Doc Glasgow came up with this, and I said I'd post it here for feedback...
Basically, we have an issue with the biographies of living people where - by the simple act of repeating published and verifiable information - we can give a vastly misleading impression about them; we report their drunk-driving conviction at 19 in the same tone and length as we report their Nobel prize. Oh, it's verifiable and true... but should we be publishing it? Editorial common sense says, perhaps, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
Anyway, a thought experiment. I would be very interested to know where people think we a) should be drawing the line; and b) *are currently* drawing the line...
----
Let's take Professor John P. Smith, the ninth-most leading Australian contributor to the field of marine bioscience. He's written a few books, say, and he's notable (if barely) for it and his impact on the field.
1) Now, he gets divorced in messy circumstances - his wife accuses him of sleeping with her sister or something. it is all there is the on-line court reports. Do we include it? No - and perhaps court reports should not count for BLP sourcing - if it isn't in the mainstream media ignore it.
2) OK, now, although Dr Smith isn't that notable to a world-wide encyclopedia, he is fairly notable in Smalltown NSW, where he once served as an alderman. So the Smalltown Gazette runs the divorce story. Now, do we include it? If we do, we are responsible for taking a local story to global level - we are essentially promoting it. Usually, if Dr Smith moves to NZ, people will only know of his shining academic career - not his divorce. But if it makes Wikipedia - it will follow him about. Perhaps we should exclude information based only on local press from BLP sourcing.
3) OK, now supposing the Sydney Herald is running a story on 'sex and stress in academia', and they use the story for the Smalltown Gazette to illustrate it? Do we allow it now? It is still the same crappy story.
4) And what if the Sydney Herald get the story wrong, and claim he DID sleep with HIS sister - and he sues them. Do we report the libel case in his biography?
How do we write policies that deal with this?
(Disclaimer: Real people were not harmed in the making of this case study. Any resemblance to actual events or persons (or their sisters) living or dead is purely coincidental)
Doc
----
Thoughts appreciated.
He's notable for his academic work. His personal life should be briefly mentioned if at all. "He divorced his wife in a messy court battle" (or however you say that neutrally). The details are not important to an article about him.
Mgm
On 3/28/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Doc Glasgow came up with this, and I said I'd post it here for feedback...
Basically, we have an issue with the biographies of living people where - by the simple act of repeating published and verifiable information - we can give a vastly misleading impression about them; we report their drunk-driving conviction at 19 in the same tone and length as we report their Nobel prize. Oh, it's verifiable and true... but should we be publishing it? Editorial common sense says, perhaps, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
Anyway, a thought experiment. I would be very interested to know where people think we a) should be drawing the line; and b) *are currently* drawing the line...
Let's take Professor John P. Smith, the ninth-most leading Australian contributor to the field of marine bioscience. He's written a few books, say, and he's notable (if barely) for it and his impact on the field.
- Now, he gets divorced in messy circumstances - his wife accuses him
of sleeping with her sister or something. it is all there is the on-line court reports. Do we include it? No - and perhaps court reports should not count for BLP sourcing - if it isn't in the mainstream media ignore it.
- OK, now, although Dr Smith isn't that notable to a world-wide
encyclopedia, he is fairly notable in Smalltown NSW, where he once served as an alderman. So the Smalltown Gazette runs the divorce story. Now, do we include it? If we do, we are responsible for taking a local story to global level - we are essentially promoting it. Usually, if Dr Smith moves to NZ, people will only know of his shining academic career - not his divorce. But if it makes Wikipedia - it will follow him about. Perhaps we should exclude information based only on local press from BLP sourcing.
- OK, now supposing the Sydney Herald is running a story on 'sex and
stress in academia', and they use the story for the Smalltown Gazette to illustrate it? Do we allow it now? It is still the same crappy story.
- And what if the Sydney Herald get the story wrong, and claim he DID
sleep with HIS sister - and he sues them. Do we report the libel case in his biography?
How do we write policies that deal with this?
(Disclaimer: Real people were not harmed in the making of this case study. Any resemblance to actual events or persons (or their sisters) living or dead is purely coincidental)
Doc
Thoughts appreciated.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
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 28/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
He's notable for his academic work. His personal life should be briefly mentioned if at all. "He divorced his wife in a messy court battle" (or however you say that neutrally). The details are not important to an article about him.
If it's something a reader would reasonably expect to be mentioned in an article, because it was a famous incident (even if it's rubbish), then it'll need to be mentioned in the article, because otherwise it'll be readded and readded and readded.
- d.
