On 16 Oct 2007 at 23:55:24 -0700, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Moore is notable as a filmmaker. He is not notable as a blogger. His blog is not encyclopedic. We are only providing a link as a convenience, and a very minor convenience because it it the first link that comes up on Google. So we are saving our readers about .5 seconds out of their lives. We aren't preserving NPOV, we aren't taking a stand against censorship, we're merely saving some readers a tiny bit of time. I don't begrudge anyone even half a second. But if the tradeoff we're looking at is linking to harassment of Wikipedia editors versus the slightest inconvenience (hopefully temporary) of our readers, then I don't think we should have a question. For completenes inthe article we can say the guy has a blog (who doesn't), but unless the blog is notable I don't see the overriding need to promote "convenience" above "no personal attacks".
Thus, the "tradeoff" is between a very minor convenience to people trying to get to the link... versus a very minor interference in the spread of harrassment that's already out there and well-indexed in Google. So we're all getting into a big lather over something that barely actually matters, one way or another... apparently, we're all motivated by the principle of the thing.
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 16 Oct 2007 at 23:55:24 -0700, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Moore is notable as a filmmaker. He is not notable as a blogger. His blog is not encyclopedic. We are only providing a link as a convenience, and a very minor convenience because it it the first link that comes up on Google. So we are saving our readers about .5 seconds out of their lives. We aren't preserving NPOV, we aren't taking a stand against censorship, we're merely saving some readers a tiny bit of time. I don't begrudge anyone even half a second. But if the tradeoff we're looking at is linking to harassment of Wikipedia editors versus the slightest inconvenience (hopefully temporary) of our readers, then I don't think we should have a question. For completenes inthe article we can say the guy has a blog (who doesn't), but unless the blog is notable I don't see the overriding need to promote "convenience" above "no personal attacks".
Thus, the "tradeoff" is between a very minor convenience to people trying to get to the link... versus a very minor interference in the spread of harrassment that's already out there and well-indexed in Google. So we're all getting into a big lather over something that barely actually matters, one way or another... apparently, we're all motivated by the principle of the thing.
I think that external links to the subject's self-published sites don't add anything beyond a link to the subject's self-published site, which is usually the easiest thing to find about them. Omitting them in some circumstances does not harm the articles greatly, and if it would have a major impact in reducing harassment then the trade off would be worthwhile. WE can argue over how much of a positive improvement there'd be, but it's hard to argue that our articles are defaced by removing a link that isn't a source.
W.
I think that external links to the subject's self-published sites don't add anything beyond a link to the subject's self-published site, which is usually the easiest thing to find about them. Omitting them in some circumstances does not harm the articles greatly, and if it would have a major impact in reducing harassment then the trade off would be worthwhile. WE can argue over how much of a positive improvement there'd be, but it's hard to argue that our articles are defaced by removing a link that isn't a source.
Wait, I'm confused. You said that "Omitting them in some circumstances does not harm the articles greatly" and said that "it's hard to argue that our articles are defaced by removing a link that isn't a source." I'm a bit confused. If it is harming our articles, isn't it defacing them?
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
I think that external links to the subject's self-published sites don't add anything beyond a link to the subject's self-published site, which is usually the easiest thing to find about them. Omitting them in some circumstances does not harm the articles greatly, and if it would have a major impact in reducing harassment then the trade off would be worthwhile. WE can argue over how much of a positive improvement there'd be, but it's hard to argue that our articles are defaced by removing a link that isn't a source.
Wait, I'm confused. You said that "Omitting them in some circumstances does not harm the articles greatly" and said that "it's hard to argue that our articles are defaced by removing a link that isn't a source." I'm a bit confused. If it is harming our articles, isn't it defacing them?
We remove all kinds of links, sources, and text that, some folks argue, help articles. For example, we remove links to resellers of recreational vehicles, which doesn't harm the articles greatly much less deface them. We remove links to websites that charge for access, we remove links to most foreign language sites, etc. Each of those removals may remove some value, but the articles are actually improved by making the remaining material stand out more, free from the clutter of spam links, poor sources, and fringe material. Just like pruning a fruit tree or a rose bush can make it healthier, more productive, and more attractive.
Will
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
I think that external links to the subject's self-published sites don't add anything beyond a link to the subject's self-published site, which is usually the easiest thing to find about them. Omitting them in some circumstances does not harm the articles greatly, and if it would have a major impact in reducing harassment then the trade off would be worthwhile. WE can argue over how much of a positive improvement there'd be, but it's hard to argue that our articles are defaced by removing a link that isn't a source.
Wait, I'm confused. You said that "Omitting them in some circumstances does not harm the articles greatly" and said that "it's hard to argue that our articles are defaced by removing a link that isn't a source." I'm a bit confused. If it is harming our articles, isn't it defacing them?
We remove all kinds of links, sources, and text that, some folks argue, help articles. For example, we remove links to resellers of recreational vehicles, which doesn't harm the articles greatly much less deface them. We remove links to websites that charge for access, we remove links to most foreign language sites, etc. Each of those removals may remove some value, but the articles are actually improved by making the remaining material stand out more, free from the clutter of spam links, poor sources, and fringe material. Just like pruning a fruit tree or a rose bush can make it healthier, more productive, and more attractive.
Will
Ok, that at least clarifies things somewhat. Although it seems to me more in this case like clipping the rosebush because it pricked you with a thorn than anything else.
Will Beback wrote:
WE can argue over how much of a positive improvement there'd be, but it's hard to argue that our articles are defaced by removing a link that isn't a source.
It's not hard at all, Will.
If you'd like to see how easy it is, go propose that we remove all external links that aren't sources. Or even just external links to sites where the subjects of articles self-publish. Or forget proposing. Just go do it.
You will find an ocean of people willing to tell you those links do indeed belong in the articles.
And once you have discovered that they are all in the encyclopedia for good encyclopedic reasons, then perhaps you'll have an easier time accepting that we are not willing to compromise the encyclopedia's content. Especially for something where even you admit the benefit is arguable, and where some of us argue that there is harm, not benefit at all.
William
William Pietri wrote:
Will Beback wrote:
WE can argue over how much of a positive improvement there'd be, but it's hard to argue that our articles are defaced by removing a link that isn't a source.
It's not hard at all, Will.
If you'd like to see how easy it is, go propose that we remove all external links that aren't sources. Or even just external links to sites where the subjects of articles self-publish. Or forget proposing. Just go do it.
You will find an ocean of people willing to tell you those links do indeed belong in the articles.
And once you have discovered that they are all in the encyclopedia for good encyclopedic reasons, then perhaps you'll have an easier time accepting that we are not willing to compromise the encyclopedia's content. Especially for something where even you admit the benefit is arguable, and where some of us argue that there is harm, not benefit at all.
William
I'm not proposing removing all external links, I'm proposing removing a small number of links.
I hope that you aren't saying that all external links provide value and we should never remove any external link that a well-meaning editor (or greedy website owner) adds. If we stopped deleting external links and removed the spam blacklist I predict we'd have more links than text, especially in some topics. We include a large variety of links because they provide encyclopedic value. If we determine that they don't provide that value then we delete them.
Will
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
William Pietri wrote:
Will Beback wrote:
WE can argue over how much of a positive improvement there'd be, but it's hard to argue that our articles are defaced by removing a link that isn't a source.
It's not hard at all, Will.
If you'd like to see how easy it is, go propose that we remove all external links that aren't sources. Or even just external links to sites where the subjects of articles self-publish. Or forget proposing. Just go do it.
You will find an ocean of people willing to tell you those links do indeed belong in the articles.
And once you have discovered that they are all in the encyclopedia for good encyclopedic reasons, then perhaps you'll have an easier time accepting that we are not willing to compromise the encyclopedia's content. Especially for something where even you admit the benefit is arguable, and where some of us argue that there is harm, not benefit at all.
William
I'm not proposing removing all external links, I'm proposing removing a small number of links.
I hope that you aren't saying that all external links provide value and we should never remove any external link that a well-meaning editor (or greedy website owner) adds. If we stopped deleting external links and removed the spam blacklist I predict we'd have more links than text, especially in some topics. We include a large variety of links because they provide encyclopedic value. If we determine that they don't provide that value then we delete them.
Will
This is a strawman. The point is that we shouldn't be removing links from an article unless those links are somehow damaging to the content. The distinction between a random blog or a spam link to buy cars and Michael Moore's personal website should be obvious.
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
'm not proposing removing all external links, I'm proposing removing a small number of links.
I hope that you aren't saying that all external links provide value and we should never remove any external link that a well-meaning editor (or greedy website owner) adds. If we stopped deleting external links and removed the spam blacklist I predict we'd have more links than text, especially in some topics. We include a large variety of links because they provide encyclopedic value. If we determine that they don't provide that value then we delete them.
Will
This is a strawman. The point is that we shouldn't be removing links from an article unless those links are somehow damaging to the content. The distinction between a random blog or a spam link to buy cars and Michael Moore's personal website should be obvious.
There are many ways of damaging the encyclopedia, and by extension the content. Harassing Wikipedia volunteers indirectly harms content and disrupts the community. (Yes, I know that the pat response is: "But removing the links causes even more disruption!", to which my response is "If we have a policy with a procedure then there needn't be any disruption involved in handling harassment links).
Spam links don't damage articles, at least not individually, nor do blogs. Are you saying that a link to buying cars is worse than a link urging people to call an editor at work to complain about his editing?
W.
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
'm not proposing removing all external links, I'm proposing removing a small number of links.
I hope that you aren't saying that all external links provide value and we should never remove any external link that a well-meaning editor (or greedy website owner) adds. If we stopped deleting external links and removed the spam blacklist I predict we'd have more links than text, especially in some topics. We include a large variety of links because they provide encyclopedic value. If we determine that they don't provide that value then we delete them.
