On BLPN someone asked me what I'd suggest as a change to BLP policy to allow cutting down the santorum article.
Here's my first attempt:
Avoid victimization
When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, *or writing about a person who is independently notable but where the biographical material is so prominent that it can significantly affect the subject*, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions, *or writing about a topic that is largely or entirely about the person being a victim of another's actions*. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
Additional material indicated by *s.
It seems like the most common objection is that we can't determine who is a victim (to which my response is that I'm just extending an existing rule and we seem to have no trouble doing it for the existing rule).
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Avoid victimization
When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, *or writing about a person who is independently notable but where the biographical material is so prominent that it can significantly affect the subject*, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions, *or writing about a topic that is largely or entirely about the person being a victim of another's actions*. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
Additional material indicated by *s.
It seems like the most common objection is that we can't determine who is a victim (to which my response is that I'm just extending an existing rule and we seem to have no trouble doing it for the existing rule).
We'd have the same argument regardless of this new extension of the rule. What "damage" are we doing to Santorum not already done by Dan Savage and the 132 reliable sources documenting this matter?
I don't think BLP needs this kind of mission creep. It's important to protect Santorum and others from malicious editing and bad sourcing and undue weight, but it isn't our job to protect Santorum from Dan Savage or the news media or the world.
I'm not convinced that this particular neologism will have the staying power of the one immortalising Sir Thomas Crapper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crapper
8 letters, three syllables doth not a four letter word make, and the term itself is somewhat more obscure. I suspect that unless further flames are added to the fire, such as it provoking a sea change in Wikipedia policy, it will fade into obscurity.
WereSpielChequers
On 3 June 2011 01:11, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Avoid victimization
When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, *or writing about a person who is independently notable but where the biographical material is so prominent that it can significantly affect the subject*, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions, *or writing about a topic that is largely or entirely about the person being a victim of another's actions*. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
Additional material indicated by *s.
It seems like the most common objection is that we can't determine who is a victim (to which my response is that I'm just extending an existing rule and we seem to have no trouble doing it for the existing rule).
We'd have the same argument regardless of this new extension of the rule. What "damage" are we doing to Santorum not already done by Dan Savage and the 132 reliable sources documenting this matter?
I don't think BLP needs this kind of mission creep. It's important to protect Santorum and others from malicious editing and bad sourcing and undue weight, but it isn't our job to protect Santorum from Dan Savage or the news media or the world.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, WereSpielChequers wrote:
8 letters, three syllables doth not a four letter word make, and the term itself is somewhat more obscure. I suspect that unless further flames are added to the fire, such as it provoking a sea change in Wikipedia policy, it will fade into obscurity.
How's it going to fall itno obscurity? 20 years from now a search for his name will still bring up our article about shit. Unless we do something to avoid an overinflated Google rank for the article, it can never fade away, ever, because of us.
Over a hundred years after Thomas Crapper plied his trade as a plumber his name and especially the first four letters of it are still in daily use. But I would be surprised if in twenty years time santorum is still used in the sense Dan Savage intended, and I hope that at some point in the future Wikipedia will come to the view that notability can sometimes be transient. Of course there is the possibility that this neologism has more staying power than I thought, but in any event Mr Santorum is better off with articles like http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_84/-203455-1.html and a neutrally written Wikipedia article explaining that his name was used for this neologism as an attack on him rather than just leaving it to sites that explain the word without the context of why it was coined.
As for the Google rank, I don't know how search engines will work in years to come, but I would be surprised if they didn't consider such things as when a webpage was last updated.
WSC
On 3 June 2011 16:28, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, WereSpielChequers wrote:
8 letters, three syllables doth not a four letter word make, and the term itself is somewhat more obscure. I suspect that unless further flames are added to the fire, such as it provoking a sea change in Wikipedia policy, it will fade into obscurity.
How's it going to fall itno obscurity? 20 years from now a search for his name will still bring up our article about shit. Unless we do something to avoid an overinflated Google rank for the article, it can never fade away, ever, because of us.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Rob wrote:
I don't think BLP needs this kind of mission creep. It's important to protect Santorum and others from malicious editing and bad sourcing and undue weight, but it isn't our job to protect Santorum from Dan Savage or the news media or the world.
Santorum is not just being victimized by Dan Savage or the news media or the world--he's being victimized by *us*. That makes it our job. Just because it's an already existing campaign doesn't mean we have no responsibility when a search for his name brings up this article as the #3 hit (and #2 if you only search for his last name).
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Santorum is not just being victimized by Dan Savage or the news media or the world--he's being victimized by *us*. That makes it our job. Just because it's an already existing campaign doesn't mean we have no responsibility when a search for his name brings up this article as the #3 hit (and #2 if you only search for his last name).
