I realize that.
It may be useful to pretend otherwise at times
I don't know what you mean by this statement.
David, I spend time reading many of the Talk, Discussion and whatever other Pages I have access to as a non-admin; and my informed read is that there are a great many very unhappy people in there. The mood is angry, the climate is cold, and the culture in trouble. And statements like "the Project is more important than the Community" not only reinforces the Members' feeling of second-class status, but serves, also, to give permission to those who would behave abusively to others.
It's about attitudes, inclusion and respect. You are a very visible and vocal Member of the Wikipedia Community, and what you say carries more weight, with the more impressionable among us, than you may imagine within that Community.
Marc
I think you are misinterpreting his statement. The bottom line is that the Encyclopedia is the goal. The community is a means to that end. That doesn't change that members should be respectful to each others because we need the community to function.
On 15/10/2007, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
It may be useful to pretend otherwise at times
I don't know what you mean by this statement.
David, I spend time reading many of the Talk, Discussion and whatever other Pages I have access to as a non-admin
(In general terms, there are no pages non-admins do not have access to. Well, there's a handful of technical ones. And the deleted pages. But no actual contentful discussion pages; there is nowhere on-wiki that The Secret Club Is Talking About You, or at least nowhere they could do it *easily*)
and my informed read is that there are a great many very unhappy people in there. The mood is angry, the climate is cold, and the culture in trouble.
Yes, the community has problems. I'd go so far as to say it's in some ways dysfunctional. But I really don't see how reasserting the basic values of this project is going to cause the community to get any *worse*.
The community has problems because it's lost track of what it's trying to do and it's squabbling internally; it has problems because users are being dicks with power, or power they think they have. But that problem is - as much as anything else - because of users in positions of authority assuming the authority of "the community" in playing their games and political posturing, using the moral weight of a community who doesn't give a damn to browbeat their opponents.
Of course David and I want a healthy community. But we know that the community wants to get on with writing an encyclopedia. The way to help the community be healthy is, well, to invoke mens sana in corpore sano; put our attention back to actually doing some work, take a harder line with the unrecoverable idiots, and the community will wake up again.
And statements like "the Project is more important than the Community" not only reinforces the Members' feeling of second-class status
No, it's a healthy assertion that we share fundamental common priorities and that the community are, on the whole, aware we're not here as a social activity.
"Second-class"? Second-class to who? This isn't an admin clique trying to put itself above "the community". "The community" includes the admins - and wikien-l - as much as any other regular user - the project is still more important than them/us.
but serves, also, to give permission to those who would behave abusively to others.
Those behaving in some of the most insidiously abusive ways cry "protecting the community" as loudly as anyone, and mostly get away with waving the banner in the name of people who haven't heard of their petty squabbles and wouldn't care about them if they had.
On 15/10/2007, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/15/07 12:39 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The community is important to the encyclopedia, but the encyclopedia is more important than the community writing it.
This seems to be your personal POV throughout, David. Would you consider the possibility of at least an equal balance between the two?
Marc Riddell
We did. It is called your user page. It would be apprenticed if you kept your community stuff there and out of the article name space.
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 10/15/07 12:39 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The community is important to the encyclopedia, but the encyclopedia is more important than the community writing it.
This seems to be your personal POV throughout, David. Would you consider the possibility of at least an equal balance between the two?
I don't see how that would really work. Why is the community here in the first place? Because we initiated a project to write an NPOV encyclopedia, and have gathered to do so. If we abandon that goal, might as well dissolve the community, too, since it will have failed in its reason for existence.
Anything to promote a harmonious and effective community that does *not* damage the fundamental purpose of the project, on the other hand, is of course welcome.
-Mark
Will Beback wrote:
My proposal is considerably different from "WP:BADSITES". I'm not sure why folks continue to use that term to describe every single proposal advanced to resolve this problem, but it may not be the most helpful plain of engagement. I dub this proposal "WP:COISITES" because it covers self-published websites that have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia due to their attempts to coerce WP editors.
Here is a formulation: "WP:COISITES: Self-published sources, such as blogs, forums, and open wikis, that are actively engaged in lawsuits or harassment of Wikipedia or its editors are not reliable sources [unless proven otherwise] and should not be used as a source or external link in articles."