Will
This is a strawman. The point is that we shouldn't be removing links from an article unless those links are somehow damaging to the content. The distinction between a random blog or a spam link to buy cars and Michael Moore's personal website should be obvious.
There are many ways of damaging the encyclopedia, and by extension the content. Harassing Wikipedia volunteers indirectly harms content and disrupts the community. (Yes, I know that the pat response is: "But removing the links causes even more disruption!", to which my response is "If we have a policy with a procedure then there needn't be any disruption involved in handling harassment links).
Spam links don't damage articles, at least not individually, nor do blogs. Are you saying that a link to buying cars is worse than a link urging people to call an editor at work to complain about his editing?
W.
The problem with spam links at all is that even a few of them make people less likely to trust whether the external links provided are useful. And speaking frankly, one of the first things I try to do when learning about a controversial topic is see what external links Wikipedia has. I doubt I'm the only one who does that. As long as the page which happens to have an attack on the Wikipedian is a relevant external link it is better and doing less damage to the article than a link about buying cars or a random blog. And the vast majority, most likely all, the damage from harassing links will occur whether or not we link to the website. The end result of this also is to remove more and more to prevent harassement. For example, if someone keeps harassing an editor until the person's article is deleted, do we delete it? No, not any more than we would if the person in question had politely asked for their article to be removed as one of borderline notability. Nor do we make convenience alterations and remove pertinent information of notable people simply to stop their little campaigns on Wikipedia. We do remove information when the sourcing is questionable, but that's basically it. And there's no substantial difference changing that policy whether we change it for birthdates, external links, sourced criticism or anything else.
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
The problem with spam links at all is that even a few of them make people less likely to trust whether the external links provided are useful.
Yes, that's exactly the point. More is not better. Including links that offer slight benefit lowers the quality of the the entire collection. Articles are usually better with fewer links, and editors who go through and clear out excess external links are often thanked. Links aren't sacred: we add the ones we think are best and cull the rest.
As long as the page which happens to have an attack on the Wikipedian is a relevant external link it is better and doing less damage to the article than a link about buying cars or a random blog.
Whoa, is that really what you mean? You'd defend the link to a webpage that contains harassment of a Wikipedia editors just because it was somewhat relevant to an article topic? And you think that such links are less harmful to Wikipedia than other, non-harassing blogs? I think we must be mis-communicating.
And the vast majority, most likely all, the damage from harassing links will occur whether or not we link to the website. The end result of this also is to remove more and more to prevent harassement. For example, if someone keeps harassing an editor until the person's article is deleted, do we delete it? No, not any more than we would if the person in question had politely asked for their article to be removed as one of borderline notability. Nor do we make convenience alterations and remove pertinent information of notable people simply to stop their little campaigns on Wikipedia. We do remove information when the sourcing is questionable, but that's basically it. And there's no substantial difference changing that policy whether we change it for birthdates, external links, sourced criticism or anything else.
You are seriously misinformed about the extent of deletions made through the OTRS process. We quietly remove large amounts of sourced material, even whole, highly sourced articles.
Will
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
The problem with spam links at all is that even a few of them make people less likely to trust whether the external links provided are useful.
Yes, that's exactly the point. More is not better. Including links that offer slight benefit lowers the quality of the the entire collection. Articles are usually better with fewer links, and editors who go through and clear out excess external links are often thanked. Links aren't sacred: we add the ones we think are best and cull the rest.
Yes, but letting our personal goals get in the way isn't a good thing.
As long as the page which happens to have an attack on the Wikipedian is a relevant external link it is better and doing less damage to the article than a link about buying cars or a random blog.
Whoa, is that really what you mean? You'd defend the link to a webpage that contains harassment of a Wikipedia editors just because it was somewhat relevant to an article topic? And you think that such links are less harmful to Wikipedia than other, non-harassing blogs? I think we must be mis-communicating.
"Somewhat relevant" may be too low a standard here. If we have another link that could just as well go in the section that isn't there obviously we should replace it. For many articles we have many good links about the same issues and we can't include them all. In those cases, when we have no other way of deciding, I don't see anything wrong with deciding based on harrassement concerns. However, we're not talking about somewhat relevant links, we're talking about links to the official sites of the subjects.
And the vast majority, most likely all, the damage from harassing links will occur whether or not we link to the website. The end result of this also is to remove more and more to prevent harassement. For example, if someone keeps harassing an editor until the person's article is deleted, do we delete it? No, not any more than we would if the person in question had politely asked for their article to be removed as one of borderline notability. Nor do we make convenience alterations and remove pertinent information of notable people simply to stop their little campaigns on Wikipedia. We do remove information when the sourcing is questionable, but that's basically it. And there's no substantial difference changing that policy whether we change it for birthdates, external links, sourced criticism or anything else.
You are seriously misinformed about the extent of deletions made through the OTRS process. We quietly remove large amounts of sourced material, even whole, highly sourced articles.
I'm not misinformed. I should have added something like " content that is well-sourced but the individuals are not major public figures and would likely get deleted if it went to AfD, or they are such major public figures that we need to bow to them, minor well-sourced details about public figures that were not widely reported and maybe a handful of other circumstances" I've not done OTRS work, but in the times I've been peripherally or incidentally involved with OTRS, the reasoning for removals has generally been good, and when the person was genuinely notable a replacement article was eventually created that was often very similar to the original content.
And if we're really deleting much more than that we have much more serious problems than the external links policy.
Wikk Beback wrote:
Spam links don't damage articles, at least not individually, nor do blogs. Are you saying that a link to buying cars is worse than a link urging people to call an editor at work to complain about his editing?
But the spam link is on Wikipedia, and is ours to delete. The link urging people to call an editor at work is on some other site, which we have no direct control over. It exists whether we do anything about it or not. So the two are not really comparable.
When two groups A and B are locked in prolonged, internecine argument, one great way of discovering which is the more reasonable (and therefore probably more accurate in its portrayal of the debate) is to check their respective websites. If A's website, down underneath its point-by-point repudiation of everything B stands for, says something like, "but for an opposing viewpoint, see http://www.B.org", and if B's website, on the other hand, steadfastly refuses to acknowledge A's, it's a safe bet that A has the moral high ground.
I would like Wikipedia to retain the moral high ground here.
I may disagree with everything Michael Moore says and stands for, but I will defend pretty strongly not only his right to say so, but also the right of our encyclopedia readers to evaluate it for themselves.
Steve Summit wrote:
I may disagree with everything Michael Moore says and stands for, but I will defend pretty strongly not only his right to say so, but also the right of our encyclopedia readers to evaluate it for themselves.
I think we need a new example. The Michael Moore issue us barely even real harassment. Here's the story of "user:Joe". This is a true, recent story, but with the information changed because it was indeed harassment.
Let's call the editor in good standing "Joe" and the the issue cockfighting, though it wasn't. It's a topic with an eager and engaged group of proponents. There's a website called "RoosterChat" and Wikipedia had an article on it (that was eventually deleted as non-notable). Joe took some actions and edits to correct the NPOV of articles on the topic and became the target of that community's ire. They posted messages on their chatboard with his personal information, including phone number, and a request that board members call him at work to convey their feelings. The immediate situation was handled through diplomacy, but in the long term the editor was forced to reduce his involvement in the topic and take other steps to restore his privacy.
How should a policy deal with this situation? Should we maintain our link to the chatboard (which could only used because it was the subject of the article). Should we link to the harassment as an example of that community's activism? Should we tell valued editor that the link is more important than his privacy or well-being?
Will
On 18/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Let's call the editor in good standing "Joe" and the the issue cockfighting, though it wasn't. It's a topic with an eager and engaged group of proponents. There's a website called "RoosterChat" and Wikipedia had an article on it (that was eventually deleted as non-notable). Joe took some actions and edits to correct the NPOV of articles on the topic and became the target of that community's ire. They posted messages on their chatboard with his personal information, including phone number, and a request that board members call him at work to convey their feelings. The immediate situation was handled through diplomacy, but in the long term the editor was forced to reduce his involvement in the topic and take other steps to restore his privacy. How should a policy deal with this situation? Should we maintain our link to the chatboard (which could only used because it was the subject of the article). Should we link to the harassment as an example of that community's activism? Should we tell valued editor that the link is more important than his privacy or well-being?
Do you think Joe should delete every link to RoosterChat to be found in article space?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 18/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Let's call the editor in good standing "Joe" and the the issue cockfighting, though it wasn't. It's a topic with an eager and engaged group of proponents. There's a website called "RoosterChat" and Wikipedia had an article on it (that was eventually deleted as non-notable). Joe took some actions and edits to correct the NPOV of articles on the topic and became the target of that community's ire. They posted messages on their chatboard with his personal information, including phone number, and a request that board members call him at work to convey their feelings. The immediate situation was handled through diplomacy, but in the long term the editor was forced to reduce his involvement in the topic and take other steps to restore his privacy. How should a policy deal with this situation? Should we maintain our link to the chatboard (which could only used because it was the subject of the article). Should we link to the harassment as an example of that community's activism? Should we tell valued editor that the link is more important than his privacy or well-being?
Do you think Joe should delete every link to RoosterChat to be found in article space?
- d.
I asked first. What kind of policy or procedure do we have or should we have to deal with a situation like this?
Will
On 10/18/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
How should a policy deal with this situation? Should we maintain our link to the chatboard (which could only used because it was the subject of the article). Should we link to the harassment as an example of that community's activism? Should we tell valued editor that the link is more important than his privacy or well-being?