We're just recording what has already been discussed in 132 reliable sources. We're not "victimizing" him any more than we are victimizing Silvio Berlusconi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlusconi#Sexual_scandals) or John Edwards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair) or John Kerry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_military_service_controversy) or Anthony Weiner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Weiner#Twitter_controversy). The Kerry example is especially pertinent as both it and the Santorum article are an entire Wikipedia article about things that other people made up about the subject of the article.
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Rob wrote:
We're just recording what has already been discussed in 132 reliable sources. We're not "victimizing" him any more than we are victimizing Silvio Berlusconi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlusconi#Sexual_scandals) or John Edwards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair) or John Kerry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_military_service_controversy) or Anthony Weiner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Weiner#Twitter_controversy). The Kerry example is especially pertinent as both it and the Santorum article are an entire Wikipedia article about things that other people made up about the subject of the article.
Part of it is a matter of degree. The article on the John Kerry controversy isn't the #2 search for "Kerry" on the Internet.
Part of it is that we're talking about different types of things. The Kerry controversy is ultimately about factual claims, and therefore whether our article harms John Kerry depends on whether we give undue weight to those claims. This one isn't about factual claims; it's about creating an unpleasant association, so avoiding undue weight isn't enough to keep it from doing harm.
And there aren't 132 reliable sources; there was a post on BLPN which analyzed the problems with a bunch of sources (several were self-published, for instance. Of course they had to be left in as part of a "compromise"), but there are so many "sources" that nobody could possibly check them all. Furthermore, the large number of sources is itself part of the abuse of the system--sources are often links and raise the page's Google rank, just like including big templates.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Part of it is a matter of degree. The article on the John Kerry controversy isn't the #2 search for "Kerry" on the Internet.
And whenever people mention this, they conveniently forget to mention that the #1 result is Dan Savage's website. We didn't put it out there and we aren't perpetuating it. Wikipedia entries are typically near the top of *any* search result. Sometimes when I create an article on a historical figure it shoots to the top of the results with a day or less, even above pages that have been around for years, edu sites, archives, etc.
Part of it is that we're talking about different types of things. The Kerry controversy is ultimately about factual claims, and therefore whether our article harms John Kerry depends on whether we give undue weight to those claims. This one isn't about factual claims; it's about creating an unpleasant association, so avoiding undue weight isn't enough to keep it from doing harm.
I don't understand this kind of hairsplitting. Documenting fabrications is acceptable, but only the right kind of fabrications? Aren't, say, the "factual claims" of Birthers about creating "unpleasant associations" with Obama? The last thing we need in Wikipedia is more systemic bias, and this is what that hairsplitting would lead to.
And there aren't 132 reliable sources; there was a post on BLPN which analyzed the problems with a bunch of sources (several were self-published, for instance. Of course they had to be left in as part of a "compromise"), but there are so many "sources" that nobody could possibly check them all. Furthermore, the large number of sources is itself part of the abuse of the system--sources are often links and raise the page's Google rank, just like including big templates.
That post you mentioned cherry picked a few sources out of the 132. 14 in that post were from The Stranger, the newspaper where Dan Savage's columns originate. The published writing of one of the two principal players in this matter is absolutely a reliable source for this article, as it's been long-established that people are an RS for their own views. The other 20 don't meet the gold standard, but neither are they worthy of being immediately dismissed without discussion. But even if we throw all of them out, that still leaves 98 reliable sources that are not in dispute: major newspapers, academic books, etc. Nitpicking them isn't enough, you just dismiss them out of hand with scare quotes and then try to use that fact against it. Shouldn't an article be well-sourced? If you don't think they've been properly "checked", then post on BLPN and we'll both get some people together to check them. That's what we do here, it's part of the editing process. And adding reliable sources isn't good anymore, it's doubleplusungood "abuse"? This way lies madness if we try to apply this to the encyclopedia. If you want to discuss actual gaming of the system, we can, but let's not label proper editing and reliable sourcing as "abuse".
The most frustrating thing about this discussion is the way that editors of long standing feel free to slur everyone that disagrees with them. As the conflict moves from talk page to noticeboard to mailing list and back again (start an RFC already and let's centralize this nonsense!) these editors have attacked normal editing as "abuse" and slurred other editors as rabid anti-Santorum partisans and gay activists. I really thought we were better than this.
On 4 June 2011 04:47, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Part of it is a matter of degree. The article on the John Kerry controversy isn't the #2 search for "Kerry" on the Internet.
And whenever people mention this, they conveniently forget to mention that the #1 result is Dan Savage's website.
As may be.
The Wikipedia article for the word ranks above the article for the person; ergo, something is wrong.
