In a message dated 4/21/2009 11:37:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, arromdee@rahul.net writes:
And this doesn't even touch the issue of what to do with information is verifiable but false.>>
Biographical details aren't "True" or "False". They are reported, repeated, cited, confirmed, evidenced, and so on.
Biography is no longer under the Dewey Decimal system. The idea that a biography, or even an auto-biography (or especially) is reporting "Truth" is an old fiction itself.
If the subject of a Wiki-article feels that something is "false" the best way to combat that is to publish themselves, on their own official website, the "truth" of the matter and then link it in, or cite it.
We do not give BLP's control over what we report. We give them equal access. If that person cannot be bothered to do that simple simple thing than apparently they don't really care enough about the matter.
Will Johnson
************** A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221621490x1201450102/aol?redir=http... hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooter421NO62)
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/21/2009 11:37:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, arromdee@rahul.net writes:
And this doesn't even touch the issue of what to do with information is verifiable but false.>>
Biographical details aren't "True" or "False". They are reported, repeated, cited, confirmed, evidenced, and so on.
Biography is no longer under the Dewey Decimal system. The idea that a biography, or even an auto-biography (or especially) is reporting "Truth" is an old fiction itself.
If the subject of a Wiki-article feels that something is "false" the best way to combat that is to publish themselves, on their own official website, the "truth" of the matter and then link it in, or cite it.
We do not give BLP's control over what we report. We give them equal access. If that person cannot be bothered to do that simple simple thing than apparently they don't really care enough about the matter.
Will Johnson
This is the typical silly response that lies behind the BLP problem.
A few things need taken on board:
1) Having a fair and balanced BLP is not simply a matter of sources and verification. The most damaging BLPs I've seen, are the ones that select sources, spin facts, omit counterbalance to create a picture that looks neutral on a quick glance, but is actually a total distortion of truth.
2) Whilst it is very difficult to distinguish between the subject who is intent on getting his own hagiography or whitewash on his article, and the innocent subject who has been genuinely and unfairly maligned, that is NOT the damaged subject's fault. We need to assume all subjects have a genuine grievance until we are sure they don't. It is a bit like an asylum seeker argument - many/most may be "bogus" but you really can't initially treat them as such because some will be the victims of horrible torture and your system must not perpetuate that.
3) There ought to be NO onus on a BLP victim to do anything other than say "this article is wrong". Once the victim has complained, the onus is on Wikipedia to fix it. Does that make our job difficult? Yes. But we are the ones who opened a wiki and let someone write about him, not him. It is useful if he works with us, has patience and learns our system - but we cannot expect this or demand this. It is a perfectly understandable response for a maligned person to blank, change, and spout legal threats. That's what I'd do.