On 3/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
He's notable for his academic work. His personal life should be briefly mentioned if at all. "He divorced his wife in a messy court battle" (or however you say that neutrally). The details are not important to an article about him.
If it's something a reader would reasonably expect to be mentioned in an article, because it was a famous incident (even if it's rubbish), then it'll need to be mentioned in the article, because otherwise it'll be readded and readded and readded.
...and that's the substance of NPOV: addressing all significant views on a subject in accordance with their prevalence. Not a significant view? Don't include it. Significant, but not prevalent? Don't give it much space.
If a view has been published only in a small town newspaper, which caters for a local audience, then it's probably not significant, and as such, shouldn't be included. Also remember that when you have only one source on a subject, no matter where it was published, you're going to struggle to fairly address all significant views on the subject by relying on it alone.
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 3/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
He's notable for his academic work. His personal life should be briefly mentioned if at all. "He divorced his wife in a messy court battle" (or however you say that neutrally). The details are not important to an article about him.
If it's something a reader would reasonably expect to be mentioned in an article, because it was a famous incident (even if it's rubbish), then it'll need to be mentioned in the article, because otherwise it'll be readded and readded and readded.
...and that's the substance of NPOV: addressing all significant views on a subject in accordance with their prevalence. Not a significant view? Don't include it. Significant, but not prevalent? Don't give it much space.
Significant and prevalent are still subjective concepts. Nevertheless, to the extent that these views are allowable it needn't be all on one person's shoulders to include them all. While it is a great ideal to write from the other person's perspective, this is still best done by a person with that perspective.
If a view has been published only in a small town newspaper, which caters for a local audience, then it's probably not significant, and as such, shouldn't be included.
That's just another level of the arguments about whether to have articles on small towns themselve, their schools or other institutions. In time they are all includible. What makes a small town newspaper any less reliable than one from a big city?
Also remember that when you have only one source on a subject, no matter where it was published, you're going to struggle to fairly address all significant views on the subject by relying on it alone.
You're assuming that differing views exist. You may have only one source, but someone else may have another. If there truly is only one source there is no struggle, and any attempt to describe these views would be original research.
Ec
On 28/03/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
- OK, now, although Dr Smith isn't that notable to a world-wide
encyclopedia, he is fairly notable in Smalltown NSW, where he once served as an alderman. So the Smalltown Gazette runs the divorce story. Now, do we include it? If we do, we are responsible for taking a local story to global level - we are essentially promoting it. Usually, if Dr Smith moves to NZ, people will only know of his shining academic career - not his divorce. But if it makes Wikipedia - it will follow him about. Perhaps we should exclude information based only on local press from BLP sourcing.
I agree with Mgm on this one.
Presumably the Wikipedian who adds this information accesses Smalltown Gazette online. Having put the article online, Smalltown Gazette has made the information available to anyone who cares to look for it. It has already been taken "to [a] global level".
On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Presumably the Wikipedian who adds this information accesses Smalltown Gazette online. Having put the article online, Smalltown Gazette has made the information available to anyone who cares to look for it. It has already been taken "to [a] global level".
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
By the same token I often read articles on foreign (US native here) politicians. Why? Just interested. I don't know a cabinet member from Licthenstein or whatever from a PM from Japan, but I enjoy reading the articles. I find negative stuff sometimes. Sourced to "local" newspapers. But what as said is local anymore? Even my tiny hometown (3000 odd people) has their weekly paper online, including the occasional negative bits. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, since it's already there. If they are "out of the way" people from a town of 3,000 named Farmville, California, and someone googles:
Bob Jones pastor Farmville rape
...looking for, say a rape allegation... it's already there WITHOUT us. It's on farmvillecaweeklynews.com. For what its worth.
on 3/28/07 10:27 AM, Andrew Gray at shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Basically, we have an issue with the biographies of living people where - by the simple act of repeating published and verifiable information - we can give a vastly misleading impression about them; we report their drunk-driving conviction at 19 in the same tone and length as we report their Nobel prize. Oh, it's verifiable and true... but should we be publishing it? Editorial common sense says, perhaps, no.
My own thinking begins with why is the person being included in the encyclopedia in the first place? Was it because of their work in a particular field? - Contributions to the world at large? - Notorious acts of criminal behavior? What? Let the substance of the Article be guided by these criteria.
And, if other publications wish to publish personal information, so be it; that is their purpose for being - let WP stay with it's own.
Another thought: After this person dies would it then be fair game to add all of the personal stuff? And, would it now be OK to do so? And if so, why so?