I've just tested two searches in google. "Rick Santorum" had our article on the person in second place and our article on the neologism in third place. For "Santorum" we again had the second and third spots, but the order was reversed. In both cases Google gave prime place to a website about the neologism, that website is not part of wikimedia.
If I was Rick Santorum I'd be asking Google why both queries gave the number one hit they they gave, but that surely is between him and Google.
As for Kerry, the first Wikipedia hit is for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Kerry and there are several other people places and things called Kerry in the first few pages. On that search I didn't spot either a negative page about him, or our article about the controversy, so I don't know which comes higher in Google ranking for Kerry. But for "kerry swift boat" the first two hits are both Wikipedia. In my experience Wikipedia articles often come top or close to it in Google searches, and if I was Rick Santorum I would be hoping that the Wikipedia article on the neologism one day overtook the article that currently comes up top in a "Santorum" or "Rick Santorum" search.
WSC
On 4 June 2011 09:31, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 June 2011 04:47, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Part of it is a matter of degree. The article on the John Kerry controversy isn't the #2 search for "Kerry" on the Internet.
And whenever people mention this, they conveniently forget to mention that the #1 result is Dan Savage's website.
As may be.
The Wikipedia article for the word ranks above the article for the person; ergo, something is wrong.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4 June 2011 11:43, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
I've just tested two searches in google.
IMPORTANT: when testing Google searches, use another browser where you're logged out and there are no Google cookies!
Search results vary *widely* between generic results for your location and your personal optimised results. If you're a Wikipedian, this is likely to have reached Google and it will then supply you with what it thinks are more helpful results.
- d.
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011, WereSpielChequers wrote:
But for "kerry swift boat" the first two hits are both Wikipedia.
Anyone searching for that is specifically searching for the controversy, not just searching for Kerry. If the santorum article only showed up when searching for "santorum sexual slang" there wouldn't be any problem.
if I was Rick Santorum I would be hoping that the Wikipedia article on the neologism one day overtook the article that currently comes up top in a "Santorum" or "Rick Santorum" search.
... because the Wikipedia article is better than another page that's even worse.
Talk about damning with faint praise. He might prefer the Wikipedia article over the other one, because even if it harms him, it doesn't harm him as much as the other one. Trying merely to be less harmful than other web pages is an abominably low standard. We can do better than that.
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Rob wrote:
Part of it is that we're talking about different types of things. The Kerry controversy is ultimately about factual claims, and therefore whether our article harms John Kerry depends on whether we give undue weight to those claims. This one isn't about factual claims; it's about creating an unpleasant association, so avoiding undue weight isn't enough to keep it from doing harm.
I don't understand this kind of hairsplitting. Documenting fabrications is acceptable, but only the right kind of fabrications? Aren't, say, the "factual claims" of Birthers about creating "unpleasant associations" with Obama? The last thing we need in Wikipedia is more systemic bias, and this is what that hairsplitting would lead to.
"Person X is like shit" is unpleasant in a very different way from "person X is a liar". The latter creates an unpleasant association with that person only to the degree that that person is believed to have committed unpleasant activities. The former creates an unpleasant association on an emotional level.
You can write a balanced article that reports the claim that Obama is a liar without making the audience think Obama is a liar. You cannot do this when the article is about comparing a person to shit.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Rob wrote:
Part of it is that we're talking about different types of things. The Kerry controversy is ultimately about factual claims, and therefore whether our article harms John Kerry depends on whether we give undue weight to those claims. This one isn't about factual claims; it's about creating an unpleasant association, so avoiding undue weight isn't enough to keep it from doing harm.
I don't understand this kind of hairsplitting. Documenting fabrications is acceptable, but only the right kind of fabrications? Aren't, say, the "factual claims" of Birthers about creating "unpleasant associations" with Obama? The last thing we need in Wikipedia is more systemic bias, and this is what that hairsplitting would lead to.
"Person X is like shit" is unpleasant in a very different way from "person X is a liar". The latter creates an unpleasant association with that person only to the degree that that person is believed to have committed unpleasant activities. The former creates an unpleasant association on an emotional level.
You can write a balanced article that reports the claim that Obama is a liar without making the audience think Obama is a liar. You cannot do this when the article is about comparing a person to shit.
If you don't think the Birther claims work on an emotional level, then you haven't been paying attention to them. All such conspiracy claims work on an emotional level, as their adherents have proven impervious to the intervention of logic and facts. You're trying to make a distinction between two kinds of "claims" that does not exist. How do we incorporate that kind of hairsplitting into policy? And if we managed to do so, it would create a systemic bias, favoring one kind of targeted fabrication over another.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
Anyone searching for ["kerry swift boat"] is specifically searching for the controversy, not just searching for Kerry.
