-----Original Message----- From: Ron Ritzman [mailto:ritzman@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 07:14 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Out of process deletions
On 3/26/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
The message that started this thread quoted a message from the Barbara Bauer situation. It may look and sound malicious to the untrained eye and ear at first glance, but anyone who dives deeper into the material will find all of the sources are truthfull and reliable.
The deleting admin didn't think so. If my idea was in effect and the foundation didn't have the Bauer article in limbo, then you, if an admin, could have restored it and that would have been the end of the story as far as super fast ultra-speedy deletes are concerned. The "truthfullness" and "reliability" of the sources could then be argued on AFD if necessary. Also, I have a hard time imagining a situation where it is absolutely impossible to purge POV from the bio of an otherwise notable person without nuking the article.
The "offending" information remains in the history without extensive oversighting which would be grossly inappropriate in this case as the article history is the subject of a legal action.
Fred
The legal team doesn't seem to be worried as I thought they would react. There's nothing inappropriate about the article.
Mgm
On 3/26/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Ron Ritzman [mailto:ritzman@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 07:14 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Out of process deletions
On 3/26/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
The message that started this thread quoted a message from the Barbara
Bauer
situation. It may look and sound malicious to the untrained eye and ear
at
first glance, but anyone who dives deeper into the material will find
all of
the sources are truthfull and reliable.
The deleting admin didn't think so. If my idea was in effect and the foundation didn't have the Bauer article in limbo, then you, if an admin, could have restored it and that would have been the end of the story as far as super fast ultra-speedy deletes are concerned. The "truthfullness" and "reliability" of the sources could then be argued on AFD if necessary. Also, I have a hard time imagining a situation where it is absolutely impossible to purge POV from the bio of an otherwise notable person without nuking the article.
The "offending" information remains in the history without extensive oversighting which would be grossly inappropriate in this case as the article history is the subject of a legal action.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
The legal team doesn't seem to be worried as I thought they would react. There's nothing inappropriate about the article.
Mgm
Please don't make assumptions. The fact that the office has no opinion at this time about the article does not earn it a magic "Seal of Approval". It still must qualify based on English Wikipedia standards, and, from what I've seen, it fails those.
Cary Bass --- ~bastique
On 3/26/07, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
Please don't make assumptions. The fact that the office has no opinion at this time about the article does not earn it a magic "Seal of Approval". It still must qualify based on English Wikipedia standards, and, from what I've seen, it fails those.
I think, in fact, that the office (and thus WMF) has no opinion at this time means only that in the opinion of their legal counsel, no actions need to be taken to limit the Foundation's legal exposure.
My own personal take is that the only notable thing about this person is that they are listed among the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association's "20 worst agents".
IF a Wikipedia article is to exist on this person at all, it should certainly mention that ... distinction ... and I don't see anything wrong with quoting the SFWA on the matter - in fact, better to have it in their own words than ours.
On the other hand, is it enough for an article? Quite possibly not.
-Matt
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:13:53 -0700, "Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
IF a Wikipedia article is to exist on this person at all, it should certainly mention that ... distinction ... and I don't see anything wrong with quoting the SFWA on the matter - in fact, better to have it in their own words than ours. On the other hand, is it enough for an article? Quite possibly not.
Yes, exactly that. We should not be scared of reporting what the sources say, just because litigious individuals threaten us. What we should do is to make sure that everything in the article is attributed to the best source possible and stated in the most neutral terms.
If you go to court and say that so-and-so reported that the Foo Society called you a charlatan, then over here at least the fact that the Foo Foundation /did/ call you a charlatan is a valid defence - *for you*. Not, of course, for the Foo Foundation.
I await with interest the court's interpretation of the merits of the case. As far as I can see she and the credulous wannabes she fleeces almost deserve each other...
Guy (JzG)
On 3/26/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I await with interest the court's interpretation of the merits of the case.
Guy (JzG)
Is this the first case specifically targeting WP/WMF along these lines? Trying to hold us liable for reporting what OTHERS said? It could be a slam dunk precendent for us in a good way if the Judge dismisses, right? As in, we aren't responsible for reporting what others said?
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:19:13 -0700, "Denny Colt" wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
Is this the first case specifically targeting WP/WMF along these lines? Trying to hold us liable for reporting what OTHERS said? It could be a slam dunk precendent for us in a good way if the Judge dismisses, right? As in, we aren't responsible for reporting what others said?
It would probably be unnecessary. Previous precedent - Barrett v Rosenthal - says that you can republish even blatantly defamatory material, and with obvious ill intent, and still get away with it.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/26/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/26/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I await with interest the court's interpretation of the merits of the case.
Guy (JzG)
Is this the first case specifically targeting WP/WMF along these lines? Trying to hold us liable for reporting what OTHERS said? It could be a slam dunk precendent for us in a good way if the Judge dismisses, right? As in, we aren't responsible for reporting what others said?
--
- Denny
The judge won't need to dismiss the case. Either Bauer retracts it, or she goes through with it and Writer Beware puts together a defense that gets her convicted. They already helped authorities get Martha Ivery convicted. They have plenty of documentation on Barbara Bauer. It's in her best interest not to let this get to court.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 3/26/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/26/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I await with interest the court's interpretation of the merits of the case.
Is this the first case specifically targeting WP/WMF along these lines? Trying to hold us liable for reporting what OTHERS said? It could be a slam dunk precendent for us in a good way if the Judge dismisses, right? As in, we aren't responsible for reporting what others said?