That text excludes non-self published sources, like the ''New Yorker''. It allows for some flexibility in special cases. It doesn't deal with non-article space links at all. Further language would be needed to define "harassment", and to map out dispute resolution procedures.
What's missing or in error from that proposal?
What's missing is that "harassment" is not defined first. You seek to define a response before you define the crime. "Actively engaged in lawsuits" may be easier to define if you insist on a link to the court registry where the suit is actually filed.
It would be inappropriate to call something harassment without this. We have too many people who are too quick to characterize any form of criticism as harassment, and who would go so far as to obliterate all evidence of the criticism so as to limit any kind of independent evaluation. In a regular legal system that might be called obstruction of justice.
Renaming the proposal is nothing more than a diversion into the trivial. If there is a consensus about the substance we can name it anything we want. For that matter muddling this with Conflicts of Interest diminishes the broader nature of conflicts of interest. A person who insists on putting his own company into a good light may be in a conflict of interest, but not with Wikipedia.
Ec
Will Beback wrote:
We redact personal contact info from BLPs because we respect our subjects, and we shouldn't include links to self-published sites that are harassing Wikipedia editors because we respect our editors.
Well, at least we agree that respecting editors is good. However, I deny removing links to an entire site is the same universally respectful thing that not publishing some biography subject's phone number is.
When external sites have posted crazy things about me, on-Wikipedia linking of that was helpful in one case, and would have been welcome in the other. Informed support from colleagues is a much greater source of strength to me than that of people who might have the hazy impression that somewhere, someone is doing something bad.
Further even when redaction of entire sites might respect the individual editor's wishes, it's not clear to me that the wishes of one editor involved in a kerfuffle should automatically override respecting the good-faith needs of other editors.
I also think you are neglecting both the reader and our public image in this question. Putting a subject's phone number in an article doesn't serve the average reader, and would make us look like idiots. Removing an otherwise useful link will reduce our value to readers and likely harm our public image.
I understand you feel strongly about this, but when your every comment on the topic shows only positive spin, I find it hard to give your views much weight. Perhaps you could try a more balanced approach?
Thanks,
William
Will Beback wrote:
There are many ways that we could help readers get more information on a BLP subject. We could post the subject's phone number or address so that readers could contact the subjects directly. We could provide links to their publisher's website. We could add external link to sites that charge money, or that are published in a foreign language. Yet we don't normally do those things for good reasons.
Why do you want to create a rule about sites published in a foreign language? Sometimes they are the best source of information on a given subject, especially a person. Some readers interested in the broader subject do read that language, and should not have their sources limited by some form of anglo-chauvinism.
Ec
On 10/15/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Why do you want to create a rule about sites published in a foreign language? Sometimes they are the best source of information on a given subject, especially a person. Some readers interested in the broader subject do read that language, and should not have their sources limited by some form of anglo-chauvinism.
In Will's defense (maybe), I'm not sure he meant to imply that his generalizations have firm basis in policy or guideline.
—C.W.
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Will Beback wrote:
For some reason MichaelMoore.com seems to be the single example folks are interested in. But we also need a policy that can address non-celebrity blogs like ASM, forums like WP, wikis like ED, and any other self-published website that actively engages in harassing Wikipedia editor. Most of them are only usable as sources for themselves anyway, so the collateral damage of re-categorizing them as unreliable would be minimal.
However, that should not affect their use in talk pages, policy discussions, etc. (Though I suppose that technically they are being used as sources for themselves.)
I'm really tired of people saying "attack sites are unreliable sources for use in articles" and then using that to ban their use in places other than articles.
Quoting Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Will Beback wrote:
For some reason MichaelMoore.com seems to be the single example folks are interested in. But we also need a policy that can address non-celebrity blogs like ASM, forums like WP, wikis like ED, and any other self-published website that actively engages in harassing Wikipedia editor. Most of them are only usable as sources for themselves anyway, so the collateral damage of re-categorizing them as unreliable would be minimal.
However, that should not affect their use in talk pages, policy discussions, etc. (Though I suppose that technically they are being used as sources for themselves.)