As I tried to convey in the message I just wrote, none of the above! Removing the link from Wikipedia is hardly going to prevent the people already familiar with that site from seeing the harassing information. Removing the link also won't prevent people who come to the Wikipedia article with no prior knowledge from figuring out that they can use a search engine to locate the exact URL of the website the article is about. I mean, really, the article is about a particular website, its name has got to be in the article *at least* once.
All that removing the link is going to do is say "nyah-nyah, you were rude, we unlinked you, haha we win!" Put another way, removing the link is just a variation on WP:POINT. It reduces the objective editorial quality of an article to accomplish nothing useful except to be able to say "we don't link to harassment, and we're proud of it!" -- when the link is hardly required to figure out where the website is in the first place, if you have enough brains to use a search engine.
--Darkwind
RLS wrote:
On 10/18/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
How should a policy deal with this situation? Should we maintain our link to the chatboard (which could only used because it was the subject of the article). Should we link to the harassment as an example of that community's activism? Should we tell valued editor that the link is more important than his privacy or well-being?
As I tried to convey in the message I just wrote, none of the above! Removing the link from Wikipedia is hardly going to prevent the people already familiar with that site from seeing the harassing information. Removing the link also won't prevent people who come to the Wikipedia article with no prior knowledge from figuring out that they can use a search engine to locate the exact URL of the website the article is about. I mean, really, the article is about a particular website, its name has got to be in the article *at least* once.
All that removing the link is going to do is say "nyah-nyah, you were rude, we unlinked you, haha we win!" Put another way, removing the link is just a variation on WP:POINT. It reduces the objective editorial quality of an article to accomplish nothing useful except to be able to say "we don't link to harassment, and we're proud of it!" -- when the link is hardly required to figure out where the website is in the first place, if you have enough brains to use a search engine.
--Darkwind
Then what do you propose we do in these situations. While this is a specific example, this is the more common problem then the MM/THF example.
Will
On 10/19/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
RLS wrote:
On 10/18/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
How should a policy deal with this situation? Should we maintain our link to the chatboard (which could only used because it was the subject of the article). Should we link to the harassment as an example of that community's activism? Should we tell valued editor that the link is more important than his privacy or well-being?
As I tried to convey in the message I just wrote, none of the above! Removing the link from Wikipedia is hardly going to prevent the people already familiar with that site from seeing the harassing information. Removing the link also won't prevent people who come to the Wikipedia article with no prior knowledge from figuring out that they can use a search engine to locate the exact URL of the website the article is about. I mean, really, the article is about a particular website, its name has got to be in the article *at least* once.
All that removing the link is going to do is say "nyah-nyah, you were rude, we unlinked you, haha we win!" Put another way, removing the link is just a variation on WP:POINT. It reduces the objective editorial quality of an article to accomplish nothing useful except to be able to say "we don't link to harassment, and we're proud of it!" -- when the link is hardly required to figure out where the website is in the first place, if you have enough brains to use a search engine.
--Darkwind
Then what do you propose we do in these situations. While this is a specific example, this is the more common problem then the MM/THF example.
I propose that nothing at all be done! That's the whole point of what I was trying to say -- unless the pages that are actually linked change in some way, nothing at all needs to be done if elsewhere on a site there is harassment of an editor. If the pages that are linked DO change significantly, so that they are no longer useful as sources or links, then yes, they should be removed -- but that is ALREADY A PART OF WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING AS EDITORS. There's no need for a policy that says "remove links to unreliable or inappropriate pages" because that's already implied, if not explicitly stated, in [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:EL]].
Also, reacting in some way is just giving them what they want by starting the harassment in the first place. It's a variation on why one shouldn't feed the trolls - they're posting material they think one or more Wikipedians will find objectionable in order to prompt a reaction from the Wikipedia community. Why should we give it to them? Why should we let them influence the content of our encyclopedia?
--Darkwind
Will Beback wrote:
[story snipped]
How should a policy deal with this situation? Should we maintain our link to the chatboard (which could only used because it was the subject of the article). Should we link to the harassment as an example of that community's activism? Should we tell valued editor that the link is more important than his privacy or well-being?
My view:
We should not alter article content one iota in response to external badgering. The only thing that has changed is our view of them, not the NPOV view of them. Ergo, we behave exactly as if they were harassing
Editors in good standing should be able to link to the harassment to the extent that they believe it serves some legitimate purpose in furtherance of Wikipedia's mission. If they are linking for some other reason (e.g., or gossip or furthering the harassment) they should be dealt with through our usual mechanisms for miscreants and the clue-deficient.
We should tell the editor that we hope they understand that articles should not be affected in any way by internet drama. To the extent that the editor wants to take defensive legal action (like getting a restraining order) we should support them. And we should encourage them to ask for a fellow editor to take over maintaining the article(s) in question, hopefully from a pool of people with thick skins and diplomatic skills.
And in my opinion, we should always reach out to the offended party or community to at least make nice, and hopefully to work with them to the extent possible. A vast amount of this drama comes when all sides believe that we should have a great encyclopedia, and they just have a different idea of what that means than us. Often that's just because we've thought about it for years and they've thought about it for minutes.
William
Gah. Please forgive the editing error here:
William Pietri wrote:
We should not alter article content one iota in response to external badgering. The only thing that has changed is our view of them, not the NPOV view of them. Ergo, we behave exactly as if they were harassing
What I meant to say was:
We should not alter article content one iota in response to external badgering. The only thing that has changed is our view of them, not the NPOV view of them. Ergo, we behave exactly as if they were harassing anybody else on the planet.
Thanks,
William
William Pietri wrote:
Will Beback wrote:
[story snipped]
How should a policy deal with this situation? Should we maintain our link to the chatboard (which could only used because it was the subject of the article). Should we link to the harassment as an example of that community's activism? Should we tell valued editor that the link is more important than his privacy or well-being?
My view:
We should not alter article content one iota in response to external badgering. The only thing that has changed is our view of them, not the NPOV view of them. Ergo, we behave exactly as if they were harassing
Editors in good standing should be able to link to the harassment to the extent that they believe it serves some legitimate purpose in furtherance of Wikipedia's mission. If they are linking for some other reason (e.g., or gossip or furthering the harassment) they should be dealt with through our usual mechanisms for miscreants and the clue-deficient.
We should tell the editor that we hope they understand that articles should not be affected in any way by internet drama. To the extent that the editor wants to take defensive legal action (like getting a restraining order) we should support them.
Why would we support an editor in getting a restraining order, but not support them by doing any restraining ourselves? What form would this support take?
And we should encourage them to ask for a fellow editor to take over maintaining the article(s) in question, hopefully from a pool of people with thick skins and diplomatic skills.
So you're saying that if an editor is harassed by an outside group then the editor (and Wikipedia) should give in to that harassment. And you think that won't affect the POV of a topic? If a group succeeds in driving off one editor after another, how many thick-skinned editors are there willing to take their places?
And in my opinion, we should always reach out to the offended party or community to at least make nice, and hopefully to work with them to the extent possible. A vast amount of this drama comes when all sides believe that we should have a great encyclopedia, and they just have a different idea of what that means than us. Often that's just because we've thought about it for years and they've thought about it for minutes.
William
Let's think about it long enough to come up with a formal policy or procedure to handle it. You make some good suggestions, but mail-list posting don't write policies.
Will
On 10/19/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
So you're saying that if an editor is harassed by an outside group then the editor (and Wikipedia) should give in to that harassment. And you think that won't affect the POV of a topic? If a group succeeds in driving off one editor after another, how many thick-skinned editors are there willing to take their places?
I still fail to understand how removing links to a particular website does anything except give [the group of Wikipedians advocating this type of policy] an opportunity to claim the moral high ground. It does not harm that website to have their links removed. It does not make the harassment any harder for people to find, except by perhaps adding the intermediate step of having to type the URL in by hand or Google it -- all it does, in fact, is DRAW ATTENTION to the harassers and the inappropriate material. "Oooooh, XYZ website is harassing Wikipedians! Let's take all their links away!" and what happens? EVERYONE rushes to read it. Why would you want to give the harassers that kind of satisfaction?
As I mentioned before, if the harassment is more severe than just inane blabbering on a webpage (personal info posted, threats of real harm, etc etc), then report it to the police or the website's hosting company or upstream carrier. That's far more effective in getting the content hidden or shut down than just unlinking it from en.wp. Anything that *is* just inane blabbering, just freakin' ignore it and they will go away.
--Darkwind
RLS wrote:
On 10/19/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
So you're saying that if an editor is harassed by an outside group then the editor (and Wikipedia) should give in to that harassment. And you think that won't affect the POV of a topic? If a group succeeds in driving off one editor after another, how many thick-skinned editors are there willing to take their places?
I still fail to understand how removing links to a particular website does anything except give [the group of Wikipedians advocating this type of policy] an opportunity to claim the moral high ground. It does not harm that website to have their links removed. It does not make the harassment any harder for people to find, except by perhaps adding the intermediate step of having to type the URL in by hand or Google it -- all it does, in fact, is DRAW ATTENTION to the harassers and the inappropriate material. "Oooooh, XYZ website is harassing Wikipedians! Let's take all their links away!" and what happens? EVERYONE rushes to read it. Why would you want to give the harassers that kind of satisfaction?
As I mentioned before, if the harassment is more severe than just inane blabbering on a webpage (personal info posted, threats of real harm, etc etc), then report it to the police or the website's hosting company or upstream carrier. That's far more effective in getting the content hidden or shut down than just unlinking it from en.wp. Anything that *is* just inane blabbering, just freakin' ignore it and they will go away.
--Darkwind
Claiming the moral high ground is not part of the mission of Wikipedia. If someone else wants to claim it then fine,. let them. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a free, neutral encyclopedia.
