My understanding of what Wikipedia does at the core has always been pretty simple: We take factual material elsewhere and summarize it neutrally and clearly. I feel like the service we provide to readers is pretty simple: instead of making them dig through all the stuff out there on some topic just to get an overview, we do the first pass at that for them.
But lately I hear a different thing. Now that we've become so prominent, I hear people saying that we should be using Wikipedia as a moral instrument.
If we don't like how sites treat our editors, we should disappear them. If we don't like that the media reports certain things, we should prune that information. It doesn't matter if it was in multiple reliable sources: if we don't trust our readers with the facts, we should cut them out.
What worries me about this isn't so much the current uses, although they bother me a little. Instead, I worry about two things:
1. Once we cross the line away from "just the NPOV facts, ma'am" to Wikipedia-as-moral-tool, will it really be limited to these two things? Won't people find more ways to improve the world by restricting what we print? 2. Don't we risk eternal contention? It seems like getting people to agree on the facts is hard enough. Can we ever come up with a shared morality?
That's not to say that we shouldn't suppress facts for moral purposes. There are good arguments for it. I'm just wondering what the long-term cost is.
William
Marc Riddell stated for the record:
on 6/5/07 9:19 AM, William Pietri at william@scissor.com wrote:
That's not to say that we shouldn't suppress facts for moral purposes. There are good arguments for it.
This is where you lost me, William. What do you mean?
Marc Riddell
I would assume that he is referring to how we handle BLP-style facts. Consider the home address and school attended by, say twelve-year-old TV actors [[Sullivan and Sawyer Sweeten]]. We have collectively agreed that those facts should be suppressed, even if we could reliably verify them.
On 6/5/07, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Marc Riddell stated for the record:
on 6/5/07 9:19 AM, William Pietri at william@scissor.com wrote:
That's not to say that we shouldn't suppress facts for moral purposes. There are good arguments for it.
This is where you lost me, William. What do you mean?
Marc Riddell
I would assume that he is referring to how we handle BLP-style facts. Consider the home address and school attended by, say twelve-year-old TV actors [[Sullivan and Sawyer Sweeten]]. We have collectively agreed that those facts should be suppressed, even if we could reliably verify them.
-- Sean Barrett | She got her good looks from her father. sean@epoptic.com | He's a plastic surgeon. --Groucho Marx
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I believe he's mixing up "using wikipedia AS a moral tool" and "creating wikipedia witha sense of ethics", first one is about how you use wikipedia, second not.
However, depending on where's your seat, you'll get a different kind of noise, and thus will get a diferent idea of what's wikipedia and what are people talking about
Sean Barrett wrote:
I would assume that he is referring to how we handle BLP-style facts. Consider the home address and school attended by, say twelve-year-old TV actors [[Sullivan and Sawyer Sweeten]]. We have collectively agreed that those facts should be suppressed, even if we could reliably verify them.
But we don't even need to touch on morality as a reason for doing that. It's simpler to realize that it would be silly to include a home address in _any_ biographical article, living, dead, or undead. It's just not something that encyclopedias do, generally speaking, unless there's some very specific reason or the address in question is itself famous (the various head-of-state residences, for example).
We also don't generally include people's eye color in their articles either, since unless they're famous for it in some way there's really no point to such detail.
Bryan Derksen stated for the record:
Sean Barrett wrote:
I would assume that he is referring to how we handle BLP-style facts. Consider the home address and school attended by, say twelve-year-old TV actors [[Sullivan and Sawyer Sweeten]]. We have collectively agreed that those facts should be suppressed, even if we could reliably verify them.
But we don't even need to touch on morality as a reason for doing that. It's simpler to realize that it would be silly to include a home address in _any_ biographical article, living, dead, or undead. It's just not something that encyclopedias do, generally speaking, unless there's some very specific reason or the address in question is itself famous (the various head-of-state residences, for example).
We also don't generally include people's eye color in their articles either, since unless they're famous for it in some way there's really no point to such detail.
Conceded. So take "home address" out of my example. Schools attended are often included in biographies.
Sean Barrett wrote:
Marc Riddell stated for the record:
on 6/5/07 9:19 AM, William Pietri at william@scissor.com wrote:
That's not to say that we shouldn't suppress facts for moral purposes. There are good arguments for it.
This is where you lost me, William. What do you mean?
Marc Riddell
I would assume that he is referring to how we handle BLP-style facts. Consider the home address and school attended by, say twelve-year-old TV actors [[Sullivan and Sawyer Sweeten]]. We have collectively agreed that those facts should be suppressed, even if we could reliably verify them.
I think that William used bad phrasing to put these things under the morality umbrella. I agree with the spirit that there may be things which are best left unsaid, but the attention that this phrase has gotten detracts from the principal message.
Our primary intention remains to be inclusive. Exceptions to that need to be clear and unequivocal.
Ec
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 6/5/07 9:19 AM, William Pietri at william@scissor.com wrote:
That's not to say that we shouldn't suppress facts for moral purposes. There are good arguments for it.
This is where you lost me, William. What do you mean?
Sorry. I was trying to avoid pointing too directly at the incidents that triggered my thinking, as I didn't just want to dredge them up for yet another round. I was thinking of the BADSITES foofaraw and some recent BLP excitements, including Little Fatty and Bus Uncle. But I've seen it elsewhere. I wasn't thinking of things like home addresses; I think that's directory fodder, not encyclopedic material.
I'm not saying I agree with the people who are saying we should suppress published newsworthy facts, like the names of the Bus Uncle characters, or the bio we have on Daniel Brandt. I'm not saying I disagree, either, as they have some excellent points.