I'm really tired of people saying "attack sites are unreliable sources for use in articles" and then using that to ban their use in places other than articles.
This doesn't seem to be nearly as much of a problem as the notion that attack sites are a priori unreliable. Michael Moore's website for example is a reliable source at minimum of what Moore thinks and likely of other things as well. We almost should not lose sight of the fundamental strangeness of having no links to MichaelMoore.com on [[Michael Moore]].
That said, I can more easily understand a ban on linking to problematic sites outside article space. In article space we may need them either for referencing or for external links. However, they don't serve nearly as useful a purpose on talk pages or elsewhere. The focus of the project is and always should be article space. What occurs in other spaces is only relevant in that context.
On 10/15/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Will Beback wrote:
Delirium wrote:
Will Beback wrote:
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create articles full of content, not full of external links. I'd argue that the article on Michael Moore does not require a link to his website, nor does any article require having any external link. External links are a convenience to readers, but aren't part of the goal of the encyclopedia.
Sure they are. The technical matter of a link is merely a convenience to our users, true, but the mention in the article body that Michael Moore runs a popular website is encyclopedic content. And furthermore posts on the website of a popular person are reliable sources for that person's view, and frequently used as such in academic writing (articles on michaelmoore.com are cited in hundreds of journal articles and academic-press books). Having a separate self-referential standard for sources is bizarre: we should generally not have policies about sources that special-case them based on what they say about Wikipedia.
-Mark
This proposal isn't about criticism of Wikipedia or its editors. It is about active harassment of Wikipedia editors. Real live volunteers just like you and me.
For some reason MichaelMoore.com seems to be the single example folks are interested in. But we also need a policy that can address non-celebrity blogs like ASM, forums like WP, wikis like ED, and any other self-published website that actively engages in harassing Wikipedia editor. Most of them are only usable as sources for themselves anyway, so the collateral damage of re-categorizing them as unreliable would be minimal.
There are many ways that we could help readers get more information on a BLP subject. We could post the subject's phone number or address so that readers could contact the subjects directly. We could provide links to their publisher's website. We could add external link to sites that charge money, or that are published in a foreign language. Yet we don't normally do those things for good reasons. Simply providing every possible iota of information isn't our purpose. We redact personal contact info from BLPs because we respect our subjects, and we shouldn't include links to self-published sites that are harassing Wikipedia editors because we respect our editors.
Will Beback.
Except that Michael Moore uses his website to give readers or fans or whomever more information about himself. He doesn't publish his phone number or address or hand it out at meetings that I know of. His publisher is available on his books, and his books should be listed in the article with their pbulishers, so we do this already. We're not providing every iota of information and no one is even suggesting that by publishing a link to his website we are also demanding to know how much protein he has in his eyelashes. Other sites all over the Internet publish Moore's web address when they write about him. But not Wikipedia, because, well, because then we'd have to publish his underwear schedule it seems.
KP
K P wrote:
On 10/15/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
This proposal isn't about criticism of Wikipedia or its editors. It is about active harassment of Wikipedia editors. Real live volunteers just like you and me.
For some reason MichaelMoore.com seems to be the single example folks are interested in. But we also need a policy that can address non-celebrity blogs like ASM, forums like WP, wikis like ED, and any other self-published website that actively engages in harassing Wikipedia editor. Most of them are only usable as sources for themselves anyway, so the collateral damage of re-categorizing them as unreliable would be minimal.
There are many ways that we could help readers get more information on a BLP subject. We could post the subject's phone number or address so that readers could contact the subjects directly. We could provide links to their publisher's website. We could add external link to sites that charge money, or that are published in a foreign language. Yet we don't normally do those things for good reasons. Simply providing every possible iota of information isn't our purpose. We redact personal contact info from BLPs because we respect our subjects, and we shouldn't include links to self-published sites that are harassing Wikipedia editors because we respect our editors.
Will Beback.
Except that Michael Moore uses his website to give readers or fans or whomever more information about himself. He doesn't publish his phone number or address or hand it out at meetings that I know of. His publisher is available on his books, and his books should be listed in the article with their pbulishers, so we do this already. We're not providing every iota of information and no one is even suggesting that by publishing a link to his website we are also demanding to know how much protein he has in his eyelashes. Other sites all over the Internet publish Moore's web address when they write about him. But not Wikipedia, because, well, because then we'd have to publish his underwear schedule it seems.