Removing links does indeed make harassment harder to find. Retaining links pushes the harassment into the harassed editor's face.
I'd hope that the policy we draft doesn't draw attention to the removal process. Since we remove hundreds or thousands of links a day that shouldn't be a problem.
I agree that all means of eliminating or minimizing harassment should be used, including contacting the webmaster/harasser, calling the police, and writing the carrier. That suite of tools should also include taking down the link from Wikipedia, a top-10 internet site. Official channels can have a high threshold for action, can take a long time to act, and can even cost money. While they should be pursued if necessary, there are simpler ways of reducing the impact of harassment and they start with us.
W.
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
Claiming the moral high ground is not part of the mission of Wikipedia. If someone else wants to claim it then fine,. let them. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a free, neutral encyclopedia.
Wikipedia exists in the real world, and the project's reputation matters. It effects whether people will be likely to help us out or to join or to simply read. If we're thought of as an authoritarian, censoring dictatorship, not many people will join us. Furthermore, you can't have it both ways. You can't say "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a free, neutral encyclopedia" but only have that be relevant when you want it to, and not when you want to remove the link. Either NPOV is what we're striving for or it isn't. But we don't only strive for NPOV when it is the convenient part of Will Beback's argument.
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
Claiming the moral high ground is not part of the mission of Wikipedia. If someone else wants to claim it then fine,. let them. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a free, neutral encyclopedia.
Wikipedia exists in the real world, and the project's reputation matters. It effects whether people will be likely to help us out or to join or to simply read. If we're thought of as an authoritarian, censoring dictatorship, not many people will join us. Furthermore, you can't have it both ways. You can't say "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a free, neutral encyclopedia" but only have that be relevant when you want it to, and not when you want to remove the link. Either NPOV is what we're striving for or it isn't. But we don't only strive for NPOV when it is the convenient part of Will Beback's argument.
If Wikipedia becomes known as a volunteer job that leads to off-site harassment that the community will do nothing to stop then that might tend to reduce the appeal of editing too.
I again dispute that removing poor sources harms NPOV.
Will
On 19/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
I again dispute that removing poor sources harms NPOV.
Do you believe that Making Light suddenly became a poorer source, such that every link immediately had to be removed from the article base, the day Kathryn Cramer started flinging monkey dung at you personally?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Did your edit summaries reflect this?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 19/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
I again dispute that removing poor sources harms NPOV.
Do you believe that Making Light suddenly became a poorer source, such that every link immediately had to be removed from the article base, the day Kathryn Cramer started flinging monkey dung at you personally?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Did your edit summaries reflect this?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
- d.
I believe that when an editor on Wikipedia gets into a dispute and uses their blog as a weapon in that dispute, then that the blog is no longer a suitable source for Wikipedia. We have plenty of good ways to resolve personal or content disputes between editors. We should do everything we can to discourage disgruntled editors from using outside websites to affect Wikipedia content and POV.
This thread is concerned with future proposals, not past errors. If you want to discuss the past we can do so in a private exchange.
Will
On 19/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
This thread is concerned with future proposals, not past errors. If you want to discuss the past we can do so in a private exchange.
This thread is concerned with future proposals that wouldn't have solved past examples either. I appreciate you'd rather the whole incident was forgotten, but it won't be as long as you're pushing anything even remotely resembling the line of reason you were at the time, and it's not credible for you to claim it is irrelevant and should be.
- d.
On 19/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote: This thread is concerned with future proposals, not past errors. If you want to discuss the past we can do so in a private exchange.
When considering a proposal we should always look at how the proposal would effect past actions. While Dave may be making this come across as a bit too personal the Making Lights example is an excellent test case. The fact that if your proposal had been in play all the links would have been removed should give us pause.
(I have this funny feeling, after writing this email, that it is the sort of email likely to be misused in some fashion as a WP:JIMBOSAYS fallacy. This note at the top serves as notice that anyone citing this email as setting down policy on Wikipedia is being a goof. I am just discussing and thinking here and trying to be helpful.)
Will Beback wrote:
I believe that when an editor on Wikipedia gets into a dispute and uses their blog as a weapon in that dispute, then that the blog is no longer a suitable source for Wikipedia.
While I could perhaps agree with something in this general area, I think this statement overreaches significantly.
First, blogs-as-sources is already a tricky topic, but there are of course cases where a blog is a legitimate source. For example, if a well known person blogs in response to a media controversy, that particular blog post can be quite valid as a source for a sentence saying "In a post to his personal blog, John Doe vigorously disputed the allegations put forward by the New York Times."
Now suppose that same well-known person, in a completely different matter, gets into some kind of squabble with a Wikipedian and uses their blog as a weapon in that dispute. In some extreme cases (death threats? libel? we could discuss...), there could be a reason to delink the blog everywhere. Or, in case of a redirect to an attack page, there is absolutely a reason to delink the blog (because the link is no longer valid).
But in general, it seems to me that a non-libelous perfectly legal rant against a Wikipedia editor would not justify removing an unrelated article space link which would be valid otherwise.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
First, blogs-as-sources is already a tricky topic, but there are of course cases where a blog is a legitimate source. For example, if a well known person blogs in response to a media controversy, that particular blog post can be quite valid as a source for a sentence saying "In a post to his personal blog, John Doe vigorously disputed the allegations put forward by the New York Times."
Now suppose that same well-known person, in a completely different matter, gets into some kind of squabble with a Wikipedian and uses their blog as a weapon in that dispute. In some extreme cases (death threats? libel? we could discuss...), there could be a reason to delink the blog everywhere.
I don't see this being a reason even in extreme cases. If the person in question posts a death threat or libel in some other completely unrelated blog posting, how does that in any way affect the fact that he "vigorously disputed the allegations put forward by the New York Times" in the original blog posting being used as a reference?
Or, in case of a redirect to an attack page, there is absolutely a reason to delink the blog (because the link is no longer valid).
That's already covered by existing guidelines. The procedure when a reference URL changes to something other than the referenced text is to try to find the old version in archive.org, or otherwise "fix" it. If it can't be found anywhere, though, we still don't remove the reference but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive; even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CITE#What_to_do_when_a_reference_link_.22goes_dead.22
I suppose if the "dead" link goes to something actively misleading instead of just a standard 404 page one should deactivate the link, though, to make sure readers notice the fact that it's not the material that was originally referenced.
On 10/25/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I suppose if the "dead" link goes to something actively misleading instead of just a standard 404 page one should deactivate the link, though, to make sure readers notice the fact that it's not the material that was originally referenced.
Such as those phony domain-squatter search engine pages that crop up when people fail to pay their bills.
—C.W.
On 26/10/2007, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/25/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I suppose if the "dead" link goes to something actively misleading instead of just a standard 404 page one should deactivate the link, though, to make sure readers notice the fact that it's not the material that was originally referenced.
Such as those phony domain-squatter search engine pages that crop up when people fail to pay their bills.
Mmm. We get quite a few of these (and if we're unlucky, it's squatted by a pornsite). Is there any practical way of spidering through our links to check for these?
Andrew Gray wrote:
Mmm. We get quite a few of these (and if we're unlucky, it's squatted by a pornsite). Is there any practical way of spidering through our links to check for these?
Interesting question. I could think of two ways.
One would be to take a large sample of domain names, check them before and after expiration, and develop some sort of fingerprint for the squatters. E.g., IP hosting blocks, DNS servers, WHOIS records, page content, page links, or server info.
The other would be to crawl all our external links and check for significant changes in the pages after WHOIS changes (or perhaps major nameserver changes if we can't find a source for bulk WHOIS queries. I think we could get at significance by using our article pages to recognize important words or word frequency patterns on the linked pages and noting significant deviations.
The lamer version would just be to make a list of links to domains that appear to have changed hands recently. That'd have a higher error rate, but would be pretty easy to build.
William
On 10/27/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
The other would be to crawl all our external links and check for significant changes in the pages after WHOIS changes (or perhaps major nameserver changes if we can't find a source for bulk WHOIS queries.
Well, I do know that many "whois" sites will deny service to the IP of anything that looks or smells like an automated tool. Of course, there are ways around that, as we all know.
—C.W.
Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 10/27/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
The other would be to crawl all our external links and check for significant changes in the pages after WHOIS changes (or perhaps major nameserver changes if we can't find a source for bulk WHOIS queries.
Well, I do know that many "whois" sites will deny service to the IP of anything that looks or smells like an automated tool. Of course, there are ways around that, as we all know.
Yeah, surely. Although I suspect I could arrange for legitimate bulk queries for a project like this. So if somebody presses ahead, feel free to pull me in for that.
William
Quoting Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com:
On 10/25/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I suppose if the "dead" link goes to something actively misleading instead of just a standard 404 page one should deactivate the link, though, to make sure readers notice the fact that it's not the material that was originally referenced.
Such as those phony domain-squatter search engine pages that crop up when people fail to pay their bills.
—C.W.
Yes, I think we remove that sort of thing routinely anyways. I've certainly never hesitated to remove them.
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com:
On 10/25/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I suppose if the "dead" link goes to something actively misleading instead of just a standard 404 page one should deactivate the link, though, to make sure readers notice the fact that it's not the material that was originally referenced.
Such as those phony domain-squatter search engine pages that crop up when people fail to pay their bills.
—C.W.
Yes, I think we remove that sort of thing routinely anyways. I've certainly never hesitated to remove them.
I hope you're just deactivating the links or finding substitutes in accordance with the citation guidelines I quoted upthread rather than outright removing them.
Quoting Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca:
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com:
On 10/25/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I suppose if the "dead" link goes to something actively misleading instead of just a standard 404 page one should deactivate the link, though, to make sure readers notice the fact that it's not the material that was originally referenced.