"Kerry" has common meanings unrelated to John Kerry on any level (and no common meanings along the lines of the sexual connotation arbitrarily assigned to "santorum"). All of this is beyond our control.
If the santorum article only showed up when searching for "santorum sexual slang" there wouldn't be any problem.
I've seen no evidence that there *is* a problem (of our creation).
[T]he Wikipedia article is better than another page that's even worse.
Talk about damning with faint praise. He might prefer the Wikipedia article over the other one, because even if it harms him, it doesn't harm him as much as the other one. Trying merely to be less harmful than other web pages is an abominably low standard. We can do better than that.
How does the Wikipedia article harm him? The webpages created out of malice will continue to exist (and appear in Google search results) regardless of our actions. The existence of an article documenting the matter in a neutral, dispassionate manner (and making clear that the association stems from an organized campaign against Rick Santorum) actually benefits him.
"Person X is like shit" is unpleasant in a very different way from "person X is a liar". The latter creates an unpleasant association with that person only to the degree that that person is believed to have committed unpleasant activities. The former creates an unpleasant association on an emotional level.
As Rob noted, the claims regarding Obama's birthplace have resonated on an emotional level to a huge extent. And I would argue that the potential damage was far greater, given their widespread perception as literal truths. (People might draw an unpleasant association between Rick Santorum and the concept described via the neologism, but no one has been led to believe that he literally *is* "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.")
You can write a balanced article that reports the claim that Obama is a liar without making the audience think Obama is a liar. You cannot do this when the article is about comparing a person to shit.
I see no material distinction preventing us from documenting the matter in a balanced fashion.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:51 PM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
I see no material distinction preventing us from documenting the matter in a balanced fashion.
The trouble is, the article is overwritten. This is not a phenomenon restricted to this article, it is common in many "political" or "activist" articles, where some editors try to use *every* source out there to write an article several pages long (sometimes in an attempt to avoid arguments about what to include and what not to include, at other times maybe just by being carried away, or simply by not wanting or knowing how to exercise judgment on what to include and when less is more).
I repeat, a shorter article (if done to high standards) would be *just as balanced* and would send the message that this is not a topic that really needs lots written about it. One of the fundamental elements of editorial judgment is to decide what to leave out and how to *summarise* parts of the topic rather than drawing in everything that has been written about the topic.
You see many FA-level articles where the main writer has read numerous sources and made a judgment (based on the proportions of coverage given by the main source) on where and how to summarize. That needs doing here.
Carcharoth
If you try making the article more succinct, Carcharoth, you may well find editors reverting you and claiming that you are "deleting reliably sourced material" and censoring what you don't like. What policy would you cite in response?
In a way that is a new problem. Most of our policies are arguably still biased against such deletions, reflecting a time when many articles were stubs and we were glad to have any material at all. We have no policy or guideline arguing for succinctness (except the COATRACK essay perhaps). People are traditionally free to write as much as they like about anything that has taken their fancy. We have an incredibly detailed article on toilet paper orientation and other obscure subjects that would never make it into a regular encyclopedia. "Due weight" only applies to subtopics within an article, not to notable topics as such.
If the bulk of something is cut in an article, you just go and create a sub-article, pointing to the 100 sources that have written about it, and create an 8,000-word article about "tail", while "dog" remains at 500 words.
The trouble is, this in-depth coverage of obscure topics is also part of what people like about Wikipedia. That it can be and is abused for activism, just by sheer weight of coverage, is obvious. I just don't see an easy solution. We have no policy that an editor must not use every last source available, and I don't think instituting one is feasible.
A. --- On Sat, 4/6/11, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:From: Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP extension suggestion To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Saturday, 4 June, 2011, 23:57
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:51 PM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
I see no material distinction preventing us from documenting the matter in a balanced fashion.
The trouble is, the article is overwritten. This is not a phenomenon restricted to this article, it is common in many "political" or "activist" articles, where some editors try to use *every* source out there to write an article several pages long (sometimes in an attempt to avoid arguments about what to include and what not to include, at other times maybe just by being carried away, or simply by not wanting or knowing how to exercise judgment on what to include and when less is more).
I repeat, a shorter article (if done to high standards) would be *just as balanced* and would send the message that this is not a topic that really needs lots written about it. One of the fundamental elements of editorial judgment is to decide what to leave out and how to *summarise* parts of the topic rather than drawing in everything that has been written about the topic.
You see many FA-level articles where the main writer has read numerous sources and made a judgment (based on the proportions of coverage given by the main source) on where and how to summarize. That needs doing here.
--- On Sat, 4/6/11, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote: (start an RFC already and let's centralize this nonsense!)
SlimVirgin started an RfC yesterday, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal_to_rename.2C... A.