Marc Riddell
No. Dead people should be treated with equal respect to living ones.
On 3/28/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/28/07 10:27 AM, Andrew Gray at shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Basically, we have an issue with the biographies of living people where - by the simple act of repeating published and verifiable information - we can give a vastly misleading impression about them; we report their drunk-driving conviction at 19 in the same tone and length as we report their Nobel prize. Oh, it's verifiable and true... but should we be publishing it? Editorial common sense says, perhaps, no.
My own thinking begins with why is the person being included in the encyclopedia in the first place? Was it because of their work in a particular field? - Contributions to the world at large? - Notorious acts of criminal behavior? What? Let the substance of the Article be guided by these criteria.
And, if other publications wish to publish personal information, so be it; that is their purpose for being - let WP stay with it's own.
Another thought: After this person dies would it then be fair game to add all of the personal stuff? And, would it now be OK to do so? And if so, why so?
Marc Riddell
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 Mar 28, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Marc Riddell wrote:
No. Dead people should be treated with equal respect to living ones.
I agree. And the key word, I believe, that should guide any Article on any person - living or dead - is RESPECT.
The problem, Marc, is how do you enforce respect? We have seen it again and again and more so as Wikipedia becomes such a prominent web destination. It is soooo tempting to the anon visitor, seeing the article about this "Professor John P. Smith", which the anon knows, to add these "tidbits" of information from the local weekly, just for fun.
It is only when the shit hits the fan that we act and promptly remove that information.
I have seen these discussions too many times: "The Washinton Post has run a story in 1978 in which person X, that is a detractor of Y, says of Y 'he is a [expletive] abuser, and he poured chemicals on Z', so we should mention detractor's opinion in the article about Y because it has been published in a reliable source". Of course, that story has only appeared once, no scholars studying Y or other mainstream press has picked up and reprodduced X's viewpoints of Y, but nonetheless, editors push for its inclusion in a BLP on the basis of the argument "it has been published in a reliable source".
IMO, WP:BLP needs more teeth than it has now. Maybe a more stringent application of NOR and V is now due.
-- Jossi
on 3/28/07 1:30 PM, Jossi Fresco at jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
The problem, Marc, is how do you enforce respect? We have seen it again and again and more so as Wikipedia becomes such a prominent web destination. It is soooo tempting to the anon visitor, seeing the article about this "Professor John P. Smith", which the anon knows, to add these "tidbits" of information from the local weekly, just for fun.
It is only when the shit hits the fan that we act and promptly remove that information.
Jossi,
I do hear you, and I know you are presenting to the real world here. I also believe an honest, objective person can tell disrespectful bullshit when they see it. But couldn't those edits, which clearly reek of such disrespect, be treated as vandalism - and immediately deleted as such?
As a Community we don't tolerate personal attacks upon each other on either the Talk Pages or this List, and the perpetrator is dealt with accordingly. Equally, shouldn't any gratuitous, clearly disrespectful crap written into a person's Article be regarded and dealt with in the same way?
Respect for another person must be an ethic in WP - it must be built into the very culture. If a person needs to be taught how to respect someone, I believe they need to go learn it outside of the Community - and come back only when they are willing to practice such respect.
Marc
On Mar 28, 2007, at 11:07 AM, Marc Riddell wrote:
Respect for another person must be an ethic in WP - it must be built into the very culture. If a person needs to be taught how to respect someone, I believe they need to go learn it outside of the Community - and come back only when they are willing to practice such respect.
I completely agree. But it will take a lot of educating to make our editors as conscious about PA's on BLPs than on fellow editors...
-- Jossi
On 3/28/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
On Mar 28, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Marc Riddell wrote:
No. Dead people should be treated with equal respect to living ones.
I agree. And the key word, I believe, that should guide any Article on any person - living or dead - is RESPECT.
The problem, Marc, is how do you enforce respect? We have seen it again and again and more so as Wikipedia becomes such a prominent web destination. It is soooo tempting to the anon visitor, seeing the article about this "Professor John P. Smith", which the anon knows, to add these "tidbits" of information from the local weekly, just for fun.
It is only when the shit hits the fan that we act and promptly remove that information.
I have seen these discussions too many times: "The Washinton Post has run a story in 1978 in which person X, that is a detractor of Y, says of Y 'he is a [expletive] abuser, and he poured chemicals on Z', so we should mention detractor's opinion in the article about Y because it has been published in a reliable source". Of course, that story has only appeared once, no scholars studying Y or other mainstream press has picked up and reprodduced X's viewpoints of Y, but nonetheless, editors push for its inclusion in a BLP on the basis of the argument "it has been published in a reliable source".