Such as those phony domain-squatter search engine pages that crop up when people fail to pay their bills.
?C.W.
Yes, I think we remove that sort of thing routinely anyways. I've certainly never hesitated to remove them.
I hope you're just deactivating the links or finding substitutes in accordance with the citation guidelines I quoted upthread rather than outright removing them.
Er yes. Bad phrasing on my part.
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca:
I hope you're just deactivating the links or finding substitutes in accordance with the citation guidelines I quoted upthread rather than outright removing them.
Er yes. Bad phrasing on my part.
Well, okay then. Carry on. :)
On 10/19/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
If Wikipedia becomes known as a volunteer job that leads to off-site harassment that the community will do nothing to stop then that might tend to reduce the appeal of editing too.
I again dispute that removing poor sources harms NPOV.
Dude. Nobody's arguing against removing a poor source. We're arguing against removing valid, useful sources just because the same site contains harassment of an editor. THAT will cause us to violate NPOV.
How you're coming across is that you want us to pull all links to http://www.example.com/aaaa.html, http://www.example.com/bbbb.html, http://www.example.com/cccc.html, and http://www.example.com/dddd.html, just because http://www.example.com/zzzz.html contains some verbal harassment of an editor.
There is no reason to remove the links to aaaa through dddd if those pages haven't changed and they're still relevant to the articles they're linked from. We just don't need to link to zzzz.html, and it's hardly likely to be a useful source for an article anyway, unless we're writing a neutral encyclopedic article *about* the harassment, and that isn't very likely either as it probably won't pass WP:NOTE.
When someone at example.com posts their harassment at zzzz, we need to NOT freak out and remove all the other good links to example.com. That's what will indeed draw undue attention, and compromise the articles about aaaa, bbbb, cccc, and dddd unnecessarily. And yes, I'd like to know where you get the idea that removing links to aaaa, bbbb, cccc, and dddd will make the harassment at zzzz harder to find, or accomplishes anything else useful.
If example.com changes their pages at aaaa, bbbb, cccc, and dddd to compromise their content and replace those pages with harassing content, then yes, the links to those pages need to be removed. The content is no longer a reliable source, editorially speaking. In a case where the actual content remains valid, but they add verbal harassment to the bottom of those pages or something like that, then that bridge needs to be crossed ***IF WE EVER GET THERE.*** It is *not* something that we can make a value judgment on, or write a policy on, here and now using hypothetical examples. It's something that we as a community need to look at if it ever happens. The actual harassment, its severity, its location and placement on the pages, and the value of the sources to the articles all need to be taken into consideration. We cannot write a black and white policy on this, without agreeing in advance to compromise our editorial principles. I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to do that.
--Darkwind
RLS wrote:
Dude. Nobody's arguing against removing a poor source. We're arguing against removing valid, useful sources just because the same site contains harassment of an editor. THAT will cause us to violate NPOV.
Isn't this fairly rare, though?
Let's not get too hung up on edge cases. The bulk of the cases of interest are links to sites that are *literally* harasssment sites, through and through, and not valid references for anything at all.
1. No one is arguing (I hope) that links to Encyclopedia Dramatica are valid sources for articles.
2. No one is arguing (I hope) that a random evil post on a BBC messageboard would make it ok to ban all links to the BBC.
The only real question is where and how to draw the line, but we are actually fortunate in this regard: there are virtually no borderline cases as an empirical matter.
--Jimbo
On 10/20/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The only real question is where and how to draw the line, but we are actually fortunate in this regard: there are virtually no borderline cases as an empirical matter.
I'm not sure why it has to be a discussion about websites at all. If someone is going around adding links to ED, then I have to wonder what the .. they are doing on Wikipedia in the first place. It seems much more promising to me to look at the substance of someone's actions, rather than at the patterns of URLs.
On 10/19/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
RLS wrote:
Dude. Nobody's arguing against removing a poor source. We're arguing against removing valid, useful sources just because the same site contains harassment of an editor. THAT will cause us to violate NPOV.
Isn't this fairly rare, though?
Let's not get too hung up on edge cases. The bulk of the cases of interest are links to sites that are *literally* harasssment sites, through and through, and not valid references for anything at all.
- No one is arguing (I hope) that links to Encyclopedia Dramatica are
valid sources for articles.
- No one is arguing (I hope) that a random evil post on a BBC
messageboard would make it ok to ban all links to the BBC.
The only real question is where and how to draw the line, but we are actually fortunate in this regard: there are virtually no borderline cases as an empirical matter.
--Jimbo
Making Light is the canonical counterexample which proves that we have to figure this one out, though.
David's been trying to get Will to admit that removing ML links was a mistake, and as I read the responses in the last couple of days we still do not have agreement on that point.
There's a continuum, with BBC on one side, Moore and Making Light in the middle, and ED/WR/AntisocialMedia at the far end.
We really do need to get the middle clarified.
Jimmy Wales schreef:
The only real question is where and how to draw the line, but we are actually fortunate in this regard: there are virtually no borderline cases as an empirical matter.
They may be a minority, but most of the recent discussion was about borderline cases. The Nielsen Hayden blog, the WikipediaReview Signpost article, the Michael Moore site.
Perhaps you don't hink these are borderline, but in each of these cases I've seen people arguing on both sides.
Eugene
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
Jimmy Wales schreef:
The only real question is where and how to draw the line, but we are actually fortunate in this regard: there are virtually no borderline cases as an empirical matter.
They may be a minority, but most of the recent discussion was about borderline cases. The Nielsen Hayden blog, the WikipediaReview Signpost article, the Michael Moore site.
Perhaps you don't hink these are borderline, but in each of these cases I've seen people arguing on both sides.
Fair enough, the middle does need to be clarified. And maybe the conversation can proceed in a calm way if we remember that we do have a pretty easy consensus on the extremes and are quibbling thoughtfully over some middle points.
I still think it is not that hard, but I suppose I might be coming at this from my own perspective (that it is overboard to hastily remove links to a legitimate blog or to Michael Moore's site which is doing something irritating at the moment).
On 10/19/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
Jimmy Wales schreef:
The only real question is where and how to draw the line, but we are actually fortunate in this regard: there are virtually no borderline cases as an empirical matter.
They may be a minority, but most of the recent discussion was about borderline cases. The Nielsen Hayden blog, the WikipediaReview Signpost article, the Michael Moore site.
Perhaps you don't hink these are borderline, but in each of these cases I've seen people arguing on both sides.
Fair enough, the middle does need to be clarified. And maybe the conversation can proceed in a calm way if we remember that we do have a pretty easy consensus on the extremes and are quibbling thoughtfully over some middle points.
I still think it is not that hard, but I suppose I might be coming at this from my own perspective (that it is overboard to hastily remove links to a legitimate blog or to Michael Moore's site which is doing something irritating at the moment).
I agree with your position that these actions were overboard; the problem is, they were both done, they were both actively supported by a noticable fraction of active admins/senior editors at the time they were removed, and it was not clear to anyone (objecting to the removals or neutral) what policy actually had to say about it.
During the runup and early bits of the Moore removal, I objected to removing the links, but I couldn't tell if restoring them and warning the removers was the right thing to do, or a blockable offense I'd be committing. So I made some ANI comments and sat on my hands.
On 19/10/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
During the runup and early bits of the Moore removal, I objected to removing the links, but I couldn't tell if restoring them and warning the removers was the right thing to do, or a blockable offense I'd be committing. So I made some ANI comments and sat on my hands.
This is important: In the name of protecting people from harassment, the "victims" are creating a climate of fear on the wiki. They've been told this is counterproductive, but aren't inclined to listen.
- d.
On 19/10/2007, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Jimmy Wales schreef:
The only real question is where and how to draw the line, but we are actually fortunate in this regard: there are virtually no borderline cases as an empirical matter.
They may be a minority, but most of the recent discussion was about borderline cases. The Nielsen Hayden blog, the WikipediaReview Signpost article, the Michael Moore site. Perhaps you don't hink these are borderline, but in each of these cases I've seen people arguing on both sides.
And whether naming antisocialmedia.net in [[Judd Bagley]] should count as a personal attack on the people attacked by that site, even though the site itself is named openly in the NYT etc. as relevant. There was an arbitration case about this.
The problem is the cases in the middle. What overrides NPOV?
- d.
On 19/10/2007, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
RLS wrote:
Dude. Nobody's arguing against removing a poor source. We're arguing against removing valid, useful sources just because the same site contains harassment of an editor. THAT will cause us to violate NPOV.
Isn't this fairly rare, though?
Let's not get too hung up on edge cases. The bulk of the cases of interest are links to sites that are *literally* harasssment sites, through and through, and not valid references for anything at all.
But no-one is arguing that links which are obviously visible as harassment (to any passing reader) are good. We're all happy with those ones being taken out and shot on a case-by-case let's-be-sensible-now basis, whether you call it an attack-sites policy or you call it common sense.
The edge cases are the entire problem, and they're the most potentially harmful. What people are *strongly* against is "these are bad" being used to stealthily creep into "we can declare things which aren't quite these to be just as bad". And experience shows that if we leave loaded guns like these proposed policies lying around, some overzealous (well-meaning) admin will happily shoot the project in the foot with them.
We can manage just fine without any policy in this area, and a community happy to do *sane* and *reasonable* things about obvious harassment when obvious harassment happens, without consenting to excessive and harmful demands from the victims or from their more zealous flag-wavers. Which, you know, we have.
On 10/19/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
RLS wrote:
Dude. Nobody's arguing against removing a poor source. We're arguing against removing valid, useful sources just because the same site contains harassment of an editor. THAT will cause us to violate NPOV.
Isn't this fairly rare, though?