I'm just saying that making the moral choices on behalf of our readers rather than leaving it up to them makes me nervous, both because I'm not sure where it will end and because I fear it will be the source of unending disagreement.
Is that helpful?
Thanks,
William
William Pietri wrote:
I'm just saying that making the moral choices on behalf of our readers rather than leaving it up to them makes me nervous, both because I'm not sure where it will end and because I fear it will be the source of unending disagreement.
I agree that making moral choices is not our business, and I'll go further and say that a good chunk of our reputation derives from readers realizing that we work hard to stick to the facts of any situation. But every day that WP's visibility increases, there's going to that much more pressure from outside forces who see NPOV as tantamount to promotion of immorality. Our best defense is to be perceived as zealously neutral and capable of taking on all opponents, an Internet version of a Switzerland armed to the teeth against POV-pushers.
Stan
On 6/5/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
William Pietri wrote:
I'm just saying that making the moral choices on behalf of our readers rather than leaving it up to them makes me nervous, both because I'm not sure where it will end and because I fear it will be the source of unending disagreement.
I agree that making moral choices is not our business, and I'll go further and say that a good chunk of our reputation derives from readers realizing that we work hard to stick to the facts of any situation. But every day that WP's visibility increases, there's going to that much more pressure from outside forces who see NPOV as tantamount to promotion of immorality. Our best defense is to be perceived as zealously neutral and capable of taking on all opponents, an Internet version of a Switzerland armed to the teeth against POV-pushers.
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Moral and ethics are not the same thing.
Stan Shebs wrote:
William Pietri wrote:
I'm just saying that making the moral choices on behalf of our readers rather than leaving it up to them makes me nervous, both because I'm not sure where it will end and because I fear it will be the source of unending disagreement.
I agree that making moral choices is not our business, and I'll go further and say that a good chunk of our reputation derives from readers realizing that we work hard to stick to the facts of any situation. But every day that WP's visibility increases, there's going to that much more pressure from outside forces who see NPOV as tantamount to promotion of immorality. Our best defense is to be perceived as zealously neutral and capable of taking on all opponents, an Internet version of a Switzerland armed to the teeth against POV-pushers.
I can go along with that. The public often fails to distinguish between immorality and amorality. I don't know if being zealous need be a part of it, but a willingness to scrupulously question our own individual POVs is important.
Ec
on 6/5/07 2:16 PM, William Pietri at william@scissor.com wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 6/5/07 9:19 AM, William Pietri at william@scissor.com wrote:
That's not to say that we shouldn't suppress facts for moral purposes. There are good arguments for it.
This is where you lost me, William. What do you mean?
Sorry. I was trying to avoid pointing too directly at the incidents that triggered my thinking, as I didn't just want to dredge them up for yet another round. I was thinking of the BADSITES foofaraw and some recent BLP excitements, including Little Fatty and Bus Uncle. But I've seen it elsewhere. I wasn't thinking of things like home addresses; I think that's directory fodder, not encyclopedic material.
I'm not saying I agree with the people who are saying we should suppress published newsworthy facts, like the names of the Bus Uncle characters, or the bio we have on Daniel Brandt. I'm not saying I disagree, either, as they have some excellent points.
I'm just saying that making the moral choices on behalf of our readers rather than leaving it up to them makes me nervous, both because I'm not sure where it will end and because I fear it will be the source of unending disagreement.
Is that helpful?
Yes it is, thank you, William. Actually, I was focused on the use of the phrase "moral choices". I, personally, would use the phrase "ethical choices"; I believe it carries with it a lot less incendiary baggage.
Marc
On 6/5/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 6/5/07 2:16 PM, William Pietri at william@scissor.com wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 6/5/07 9:19 AM, William Pietri at william@scissor.com wrote:
That's not to say that we shouldn't suppress facts for moral purposes. There are good arguments for it.
This is where you lost me, William. What do you mean?
Sorry. I was trying to avoid pointing too directly at the incidents that triggered my thinking, as I didn't just want to dredge them up for yet another round. I was thinking of the BADSITES foofaraw and some recent BLP excitements, including Little Fatty and Bus Uncle. But I've seen it elsewhere. I wasn't thinking of things like home addresses; I think that's directory fodder, not encyclopedic material.
I'm not saying I agree with the people who are saying we should suppress published newsworthy facts, like the names of the Bus Uncle characters, or the bio we have on Daniel Brandt. I'm not saying I disagree, either, as they have some excellent points.
I'm just saying that making the moral choices on behalf of our readers rather than leaving it up to them makes me nervous, both because I'm not sure where it will end and because I fear it will be the source of unending disagreement.
Is that helpful?
Yes it is, thank you, William. Actually, I was focused on the use of the phrase "moral choices". I, personally, would use the phrase "ethical choices"; I believe it carries with it a lot less incendiary baggage.
Marc
Not for me. What moral choices are we making? KP
William Pietri wrote:
My understanding of what Wikipedia does at the core has always been pretty simple: We take factual material elsewhere and summarize it neutrally and clearly. I feel like the service we provide to readers is pretty simple: instead of making them dig through all the stuff out there on some topic just to get an overview, we do the first pass at that for them.
But lately I hear a different thing. Now that we've become so prominent, I hear people saying that we should be using Wikipedia as a moral instrument.
It only begs the question : Whose morality?
Ironically I think that Jimbo's pronouncement that we should put more emphasis on quality has contributed to the problem. The desire to improve quality has always been theser among those who are committed to the wiki philosophy. When a major pronouncement is made to promote quality it can encourage too many of Mrs. Worthington's daughters to go on the stage. We end up with too many people who believe that they know what quality is.
Ec