IMO, WP:BLP needs more teeth than it has now. Maybe a more stringent application of NOR and V is now due.
-- Jossi
The key issue here is the reliability of the detractor. Most detractors are strongly POV, so unless it's a majority opinion shared by more people, it shouldn't be included, even if it's published by a newspaper.
On Mar 28, 2007, at 11:57 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
The key issue here is the reliability of the detractor. Most detractors are strongly POV, so unless it's a majority opinion shared by more people, it shouldn't be included, even if it's published by a newspaper.
Additional wording to that effect at [[WP:BLP]] could be helpful.
-- Jossi
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 3/28/07 1:03 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm at macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
No. Dead people should be treated with equal respect to living ones.
I agree. And the key word, I believe, that should guide any Article on any person - living or dead - is RESPECT.
Exactly. That's much better than basing a distinction on the simple fact that the dead can't sue.
Ec
On 29/03/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 3/28/07 1:03 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm at macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
No. Dead people should be treated with equal respect to living ones.
I agree. And the key word, I believe, that should guide any Article on any person - living or dead - is RESPECT.
Exactly. That's much better than basing a distinction on the simple fact that the dead can't sue.
Ec
Respect is too vague and variable a notion for a multicultural venture like Wikipedia to base policy on. Particular customs in the UK in medicine and funeral care which are considered respectful to the dead probably aren't considered respectful in some cultures, religions and traditions.
The closest we can do is to act in the spirit of respect.
on 3/29/07 2:58 PM, Oldak Quill at oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Respect is too vague and variable a notion for a multicultural venture like Wikipedia to base policy on. Particular customs in the UK in medicine and funeral care which are considered respectful to the dead probably aren't considered respectful in some cultures, religions and traditions.
The closest we can do is to act in the spirit of respect.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by the "spirit" of respect, but I think I'll take it ;-)
Respect is an attitude reflected, in part, by our behavior toward another being. This respect should not be determined by which society or culture this being happened to be born into.
Respect is something which cannot be legislated or regulated; it is part civility and part empathy - the ability to respect another being should be built in to us all.
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
Respect is something which cannot be legislated or regulated; it is part civility and part empathy - the ability to respect another being should be built in to us all.
"Should be", yeah. Interesting to ponder how it is that we have thousands of editors who seem to lack a great many human qualities. My cynical theory is that an encyclopedia that *anyone* can edit is going to attract a disproportionate number who would never be accepted into, or have been ejected from other kinds of collaborative projects; and because one of our fundamental principles is to assume good faith, we are slow to get rid of those that are simply not ever going to be a net positive.
Stan
Marc Riddell wrote:
Respect is something which cannot be legislated or regulated; it is part civility and part empathy - the ability to respect another being should be built in to us all.
on 3/29/07 6:09 PM, Stan Shebs at stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
"Should be", yeah. Interesting to ponder how it is that we have thousands of editors who seem to lack a great many human qualities. My cynical theory is that an encyclopedia that *anyone* can edit is going to attract a disproportionate number who would never be accepted into, or have been ejected from other kinds of collaborative projects; and because one of our fundamental principles is to assume good faith, we are slow to get rid of those that are simply not ever going to be a net positive.
Stan
We are, once again, in the area of the Wikipedia culture.
And, once again, we are asking the question: What is Wikipedia? Is it a free-for-all romp, or a serious attempt to collect and report facts that truly advance our knowledge and understanding of, and appreciation and respect for, the subject? For the sake of this argument, let's assume the latter.
Assuming good faith is a noble quality (and I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically). And, when WP was young and had a much smaller group of editors, with very similar beliefs and set of ethics, this worked. However, today this is, apparently, not the case. This then requires a greater control of the behaviors of these editors a control that may have been unthinkable in the beginning. Today WP is full of guidelines regulating the behavior of its editors. And these guidelines evolved out of necessity as both the Community and the Project grew.
We cannot regulate a person¹s values or beliefs - nor should we try. But we can and should regulate that person¹s behaviors when it affects the Community as a whole.
Adding gratuitous, disrespectful text to a person¹s Article is a behavior and is especially cheap and destructive when that person is no longer alive to refute it. And it needs to be made an intrinsic part of the WP culture that adding such crap to an Article is unacceptable. This junk should be deleted every time it is encountered. And, perhaps over time, those who insist on adding it will give up and move on to a culture where this behavior is acceptable.