Let's not get too hung up on edge cases. The bulk of the cases of interest are links to sites that are *literally* harasssment sites, through and through, and not valid references for anything at all.
- No one is arguing (I hope) that links to Encyclopedia Dramatica are
valid sources for articles.
- No one is arguing (I hope) that a random evil post on a BBC
messageboard would make it ok to ban all links to the BBC.
The only real question is where and how to draw the line, but we are actually fortunate in this regard: there are virtually no borderline cases as an empirical matter.
That's basically what I've been trying to say throughout my several messages on this matter. The clear-cut cases are already well-covered by existing policy and guidelines--link the material if it's a good source, which typically won't include sites lacking enough in editorial control to become harassing; and don't link to the sites which aren't good sources.
With that point assumed, therefore (logically) the editors who continue to bring up this matter must be arguing for a policy to deal with the borderline cases; I keep trying to point out that we can't do that in advance as it will really depend on the value to the encyclopedia of the good material linked, the harm any alleged harassment will/has cause(d), the actual placement of harassing material on the pages, etc etc.
Regarding your numbered points, you're definitely right on #1. However, what I percieve from Will Beback and others who keep bringing this up is that they're trying to lean towards a position far closer to #2 than I (and many others) are comfortable with.
--Darkwind
Darkwind wrote:
On 10/19/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
- No one is arguing (I hope) that a random evil post on a BBC
messageboard would make it ok to ban all links to the BBC.
However, what I percieve from Will Beback and others who keep bringing this up is that they're trying to lean towards a position far closer to #2 than I (and many others) are comfortable with.
Right. In particular:
3. Does a random evil post on Making Light make it okay to ban all links to Making Light?
4. Granted that a page harassing or defaming an editor is almost certainly not going to be suitable as a reliable source for an article, but: in a non-article-space discussion of editor harassment and defamation, if I make a link to that page as a point of reference, do I run the risk of having the link removed, and myself blocked if I reinsert it?
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Dude. Nobody's arguing against removing a poor source. We're arguing against removing valid, useful sources just because the same site contains harassment of an editor. THAT will cause us to violate NPOV.
Let's not get too hung up on edge cases. The bulk of the cases of interest are links to sites that are *literally* harasssment sites, through and through, and not valid references for anything at all.
The cases of interest that have turned up are such things as Michael Moore's page, which isn't a harassment site through and through.
But one of the big problems happens when the harassment site *isn't being used as a reference* (for anything except its own content). One of the most notorious examples is that in the original BADSITES proposal, people couldn't even point to any examples of why attack site links might be useful because the attack site links got deleted as per the very policy that was being discussed. That's an incredible catch-22.
There was also a case where a user was criticized for posting on an attack site and tried to give links to the attack site to demonstrate that his posts were innocuous. They were deleted.
On 10/19/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
RLS wrote:
Dude. Nobody's arguing against removing a poor source. We're arguing against removing valid, useful sources just because the same site contains harassment of an editor. THAT will cause us to violate NPOV.
Isn't this fairly rare, though?
Let's not get too hung up on edge cases. The bulk of the cases of interest are links to sites that are *literally* harasssment sites, through and through, and not valid references for anything at all.
- No one is arguing (I hope) that links to Encyclopedia Dramatica are
valid sources for articles.
- No one is arguing (I hope) that a random evil post on a BBC
messageboard would make it ok to ban all links to the BBC.
The only real question is where and how to draw the line, but we are actually fortunate in this regard: there are virtually no borderline cases as an empirical matter.
--Jimbo
Jimmy
This second point is being argued and enforced from time to time. I have seen all links to one domain purged because one of the ~80 000 pages at somesite.com had undesireable material. That it's rare is not really the issue, because in cases like ED BADSITES is wholley irrelevant anyhow. Even without anything even vaguely like BADSITES there's already enough in place to not link to ED. BADSITES and ilk are only about the exceptional cases.
WilyD
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of Will Beback Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 7:43 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
[snip]
You can't say "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a free, neutral
encyclopedia"
but onlyhave that be relevant when you want it to, and not when you want
to remove
the link. Either NPOV is what we're striving for or it isn't. But we
don't only
strive for NPOV when it is the convenient part of Will Beback's argument.
If Wikipedia becomes known as a volunteer job that leads to off-site harassment that the community will do nothing to stop then that might tend to reduce the appeal of editing too.
I again dispute that removing poor sources harms NPOV.
Will
There is a (?unrecognized?) blurring of poor quality source vs. undesirable source, here, that's part of the reason this thread is so messy. Distinguishing the two will help a lot.
A * poor quality * source is one that makes statements that are unlikely to be reliable (or where there is no clear case they are reliable), and hence cannot meet [[WP:RS]]. Self publication, blogs, and the like, are archetypical "poor quality sources".
(By contrast in simple terms, a good quality source would be one that is reliable, or does credibly testify to certain matters or their genuine standing.)
An * undesirable * source is one that we do not wish to promote, link to, or encourage, usually because it actively is engaged in harming us, or an editor, or contains text which pointedly attacks or harasses members of the community, etc. (Be aware the decision to "not wish to promote or link" is inherently non neutral - it always serves an agenda and perspective of one side.)
Now... there is usually no problem with poor quality sources. We have no use for them so we never have to link to them. Also, so long as an undesirable sources is also a poor quality source, we have no problem or conflict either. Same reason, there is no good reason to link to such a source. The concern comes, what happens when a site hosts both good quality material, and * also * undesirable material. That is the heart of this issue, and this precision is needed to examine it.
In some cases we can replace the source with another, so we don't have an issue. This would usually be the preferred answer anyway. So ultimately, there are precisely 2 cases left to consider:
1/ The entire site is basically an "undesirable source", and really, the entire site, or its aim, is undesirable to link to. But for some matters, or in some articles, it is also a good quality or valuable source, and has especial reference value in those limited areas.
2/ The site has one (or a limited few) pages which are "undesirable", but the rest of its pages, or the aim of the site in general, is not really a problem per se. But for some matters in some articles it is also a good quality or valuable source, and has especial reference value in those limited areas.
These are the specific two cases we need a decision on -- on the basis "if this situation did exist for some site, how would we handle it?"
I think looking at it this way is far more likely to be more constructive, and lead to a more helpful analysis, than just arguing the question, is it an "attack site", whatever that may mean.
FT2.
FT2 wrote:
There is a (?unrecognized?) blurring of poor quality source vs. undesirable source, here, that's part of the reason this thread is so messy. Distinguishing the two will help a lot.
A * poor quality * source is one that makes statements that are unlikely to be reliable [...]
An * undesirable * source is one that we do not wish to promote, link to, or encourage, usually because it actively is engaged in harming us, or an editor, or contains text which pointedly attacks or harasses members of the community, etc. (Be aware the decision to "not wish to promote or link" is inherently non neutral - it always serves an agenda and perspective of one side.)
Thanks for breaking that down.
Although you don't mention them, I think we can also extend your model to article-space external links. There are poor-quality links, which are irrelevant, spammy, or otherwise not serving readers well. Then there are possibly undesirable links, like michaelmoore.com, which don't serve us well.
I think the question of external links in other spaces would yield to a similar approach, but it's not as directly analogous.
I think looking at it this way is far more likely to be more constructive, and lead to a more helpful analysis, than just arguing the question, is it an "attack site", whatever that may mean.
Agreed.
Thanks,
William
William Pietri wrote:
...the question of external links in other spaces would yield to a similar approach, but it's not as directly analogous.
At the risk of prolonging a discussion that's already rather egregiously long in the tooth, what do people think about those? One of the larger objections to BADSITES and its resurrection in WP:NPA#EL concerned the prohibition of links to attack sites even in talk and project spaces, even as part of sober discussion of the alleged personal attacks. Is there still any sentiment to keep trying to ban those kinds of links?
Quoting Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com:
William Pietri wrote:
...the question of external links in other spaces would yield to a similar approach, but it's not as directly analogous.
At the risk of prolonging a discussion that's already rather egregiously long in the tooth, what do people think about those? One of the larger objections to BADSITES and its resurrection in WP:NPA#EL concerned the prohibition of links to attack sites even in talk and project spaces, even as part of sober discussion of the alleged personal attacks. Is there still any sentiment to keep trying to ban those kinds of links?
I have more sympathy with such bans because they don't violate NPOV or diminish article content. I think such bans are generally bad ideas since we can just remove any form of trolling without any linking policy. But a bad idea is not nearly as problematic as one that actively harms the encyclopedia.
(Again, not making policy here, just engaging as an equal in a hopefully constructive discussion...)
Steve Summit wrote:
At the risk of prolonging a discussion that's already rather egregiously long in the tooth, what do people think about those? One of the larger objections to BADSITES and its resurrection in WP:NPA#EL concerned the prohibition of links to attack sites even in talk and project spaces, even as part of sober discussion of the alleged personal attacks. Is there still any sentiment to keep trying to ban those kinds of links?
Yes, but we have to be careful and thoughtful.
One thing I have seen recently is violations of No Personal Attacks through the posting of links to abusive websites. I will make a hypothetical example.
A problematic editor who has a history of trouble with others and the Arbcom responds to something perfectly appropriate said by a well known Wikipedia admin, in the following fashion.
"Anyone who wants to understand what is going on here, should simply read [http://www.someattacksite.com/Admin_name.html this link]."
I think statements like that are an "incorporation by reference" of the material contained on the attack site, and should be removed immediately (and probably the problematic editor blocked at that point).
--Jimbo
On 10/24/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
(Again, not making policy here, just engaging as an equal in a hopefully constructive discussion...)
