Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Sheldon Rampton wrote:
(2) A presumption against publishing articles on people who have been victims of stalking, in cases where publication of an article on Wikipedia might subject them to additional harassment.
For a while I've thought something like "Wikipedia is not the creator of news" should apply. (Probably badly worded; reword as you wish). If creating a Wikipedia article itself helps to spread or advance something described in the article, we shouldn't have it. (This only applies when that article specifically, not just Wikipedia in general, advances a cause. We wouldn't delete the article for Internet or the one for Wikipedia itself.)
What Ken is describing sounds more like a reiteration of Wikipedia's existing "no original research policy" than something specifically addressing stalking or cyberstalking. I think stalking happens frequently enough that it deserves to be treated seriously in its own right rather than subsumed under some other concept. In the case of Allison Stokke, the young woman whose experience was the spark of this thread, Wikipedia's article about her didn't *create* any news. Her situation has been reported in the Washington Post and elsewhere. Ken's policy therefore would not be particularly helpful in this case.
It's not 100% certain to me, by the way, that the Wikipedia article on Stokke would need to be deleted even under an anti-stalking policy. The versions of the Wikipedia article that I've seen have have not sensationalized or dwelt on the blogosphere's sexualized treatment of Stokke that is the cause of her distress. In fact, it's possible that Stokke herself might be fine with Wikipedia having an article about her, even if (and perhaps especially if) it mentions the harassment and her objections to it. She doesn't seem to object to ALL mentions of her. She just wants the heavy-breathing stuff to stop. The Washington Post article on her situation states that she has sought media consultant advice to help "get this all under control," and it's clear from reading the article that Stokke and her father were both interviewed by the Post's reporter. It seems likely that they cooperated with the reporter because they hoped that the Post's story would help put out the word that she objects to the way bloggers are using her image. An appropriately-written Wikipedia article might serve the same purpose and therefore might be something that she would welcome.
To determine whether this is the case, of course, someone would need to contact Stokke or her family on behalf of Wikipedia and inquire directly about their wishes, and this sort of inquiry cannot be done by the entire collective. (The last thing she needs is a mob of Wikipedians calling.) Someone would therefore have to serve as a designated agent of Wikipedia in making the inquiry, and I don't think Wikipedia has a structure in place to accomplish this.
The question of how Wikipedia should handle this particular situation is less interesting to me than the question of what policies and procedures would help address this CLASS of situations. A number of other cases come to mind such as Richard Jewell or the Star Wars Kid where people have become objects of unwanted and unwarranted public attention. Existing policies such as NOR, Notability or NPOV may not be the right policies with which Wikipedia should address these cases when they arise.
-------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/cmd/shop/ custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1107 --------------------------------
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Sheldon Rampton wrote:
What Ken is describing sounds more like a reiteration of Wikipedia's existing "no original research policy" than something specifically addressing stalking or cyberstalking. I think stalking happens frequently enough that it deserves to be treated seriously in its own right rather than subsumed under some other concept. In the case of Allison Stokke, the young woman whose experience was the spark of this thread, Wikipedia's article about her didn't *create* any news. Her situation has been reported in the Washington Post and elsewhere. Ken's policy therefore would not be particularly helpful in this case.
Again, I said the rule needed to be reworded. Wikipedia didn't create news in the sense of causing her to be stalked. But (for the sake of argument) Wikipedia's attempt to report on stalking her achieves the goals of the stalkers. Likewishe, Wikipedia's attempt to report on GNAA helps achieve the goals of GNAA. If writing a Wikipedia article implies participating in the story to this degree, then we shouldn't have an article.
On 6/6/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Again, I said the rule needed to be reworded. Wikipedia didn't create news in the sense of causing her to be stalked. But (for the sake of argument) Wikipedia's attempt to report on stalking her achieves the goals of the stalkers. Likewishe, Wikipedia's attempt to report on GNAA helps achieve the goals of GNAA. If writing a Wikipedia article implies participating in the story to this degree, then we shouldn't have an article.
True, but we shouldn't be bending over backward to hinder anyone's goals either. If a subject already has verifiable publicity, the fact that they are craving more publicity (or less publicity) should not be the primary concern when making decisions.
—C.W.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Sheldon Rampton wrote:
What Ken is describing sounds more like a reiteration of Wikipedia's existing "no original research policy" than something specifically addressing stalking or cyberstalking. I think stalking happens frequently enough that it deserves to be treated seriously in its own right rather than subsumed under some other concept. In the case of Allison Stokke, the young woman whose experience was the spark of this thread, Wikipedia's article about her didn't *create* any news. Her situation has been reported in the Washington Post and elsewhere. Ken's policy therefore would not be particularly helpful in this case.
Again, I said the rule needed to be reworded. Wikipedia didn't create news in the sense of causing her to be stalked. But (for the sake of argument) Wikipedia's attempt to report on stalking her achieves the goals of the stalkers. Likewishe, Wikipedia's attempt to report on GNAA helps achieve the goals of GNAA. If writing a Wikipedia article implies participating in the story to this degree, then we shouldn't have an article.
Again, this would imply we should have almost no articles on current subjects. An article on an upcoming peace protest increases its visibility and helps achieve its goals of turning out many members; an article on controversies involving "shock jock" radio personalities helps increase their notoriety, which is their main goal; an article on a new Apple product helps spread product information to potential customers, thereby helping it sell more units; an article on a terrorist attack helps scare more people, thereby helping the terrorists achieve their aims; etc.
Of course in none of these cases should we allow the articles to be non-neutral or *explicitly* promote anything, but it's simply impossible to create an encyclopedia that has no secondary effects, since spreading information nearly always has secondary effects, and spreading information is actually the entire point.
-Mark
I don;t think we would or should put in an article about an upcoming protest , however notable it seems likely to be--but it is true that one on a major protest put into WP when it should, which is after the event happened and attracted attention from major media sources, would increase the reach of the message.
DGG
Again, this would imply we should have almost no articles on current subjects. An article on an upcoming peace protest increases its visibility and helps achieve its goals of turning out many members;
Of course in none of these cases should we allow the articles to be non-neutral or *explicitly* promote anything, but it's simply impossible to create an encyclopedia that has no secondary effects, since spreading information nearly always has secondary effects, and spreading information is actually the entire point.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l