KP
Moore is notable as a filmmaker. He is not notable as a blogger. His blog is not encyclopedic. We are only providing a link as a convenience, and a very minor convenience because it it the first link that comes up on Google. So we are saving our readers about .5 seconds out of their lives. We aren't preserving NPOV, we aren't taking a stand against censorship, we're merely saving some readers a tiny bit of time. I don't begrudge anyone even half a second. But if the tradeoff we're looking at is linking to harassment of Wikipedia editors versus the slightest inconvenience (hopefully temporary) of our readers, then I don't think we should have a question. For completenes inthe article we can say the guy has a blog (who doesn't), but unless the blog is notable I don't see the overriding need to promote "convenience" above "no personal attacks".
Will
On 10/17/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Moore is notable as a filmmaker. He is not notable as a blogger. His blog is not encyclopedic. We are only providing a link as a convenience, and a very minor convenience because it it the first link that comes up on Google. So we are saving our readers about .5 seconds out of their lives. We aren't preserving NPOV, we aren't taking a stand against censorship, we're merely saving some readers a tiny bit of time. I don't begrudge anyone even half a second. But if the tradeoff we're looking at is linking to harassment of Wikipedia editors versus the slightest inconvenience (hopefully temporary) of our readers, then I don't think we should have a question. For completenes inthe article we can say the guy has a blog (who doesn't), but unless the blog is notable I don't see the overriding need to promote "convenience" above "no personal attacks".
It's an official website, not merely a blog. And even then, I'm pretty sure we frequently link to the official blogs of prominent people. The question is, why are we making an exception for Michael Moore? Is it motivated because of some editorial reason (i.e. including the link reduces the usefulness and value of the article), or because we're Wikipedia and we don't like how Moore treated one of our editors? If the latter, it's a pretty clearcut NPOV violation.
Johnleemk
John Lee wrote:
On 10/17/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Moore is notable as a filmmaker. He is not notable as a blogger. His blog is not encyclopedic. We are only providing a link as a convenience, and a very minor convenience because it it the first link that comes up on Google.
It's an official website, not merely a blog. And even then, I'm pretty sure we frequently link to the official blogs of prominent people.
At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I have to wonder: if Adolph Hitler were alive today and had a website, would we link to it from [[Adolph Hitler]]?
At the risk of inciting someone here to delete it, I note that we *do* have an external link from [[Ku Klux Klan]] to www.kkk.com.
On 17/10/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I have to wonder: if Adolph Hitler were alive today and had a website, would we link to it from [[Adolph Hitler]]?
It is pretty much inconceivable that we wouldn't, I have to say.
This "we don't really need links, no-one will notice if we dump them, they have no encyclopedic use" argument is silly. Policy is what happens; one of our most widely accepted editorial-content decisions is that if there is an "official site", we link to it. That's what happens, almost invariably; there is massive and wide-ranging consensus that This Is How We Do Things.
Usually, the only time I see this disputed is for practical reasons - two sites quarrelling over which one is the proper link - and not for editorial ones.
Steve Summit wrote:
John Lee wrote:
On 10/17/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Moore is notable as a filmmaker. He is not notable as a blogger. His blog is not encyclopedic. We are only providing a link as a convenience, and a very minor convenience because it it the first link that comes up on Google.
It's an official website, not merely a blog. And even then, I'm pretty sure we frequently link to the official blogs of prominent people.
At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I have to wonder: if Adolph Hitler were alive today and had a website, would we link to it from [[Adolph Hitler]]?
No, we would link to it from [[Adolf Hitler]]. [[Adolph Hitler]] is a redirect.
Ec
if removing the link accomplishes so little, why does it matter so much to remove it?