The judge won't need to dismiss the case. Either Bauer retracts it, or she goes through with it and Writer Beware puts together a defense that gets her convicted. They already helped authorities get Martha Ivery convicted. They have plenty of documentation on Barbara Bauer. It's in her best interest not to let this get to court.
Probably so. The best result for us would be a written decision from the judge with a favorable analysis of the legal issues involved.
I do still wonder whether the SLAP suit provisions apply. The suit needs to be defended enough to avoid a default judgement, and extra effort is required for a Florida company to defend itself in New Jersey.
Ec
Oh pshaw.
Even ignoring the fact that en's inclusion policies on articles like this are a load of crap, it passes the most stringent proposed ones. It has multiple non-trivial mentions in reputable sources (SFWA and Making Light), the sources are all reputable (her website is a valid primary source for information on her). There's a reason it overwhelmingly survived an AfD last year.
There is no policy justification whatsoever for deleting this page.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
On Mar 26, 2007, at 12:05 PM, Cary Bass wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
The legal team doesn't seem to be worried as I thought they would react. There's nothing inappropriate about the article.
Mgm
Please don't make assumptions. The fact that the office has no opinion at this time about the article does not earn it a magic "Seal of Approval". It still must qualify based on English Wikipedia standards, and, from what I've seen, it fails those.
Cary Bass
~bastique
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/27/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Oh pshaw.
Even ignoring the fact that en's inclusion policies on articles like this are a load of crap, it passes the most stringent proposed ones. It has multiple non-trivial mentions in reputable sources (SFWA and Making Light), the sources are all reputable (her website is a valid primary source for information on her). There's a reason it overwhelmingly survived an AfD last year.
But is it NPOV?
That's the key concern with biographies of living persons. A BLP can be impeccably sourced, but if it only presents one side of the story...
In my experience doing OTRS work from time to time, a large proportion of problematic BLPs are (fairly) well sourced, but they are nevertheless not NPOV.
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 3/27/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Even ignoring the fact that en's inclusion policies on articles like this are a load of crap, it passes the most stringent proposed ones. It has multiple non-trivial mentions in reputable sources (SFWA and Making Light), the sources are all reputable (her website is a valid primary source for information on her). There's a reason it overwhelmingly survived an AfD last year.
But is it NPOV?
That's the key concern with biographies of living persons. A BLP can be impeccably sourced, but if it only presents one side of the story...
In my experience doing OTRS work from time to time, a large proportion of problematic BLPs are (fairly) well sourced, but they are nevertheless not NPOV.
I presume that the POV that you mean is one that is not too flattering to the subject. If the article really is so unbalanced that the subject complains, the first line of action could be to ask them what might be added to restore the balance.
Ec
On 3/27/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Oh pshaw.
Even ignoring the fact that en's inclusion policies on articles like this are a load of crap, it passes the most stringent proposed ones. It has multiple non-trivial mentions in reputable sources (SFWA and Making Light), the sources are all reputable (her website is a valid primary source for information on her). There's a reason it overwhelmingly survived an AfD last year.
But is it NPOV?
That's the key concern with biographies of living persons. A BLP can be impeccably sourced, but if it only presents one side of the story...
In my experience doing OTRS work from time to time, a large proportion of problematic BLPs are (fairly) well sourced, but they are nevertheless not NPOV.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
How would you suppose we NPOV the article on a scam artist?
Mgm
On 3/27/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
How would you suppose we NPOV the article on a scam artist?
Mgm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Browne
(she's been convicted even under UK law I should be safe)
On 3/26/07, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
The legal team doesn't seem to be worried as I thought they would react. There's nothing inappropriate about the article.
Mgm
Please don't make assumptions. The fact that the office has no opinion at this time about the article does not earn it a magic "Seal of Approval". It still must qualify based on English Wikipedia standards, and, from what I've seen, it fails those.
Cary Bass
~bastique
My bad I wasn't implying a connection. They were supposed to be two unrelated observations.
On 3/26/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Also, I have a hard time imagining a situation where it is absolutely impossible to purge POV from the bio of an otherwise notable person without nuking the article.
The "offending" information remains in the history without extensive oversighting which > would be grossly inappropriate in this case as the article history is the subject of a legal > action.
Using this logic, every bio with potentially inflammatory information would have to be deleted and written from scratch instead of just removing the bad info. If absolutely necessary, problem content can be removed from an article's history as is sometimes done with copyvios. In any case Bauer deletion did not end up causing a wheel war as the Brandt deletion had done which is good.
In the case of [[Danial Brandt]], one admin deleted it out of process under his own interpretation of IAR. He thought that by doing so he would make WP a better encyclopedia by getting rid of a thorn in its side. A lot of others agreed with him judging by all the barnstars and pictures of big brass balls on his talk page. However, others didn't and another admin restored the article. That should have been the end of the story as far as speedy deletes were concerned but instead it was deleted/restored/deleted/restored "lather rinse repeat". In the end, the article remained and Jimbo ended up whacking everybody involved, nothing was accomplished. It would have been better if it were "one delete", "one restore", "we talk about it on AFD". The result would have probably been the same but without the wheel war and without anybody being desysoped.
That's all I'm suggesting. Super speedy delete the article, bio or otherwise, if you feel you have a good reason but if another admin disagrees, then it should stay and go to AFD. If a non admin disagrees, then there's deletion review.