Steve Summit wrote:
At the risk of prolonging a discussion that's already rather egregiously long in the tooth, what do people think about those? One of the larger objections to BADSITES and its resurrection in WP:NPA#EL concerned the prohibition of links to attack sites even in talk and project spaces, even as part of sober discussion of the alleged personal attacks. Is there still any sentiment to keep trying to ban those kinds of links?
Yes, but we have to be careful and thoughtful.
One thing I have seen recently is violations of No Personal Attacks through the posting of links to abusive websites. I will make a hypothetical example.
A problematic editor who has a history of trouble with others and the Arbcom responds to something perfectly appropriate said by a well known Wikipedia admin, in the following fashion.
"Anyone who wants to understand what is going on here, should simply read [http://www.someattacksite.com/Admin_name.html this link]."
I think statements like that are an "incorporation by reference" of the material contained on the attack site, and should be removed immediately (and probably the problematic editor blocked at that point).
--Jimbo
Jimbo
That seems like a clear violation of WP:NPA without use of badsites at all. I don't think anyone seriously disputes this. I will say "Even without anything resembling badsites, this is actionable under WP:NPA". Even if we, as a community, reject WP:BADSITES to the last editor, this is still unacceptable per WP:NPA. Doesn't matter. Totally off topic.
Cheers WilyD
On 10/24/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
(Again, not making policy here, just engaging as an equal in a hopefully constructive discussion...)
Steve Summit wrote:
At the risk of prolonging a discussion that's already rather egregiously long in the tooth, what do people think about those? One
of the larger objections to BADSITES and its resurrection
in WP:NPA#EL concerned the prohibition of links to attack sites even
in talk and project spaces, even as part of sober discussion of the alleged personal attacks. Is there still any sentiment to keep trying to ban those kinds of links?
Yes, but we have to be careful and thoughtful.
One thing I have seen recently is violations of No Personal Attacks through the posting of links to abusive websites. I will make a hypothetical example.
A problematic editor who has a history of trouble with others and the Arbcom responds to something perfectly appropriate said by a well known Wikipedia admin, in the following fashion.
"Anyone who wants to understand what is going on here, should simply read [http://www.someattacksite.com/Admin_name.html this link]."
I think statements like that are an "incorporation by reference" of the material contained on the attack site, and should be removed immediately (and probably the problematic editor blocked at that point).
--Jimbo
Jimbo
That seems like a clear violation of WP:NPA without use of badsites at all. I don't think anyone seriously disputes this. I will say "Even without anything resembling badsites, this is actionable under WP:NPA". Even if we, as a community, reject WP:BADSITES to the last editor, this is still unacceptable per WP:NPA. Doesn't matter. Totally off topic.
Cheers WilyD
Actually, no. It's not off topic. Harassment policy, to the extent it is valid, is based on No Personal Attacks.
Fred
On 10/24/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 10/24/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
(Again, not making policy here, just engaging as an equal in a hopefully constructive discussion...)
Steve Summit wrote:
At the risk of prolonging a discussion that's already rather egregiously long in the tooth, what do people think about those? One
of the larger objections to BADSITES and its resurrection
in WP:NPA#EL concerned the prohibition of links to attack sites even
in talk and project spaces, even as part of sober discussion of the alleged personal attacks. Is there still any sentiment to keep trying to ban those kinds of links?
Yes, but we have to be careful and thoughtful.
One thing I have seen recently is violations of No Personal Attacks through the posting of links to abusive websites. I will make a hypothetical example.
A problematic editor who has a history of trouble with others and the Arbcom responds to something perfectly appropriate said by a well known Wikipedia admin, in the following fashion.
"Anyone who wants to understand what is going on here, should simply read [http://www.someattacksite.com/Admin_name.html this link]."
I think statements like that are an "incorporation by reference" of the material contained on the attack site, and should be removed immediately (and probably the problematic editor blocked at that point).
--Jimbo
Jimbo
That seems like a clear violation of WP:NPA without use of badsites at all. I don't think anyone seriously disputes this. I will say "Even without anything resembling badsites, this is actionable under WP:NPA". Even if we, as a community, reject WP:BADSITES to the last editor, this is still unacceptable per WP:NPA. Doesn't matter. Totally off topic.
Cheers WilyD
Actually, no. It's not off topic. Harassment policy, to the extent it is valid, is based on No Personal Attacks.
Fred
Fred
No, it isn't. Harassment is already forbidden, by NPA. Any BADSITES proposal must necessarily be developed *only* to cover external linking which is not harassment. Anything else is either confusion or strawman (but either way, off topic).
Cheers WilyD
Quoting Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
On 10/24/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
(Again, not making policy here, just engaging as an equal in a hopefully constructive discussion...)
Steve Summit wrote:
At the risk of prolonging a discussion that's already rather egregiously long in the tooth, what do people think about those? One
of the larger objections to BADSITES and its resurrection
in WP:NPA#EL concerned the prohibition of links to attack sites even
in talk and project spaces, even as part of sober discussion of the alleged personal attacks. Is there still any sentiment to keep trying to ban those kinds of links?
Yes, but we have to be careful and thoughtful.
One thing I have seen recently is violations of No Personal Attacks through the posting of links to abusive websites. I will make a hypothetical example.
A problematic editor who has a history of trouble with others and the Arbcom responds to something perfectly appropriate said by a well known Wikipedia admin, in the following fashion.
"Anyone who wants to understand what is going on here, should simply read [http://www.someattacksite.com/Admin_name.html this link]."
I think statements like that are an "incorporation by reference" of the material contained on the attack site, and should be removed immediately (and probably the problematic editor blocked at that point).
--Jimbo
Jimbo
That seems like a clear violation of WP:NPA without use of badsites at all. I don't think anyone seriously disputes this. I will say "Even without anything resembling badsites, this is actionable under WP:NPA". Even if we, as a community, reject WP:BADSITES to the last editor, this is still unacceptable per WP:NPA. Doesn't matter. Totally off topic.
Cheers WilyD
Actually, no. It's not off topic. Harassment policy, to the extent it is valid, is based on No Personal Attacks.
Fred
Fred, I think you are misintepreting what he said. The point was that even without any BADSITES policy this sort of thing is so blatant that anyone would consider it a personal attack. It is a blatant example of using the link to make the attack.
Fred Bauder wrote:
Willy D wrote:
On 10/24/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
"Anyone who wants to understand what is going on here, should simply read [http://www.someattacksite.com/Admin_name.html this link]."
That seems like a clear violation of WP:NPA without use of badsites at all. I don't think anyone seriously disputes this. I will say "Even without anything resembling badsites, this is actionable under WP:NPA". Even if we, as a community, reject WP:BADSITES to the last editor, this is still unacceptable per WP:NPA. Doesn't matter. Totally off topic.
Actually, no. It's not off topic. Harassment policy, to the extent it is valid, is based on No Personal Attacks.
What he means is that even if WP:BADSITES were expunged from the history of Wikipedia and erased from the minds of all of its editors such that it was not even remotely possible to use it as a justification for any action whatsoever, the link would _still_ be removed simply on the basis of the existing no-personal-attacks policy. So BADSITES is completely irrelevant to the matter of whether this link is removed.
BADSITES and BADSITES-like proposals are _extensions_ to the no personal attacks policy, covering things that are not in and of themselves personal attacks. That's where the dispute comes in.
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
If Wikipedia becomes known as a volunteer job that leads to off-site harassment that the community will do nothing to stop then that might tend to reduce the appeal of editing too.
Will, as many editors have pointed out to you, we aren't saying that we shouldn't do anything. The objection is solely to the removal of links that would otherwise definitely be in an article.
I again dispute that removing poor sources harms NPOV.
Again, we've already explained how these aren't "poor sources" and multiple editors have already discussed how this harms NPOV. Simply saying "I again dispute X" doesn't make the arguments for X any weaker.
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
If Wikipedia becomes known as a volunteer job that leads to off-site harassment that the community will do nothing to stop then that might tend to reduce the appeal of editing too.
Will, as many editors have pointed out to you, we aren't saying that we shouldn't do anything. The objection is solely to the removal of links that would otherwise definitely be in an article.
I again dispute that removing poor sources harms NPOV.
Again, we've already explained how these aren't "poor sources" and multiple editors have already discussed how this harms NPOV. Simply saying "I again dispute X" doesn't make the arguments for X any weaker.
We'll have to agree to disagree on some of this. The specific proposal I made received little support here and the discussion of it does not appear to be making progress so I'll stop advancing it.
I hope we do all agree that harassment of Wikipedia editors should not be tolerated by the community, and that the community should take all reasonable steps to prevent or minimize it. We do need to decide what steps are appropriate. A mailing list may not be the best forum for working out a consensus on this issue.
Will Beback
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
Claiming the moral high ground is not part of the mission of Wikipedia. If someone else wants to claim it then fine,. let them. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a free, neutral encyclopedia.
Wikipedia exists in the real world, and the project's reputation matters. It effects whether people will be likely to help us out or to join or to simply read. If we're thought of as an authoritarian, censoring dictatorship, not many people will join us. Furthermore, you can't have it both ways. You can't say "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a free, neutral encyclopedia" but only have that be relevant when you want it to, and not when you want to remove the link. Either NPOV is what we're striving for or it isn't. But we don't only strive for NPOV when it is the convenient part of Will Beback's argument.
People won't want to join if it becomes known that participating in Wikipedia can lead to serious harassment at home and work, and that the community will do nothing to support its volunteers when that happens.
I dispute the contention that removing poor sources harms NPOV.
Will
On 19/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
I dispute the contention that removing poor sources harms NPOV.
Who made that contention? Quotes and URLs please.
- d.
I've just come across a link to Wikipedia Review in an AN/I archive. It was inserted by a member of ArbCom in the announcement of an action of theirs to give the justification.