On 10/17/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Moore is notable as a filmmaker. He is not notable as a blogger. His blog is not encyclopedic. We are only providing a link as a convenience, and a very minor convenience because it it the first link that comes up on Google. So we are saving our readers about .5 seconds out of their lives. We aren't preserving NPOV, we aren't taking a stand against censorship, we're merely saving some readers a tiny bit of time. I don't begrudge anyone even half a second. But if the tradeoff we're looking at is linking to harassment of Wikipedia editors versus the slightest inconvenience (hopefully temporary) of our readers, then I don't think we should have a question. For completenes inthe article we can say the guy has a blog (who doesn't), but unless the blog is notable I don't see the overriding need to promote "convenience" above "no personal attacks".
Will
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
K P wrote:
On 10/15/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
This proposal isn't about criticism of Wikipedia or its editors. It is about active harassment of Wikipedia editors. Real live volunteers just like you and me.
For some reason MichaelMoore.com seems to be the single example folks are interested in. But we also need a policy that can address non-celebrity blogs like ASM, forums like WP, wikis like ED, and any other self-published website that actively engages in harassing Wikipedia editor. Most of them are only usable as sources for themselves anyway, so the collateral damage of re-categorizing them as unreliable would be minimal.
There are many ways that we could help readers get more information on a BLP subject. We could post the subject's phone number or address so that readers could contact the subjects directly. We could provide links to their publisher's website. We could add external link to sites that charge money, or that are published in a foreign language. Yet we don't normally do those things for good reasons. Simply providing every possible iota of information isn't our purpose. We redact personal contact info from BLPs because we respect our subjects, and we shouldn't include links to self-published sites that are harassing Wikipedia editors because we respect our editors.
Will Beback.
Except that Michael Moore uses his website to give readers or fans or whomever more information about himself. He doesn't publish his phone number or address or hand it out at meetings that I know of. His publisher is available on his books, and his books should be listed in the article with their pbulishers, so we do this already. We're not providing every iota of information and no one is even suggesting that by publishing a link to his website we are also demanding to know how much protein he has in his eyelashes. Other sites all over the Internet publish Moore's web address when they write about him. But not Wikipedia, because, well, because then we'd have to publish his underwear schedule it seems.
KP
Moore is notable as a filmmaker. He is not notable as a blogger. His blog is not encyclopedic. We are only providing a link as a convenience, and a very minor convenience because it it the first link that comes up on Google. So we are saving our readers about .5 seconds out of their lives. We aren't preserving NPOV, we aren't taking a stand against censorship, we're merely saving some readers a tiny bit of time. I don't begrudge anyone even half a second. But if the tradeoff we're looking at is linking to harassment of Wikipedia editors versus the slightest inconvenience (hopefully temporary) of our readers, then I don't think we should have a question. For completenes inthe article we can say the guy has a blog (who doesn't), but unless the blog is notable I don't see the overriding need to promote "convenience" above "no personal attacks".
Will
It seems at this point we are just repeating the same essential arguments. Some people, like Will think that NPA can override optimal encyclopedia content. Others, like myself think that it cannot and should not. I, at least, find it is a bit ridiculous to not link to the official webpage of a famous person from the person's article simply because the person has a highly negative opinion about some Wikipedians. And I don't see this as substantially different as deciding not to link to say, the New York Times if they published an anti-Wikipedia editorial that attacked Essjay or published an article outing a Wikipedia editor.
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
It seems at this point we are just repeating the same essential arguments. Some people, like Will think that NPA can override optimal encyclopedia content. Others, like myself think that it cannot and should not. I, at least, find it is a bit ridiculous to not link to the official webpage of a famous person from the person's article simply because the person has a highly negative opinion about some Wikipedians. And I don't see this as substantially different as deciding not to link to say, the New York Times if they published an anti-Wikipedia editorial that attacked Essjay or published an article outing a Wikipedia editor.
I can't speak for others, but that's not a fair summary of my position. I think that removing material is a standard part of editing. I think that the project has been improved by removing all kinds of material. I think that links to self-published sites actively harassing Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources and should be removed just as we remove other unreliable sources. Doing so makes for optimal encyclopedia content.
"Highly negative opinions" are fine, harassment is not. They are different things. The New York Times is not a self-published site, which is all that my proposal addresses.
Will
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
I can't speak for others, but that's not a fair summary of my position. I think that removing material is a standard part of editing. I think that the project has been improved by removing all kinds of material. I think that links to self-published sites actively harassing Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources and should be removed just as we remove other unreliable sources. Doing so makes for optimal encyclopedia content.