How do we know which behaviors are disrespectful? As Justice Potter Stewart said of pornography: ³I know it when I see it.²
Marc Riddell
Stan Shebs wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
Respect is something which cannot be legislated or regulated; it is part civility and part empathy - the ability to respect another being should be built in to us all.
"Should be", yeah. Interesting to ponder how it is that we have thousands of editors who seem to lack a great many human qualities. My cynical theory is that an encyclopedia that *anyone* can edit is going to attract a disproportionate number who would never be accepted into, or have been ejected from other kinds of collaborative projects; and because one of our fundamental principles is to assume good faith, we are slow to get rid of those that are simply not ever going to be a net positive.
Yeah. It's much easier to solve the problems through more onerous rules that make editing equally difficult for good editors.
Ec
The reason living people should be treated with care and respect is because things that are published about them can have real-life implications for them. A corpse is unlikely (for example) to have a job offer rescinded because some H.R. person googled their name and found something negative about them in a Wikipedia bio.
Jay.
On 3/28/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
No. Dead people should be treated with equal respect to living ones.
On 3/28/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/28/07 10:27 AM, Andrew Gray at shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Basically, we have an issue with the biographies of living people where - by the simple act of repeating published and verifiable information - we can give a vastly misleading impression about them; we report their drunk-driving conviction at 19 in the same tone and length as we report their Nobel prize. Oh, it's verifiable and true... but should we be publishing it? Editorial common sense says, perhaps, no.
My own thinking begins with why is the person being included in the encyclopedia in the first place? Was it because of their work in a particular field? - Contributions to the world at large? - Notorious acts of criminal behavior? What? Let the substance of the Article be guided by these criteria.
And, if other publications wish to publish personal information, so be it; that is their purpose for being - let WP stay with it's own.
Another thought: After this person dies would it then be fair game to add all of the personal stuff? And, would it now be OK to do so? And if so, why so?
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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 3/28/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Another thought: After this person dies would it then be fair game to add all of the personal stuff? And, would it now be OK to do so? And if so, why so?
I've been thinking about the same thing myself. Should BLP guidelines apply to the "recently deceased"? They are the most likely to have plenty of living relatives to get pissed at you and a lawsuit from someone's estate is just as bad as one from the someone.
On 29/03/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Another thought: After this person dies would it then be fair game to add all of the personal stuff? And, would it now be OK to do so? And if so, why so?
I've been thinking about the same thing myself. Should BLP guidelines apply to the "recently deceased"? They are the most likely to have plenty of living relatives to get pissed at you and a lawsuit from someone's estate is just as bad as one from the someone.
You can't libel the dead, however pissed the estate is. (c.f. [[Bare-faced Messiah]].)
The issue is having a good encyclopedia article. In fact, the recently dead tend to have very good articles ... because the obituaries are great sources.
- d.
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:27:42 +0100, "Andrew Gray" shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
How do we write policies that deal with this?
This question is semantically equal to "how do we legislate Clue". The answer is, we can't. Tell you what, though - if we restricted biographical article to those subjects of whom at least one reputably published biography exists, we'd not have this problem, because the published biography would indicate the weight to be given.
Sadly that would mean deleting most of the articles on living individuals...
Guy (JzG)
On 3/29/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
- Now, he gets divorced in messy circumstances - his wife accuses him
of sleeping with her sister or something. it is all there is the on-line court reports. Do we include it? No - and perhaps court reports should not count for BLP sourcing - if it isn't in the mainstream media ignore it.
A related sourcing question: Normally, we state whether someone is married or not, and who to. In this case, we would say he was divorced. We would like to reference that statement. What do we cite? If we site the small town newspaper, are we any better off? What if we cite the court proceedings? Eep.
Steve
On 29/03/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/29/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
- Now, he gets divorced in messy circumstances - his wife accuses him
of sleeping with her sister or something. it is all there is the on-line court reports. Do we include it? No - and perhaps court reports should not count for BLP sourcing - if it isn't in the mainstream media ignore it.
A related sourcing question: Normally, we state whether someone is married or not, and who to. In this case, we would say he was divorced. We would like to reference that statement. What do we cite? If we site the small town newspaper, are we any better off? What if we cite the court proceedings? Eep.
We hope we can find a recent biographical sketch from his university which calls him divorced :-)
I touched on this earlier wrt citing the subjects of biographies to support their article; a very common case is "you have me married to so-and-so, we divorced 1994", because old sources don't get updated (and mildly-public figures tend to have low-profile divorces)