On 10/19/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I've just come across a link to Wikipedia Review in an AN/I archive. It was inserted by a member of ArbCom in the announcement of an action of theirs to give the justification.
They probably realized, as we do, that the notorious Everyking thread on WR didn't contain any forms of harassment, and reached the (not unreasonable) conclusion that there is sometimes a good reason to link to an "attack site".
Either that or none of these considerations even came to mind as the committee announced its unprecedentedly urgent decision (and of course nobody saw any ethical dilemma in poring through the discussion threads of said attack site to collect specific information, whether or not they considered the remainder of it to be morally filthy-dirty).
—C.W.
Will Beback wrote:
My view:
We should not alter article content one iota in response to external badgering. The only thing that has changed is our view of them, not the NPOV view of them. Ergo, we behave exactly as if they were harassing
Editors in good standing should be able to link to the harassment to the extent that they believe it serves some legitimate purpose in furtherance of Wikipedia's mission. If they are linking for some other reason (e.g., or gossip or furthering the harassment) they should be dealt with through our usual mechanisms for miscreants and the clue-deficient.
We should tell the editor that we hope they understand that articles should not be affected in any way by internet drama. To the extent that the editor wants to take defensive legal action (like getting a restraining order) we should support them.
Why would we support an editor in getting a restraining order, but not support them by doing any restraining ourselves? What form would this support take?
Will, you keep going back and forth on this. I asked you explicitly if removing the link was supposed to have some effect on the outside site, whether it was punitive. You said no. Instead, you have said both a) because they were now so unreliably deranged we couldn't link to them, or b) it made the editor feel bad.
Now you're back to what I suspected and you denied: it is intended to have an effect on the harassers. My prediction is that it will have exactly the effect that it did before: it will make us look like self-serving, vengeful people who are willing to manipulate encyclopedia coverage to get what we want. It will not restrain them; it will infuriate them.
However, even if it did work, we should not do any restraining ourself because we are not the police and we are not vigilantes. The encyclopedia is not ours to hold hostage to petty squabbles with petty people. Not ever.
And we should encourage them to ask for a fellow editor to take over maintaining the article(s) in question, hopefully from a pool of people with thick skins and diplomatic skills.
So you're saying that if an editor is harassed by an outside group then the editor (and Wikipedia) should give in to that harassment. And you think that won't affect the POV of a topic? If a group succeeds in driving off one editor after another, how many thick-skinned editors are there willing to take their places?
I'm of course not saying we should give in to harassment. As I said a whole three paragraphs before the one you quote, "We should not alter article content one iota in response to external badgering."
I'm saying we have a ton of good editors, and that if there is some personal conflict, we can afford to move people around. We can afford to replace one editor in a dispute with one or several solid editors with no personal history.
I think this is a good idea not just out of theory, but because I've tried it. It was a relief to get a problem article off my watchlist, and things have gone fine since. Was the problem me? Was the problem them? Was it a weird confluence of the two? Or did they just settle down when they saw a fresh face? I don't know and I don't much care. It works.
Let's think about it long enough to come up with a formal policy or procedure to handle it. You make some good suggestions, but mail-list posting don't write policies.
I'm not feeling a personal need for a policy. I think our article-space policies are fine. I think outside of article space we need to be better about following things like WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:COOL.
And I think we need to make it clearer to prospective editors and admins that getting seriously involved in the world's 9th most popular web site makes you a quasi-public figure, with all that entails. E.g., [1] and [2].
William
[1] Gabriel's Theory: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 [2] "Everybody Sucks", http://nymag.com/news/features/39319/
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
William Pietri wrote:
Will Beback wrote:
[story snipped]
How should a policy deal with this situation? Should we maintain our link to the chatboard (which could only used because it was the subject of the article). Should we link to the harassment as an example of that community's activism? Should we tell valued editor that the link is more important than his privacy or well-being?
My view:
We should not alter article content one iota in response to external badgering. The only thing that has changed is our view of them, not the NPOV view of them. Ergo, we behave exactly as if they were harassing
Editors in good standing should be able to link to the harassment to the extent that they believe it serves some legitimate purpose in furtherance of Wikipedia's mission. If they are linking for some other reason (e.g., or gossip or furthering the harassment) they should be dealt with through our usual mechanisms for miscreants and the clue-deficient.
We should tell the editor that we hope they understand that articles should not be affected in any way by internet drama. To the extent that the editor wants to take defensive legal action (like getting a restraining order) we should support them.
Why would we support an editor in getting a restraining order, but not support them by doing any restraining ourselves? What form would this support take?
Um, he just said. Getting a restaining order. And yes, it isn't our job to do that, especially when removing a valid link in an article hardly adds restraint.
And we should encourage them to ask for a fellow editor to take over maintaining the article(s) in question, hopefully from a pool of people with thick skins and diplomatic skills.
So you're saying that if an editor is harassed by an outside group then the editor (and Wikipedia) should give in to that harassment. And you think that won't affect the POV of a topic? If a group succeeds in driving off one editor after another, how many thick-skinned editors are there willing to take their places?
No, but the editor may wish to have others help out or take the flack temporarily. I've done this before for editors who have not as thick skin as I do, and generally after things die down the editor goes back to that article. This isn't giving in at all. Giving in would be leaving and never coming back. It is merely a strategic switching of roles.
*rest snipped*
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
Steve Summit wrote:
I may disagree with everything Michael Moore says and stands for, but I will defend pretty strongly not only his right to say so, but also the right of our encyclopedia readers to evaluate it for themselves.
I think we need a new example. The Michael Moore issue us barely even real harassment. Here's the story of "user:Joe". This is a true, recent story, but with the information changed because it was indeed harassment.
Let's call the editor in good standing "Joe" and the the issue cockfighting, though it wasn't. It's a topic with an eager and engaged group of proponents. There's a website called "RoosterChat" and Wikipedia had an article on it (that was eventually deleted as non-notable). Joe took some actions and edits to correct the NPOV of articles on the topic and became the target of that community's ire. They posted messages on their chatboard with his personal information, including phone number, and a request that board members call him at work to convey their feelings. The immediate situation was handled through diplomacy, but in the long term the editor was forced to reduce his involvement in the topic and take other steps to restore his privacy.
How should a policy deal with this situation? Should we maintain our link to the chatboard (which could only used because it was the subject of the article). Should we link to the harassment as an example of that community's activism? Should we tell valued editor that the link is more important than his privacy or well-being?
As I've attempted to explain before, having the link to their article doesn't substantially reduce the editor's privacy or wellbeing. It is especially ridiculous in either your RoosterChat case or the MichaelMore case because anyone who is looking for information about RoosterChat will want to know what the website is anyways and can google for it. So all we are doing is compromising NPOV and losing the moral highground of not involving our encyclopedia with our disputes.
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
How should a policy deal with this situation? Should we maintain our link to the chatboard (which could only used because it was the subject of the article). Should we link to the harassment as an example of that community's activism? Should we tell valued editor that the link is more important than his privacy or well-being?
As I've attempted to explain before, having the link to their article doesn't substantially reduce the editor's privacy or wellbeing. It is especially ridiculous in either your RoosterChat case or the MichaelMore case because anyone who is looking for information about RoosterChat will want to know what the website is anyways and can google for it. So all we are doing is compromising NPOV and losing the moral highground of not involving our encyclopedia with our disputes.
I take issue with what I believe your saying. What we're talking here about are disputes that are due to encyclopedia editing. Yes, there are some folks with pre-existing battles who come to Wikipedia to settle scores, which never should have come to WP to begin with. That's nt what we're talking about. The cases that are the most shocking are those that originate with editors enforcing Wikipedia rules. When folks are doing good they shouldn't be targetted for harassment by POV pushers. When they are we should stand by them. We lose the moral highground and compromise NPOV when we say to folks that are trying to change Wikipedia content that they are free to harass those who enforce Wikipedia policies, and editors who don't like it need to go edit elsewhere so the POV pushers can have their way.
W.
Will Beback wrote:
When folks are doing good they shouldn't be targetted for harassment by POV pushers.
Absolutely true.
When they are we should stand by them.
Absolutely true.
But if I disagree that blind link removal will help, don't say that I'm not standing by them. That's like asking me if I've stopped beating my wife.
We lose the moral highground and compromise NPOV
Huh? (And in another post you said you weren't worried about the moral high ground.)
when we say to folks that are trying to change Wikipedia content that they are free to harass those who enforce Wikipedia policies,
But we never say this.
and editors who don't like it need to go edit elsewhere so the POV pushers can have their way.
And we never say this, either.
(If an editor can't manage to ignore inane criticism, we may suggest that the editor edit a different page for a while, but in doing so we're neither saying that they must leave the project, nor that the harasser has gotten his way.)
Will Beback wrote:
I'm not proposing removing all external links, I'm proposing removing a small number of links.
I never suggested otherwise.
You said removing external links from articles was not a big deal. I suggested you go try doing that with a bunch of articles. Just removing ones like the link to the article subject's website. You will quickly have a host of people willing to explain in detail why it is a big deal -- right after they have reverted you.
Ergo, the links do have value.
I hope that you aren't saying that all external links provide value and we should never remove any external link that a well-meaning editor (or greedy website owner) adds. If we stopped deleting external links and removed the spam blacklist I predict we'd have more links than text, especially in some topics. We include a large variety of links because they provide encyclopedic value. If we determine that they don't provide that value then we delete them.
I can't tell if you really have the notion that I would suggest that.
If you don't, then it's a rhetorical device that tells me that we won't make any more progress here. If you do, then I have obviously failed to convey to you pretty much anything that matters to me. In which case I also think future discussion is unlikely to be fruitful.
Sorry.
William