Will, this still misses the basic issue. There's no good reason to treat Michael Moore's self-published site which we link to on his article any different than say Richard Dawkins, or Jonathan Sarfati simply because one of them choose to harass Wikipedia users. If the concern is solely that these aren't reliable sources then we should be removing all of them. The site's reliability has nothing to do with whether or not it attacks Wikipedia users.
"Highly negative opinions" are fine, harassment is not. They are different things. The New York Times is not a self-published site, which is all that my proposal addresses.
So if a major newspaper got into a fight with Wikipedia and actively harassed editors we would still link to them but not if it is a dinky one? Please explain how the harassement issue is any different? The only difference that I see is that advocating for the removal of the NYT links would heighten the absurdity of the position and so logical consistenct is sacrificed for rhetorical convenience. That may be harsh, but I really don't see any other explanation. If there is one, I'd very much like to hear it.
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
I can't speak for others, but that's not a fair summary of my position. I think that removing material is a standard part of editing. I think that the project has been improved by removing all kinds of material. I think that links to self-published sites actively harassing Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources and should be removed just as we remove other unreliable sources. Doing so makes for optimal encyclopedia content.
Will, this still misses the basic issue. There's no good reason to treat Michael Moore's self-published site which we link to on his article any different than say Richard Dawkins, or Jonathan Sarfati simply because one of them choose to harass Wikipedia users. If the concern is solely that these aren't reliable sources then we should be removing all of them. The site's reliability has nothing to do with whether or not it attacks Wikipedia users.
We use a variety of standards to decide if a source is reliable. I'm proposing an additional test. I don't know what you're referring to when you say "these". If you mean self-published experts then you may be right. The exception that allows them was controversial and maybe it should be revisited.
"Highly negative opinions" are fine, harassment is not. They are different things. The New York Times is not a self-published site, which is all that my proposal addresses.
So if a major newspaper got into a fight with Wikipedia and actively harassed editors we would still link to them but not if it is a dinky one? Please explain how the harassement issue is any different? The only difference that I see is that advocating for the removal of the NYT links would heighten the absurdity of the position and so logical consistenct is sacrificed for rhetorical convenience. That may be harsh, but I really don't see any other explanation. If there is one, I'd very much like to h
If the President of Uzbekistan engaged in harassment of Wikipedia editors, how would we treat it? I don't know and I think we need to worry about it. Virtually all of the harassment of Wikipedia editors has come from blogs, forums, and wikis, so those are the focus of my proposal. When the NYT starts harassing editors we can decide what to do about it. Let's not make this more complicated than it has to be.
Will
ear it.
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
I can't speak for others, but that's not a fair summary of my position. I think that removing material is a standard part of editing. I think that the project has been improved by removing all kinds of material. I think that links to self-published sites actively harassing Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources and should be removed just as we remove other unreliable sources. Doing so makes for optimal encyclopedia content.
Will, this still misses the basic issue. There's no good reason to treat Michael Moore's self-published site which we link to on his article any different than say Richard Dawkins, or Jonathan Sarfati simply because one of them choose to harass Wikipedia users. If the concern is solely that these aren't reliable sources then we should be removing all of them. The site's reliability has nothing to do with whether or not it attacks Wikipedia users.
We use a variety of standards to decide if a source is reliable. I'm proposing an additional test. I don't know what you're referring to when you say "these". If you mean self-published experts then you may be right. The exception that allows them was controversial and maybe it should be revisited.
By these I meant the personal websites of Moore, Dawkins, Sarfati etc. If this is a proposal to add additional rules for evaluating what is a WP:RS then this is about as non-NPOV as we could get. It says that a source might be reliable, but if it has an extremist view about a Wikipedia editor then it is somehow less reliable. The arrogance of that stance is frankly astounding. Reliability has nothing to do with whom someone is feuding.
If I'm missing something here I'd appreciate being told so. The crucial step in logic seems to be that self-published source becomes less reliable if it attacks Wikipedians. If that is the idea I'd like to hear the logic behind that in more detail.
Will Beback wrote:
I can't speak for others, but that's not a fair summary of my position. I think that removing material is a standard part of editing. I think that the project has been improved by removing all kinds of material. I think that links to self-published sites actively harassing Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources and should be removed just as we remove other unreliable sources. Doing so makes for optimal encyclopedia content.
Will, if your idea of optimal encyclopedic content shifts depends on whether somebody is being mean to you or your friends, then your definition is based on your point of view. Ergo, your proposal violates NPOV.
If you want to keep NPOV, you could try plumping for the removal of links to all mean people. Or better, all people perceived as mean by someone.
That would have a bonus: there would be a lot fewer articles to try to keep up.
William
William Pietri wrote:
Will Beback wrote:
I can't speak for others, but that's not a fair summary of my position. I think that removing material is a standard part of editing. I think that the project has been improved by removing all kinds of material. I think that links to self-published sites actively harassing Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources and should be removed just as we remove other unreliable sources. Doing so makes for optimal encyclopedia content.
Will, if your idea of optimal encyclopedic content shifts depends on whether somebody is being mean to you or your friends, then your definition is based on your point of view. Ergo, your proposal violates NPOV.
If you want to keep NPOV, you could try plumping for the removal of links to all mean people. Or better, all people perceived as mean by someone.
That would have a bonus: there would be a lot fewer articles to try to keep up.
William
"Being mean" is OK, harassing is not. That's the case even if you're the person being harassed. If you're not clear on the distinction between criticism and harassment then maybe we should have a review.
No part of NPOV requires that we link to the self-published sites of folks who are trying to improperly affect Wikipedia editing. It does require that we include all significant viewpoints, but can you give an example of a significant point of view that is only sourceable to someone who is actively harassing Wikipedia editors?
W.
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
No part of NPOV requires that we link to the self-published sites of folks who are trying to improperly affect Wikipedia editing. It does require that we include all significant viewpoints, but can you give an example of a significant point of view that is only sourceable to someone who is actively harassing Wikipedia editors?
Oh, I don't know. That's really difficult. What sort of significant viewpoint in a biographic article is only sourceable to one person? Oh I don't know, maybe the subject of the biography? Wow, imagine that. Why, that's just the type of link that started this whole thing. (If this comes across as even more sarcastic than usual I apologize but this should be a really obvious answer).
Will Beback wrote:
"Being mean" is OK, harassing is not. That's the case even if you're the person being harassed. If you're not clear on the distinction between criticism and harassment then maybe we should have a review.
Yes, I understand the difference, thanks. My point in saying that was that I think some of what people are considering sufficient cause to remove links does not meet what a DA would consider criminal harassment. And other people might consider it a public service. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It depends on your point of view.
Regardless, you dodged the meat of my point entirely. You may go back and substitute "harassment" for "being mean" and I'll still stand by it.
No part of NPOV requires that we link to the self-published sites of folks who are trying to improperly affect Wikipedia editing.
Well gosh, if a policy didn't anticipate and rule out your particular new proposal, then your proposal must be fine. Sorry I got all confused.
It does require that we include all significant viewpoints, but can you give an example of a significant point of view that is only sourceable to someone who is actively harassing Wikipedia editors?
I can give significant points of view that are best sourced to people who have committed genocide, Will. That somehow seems much more important. To me, anyhow.
William
Moore is notable as a filmmaker. He is not notable as a blogger. His blog is not encyclopedic. We are only providing a link as a convenience, and a very minor convenience because it it the first link that comes up on Google. So we are saving our readers about .5 seconds out of their lives. We aren't preserving NPOV, we aren't taking a stand against censorship, we're merely saving some readers a tiny bit of time. I don't begrudge anyone even half a second. But if the tradeoff we're looking at is linking to harassment of Wikipedia editors versus the slightest inconvenience (hopefully temporary) of our readers, then I don't think we should have a question. For completenes inthe article we can say the guy has a blog (who doesn't), but unless the blog is notable I don't see the overriding need to promote "convenience" above "no personal attacks".
Will
And an article about a filmmaker who has a website should include that website, like an article about an historian, an author--if it's THEIR websited.
This is the web, geeze.
KP