It is increasingly common that subjects of articles wish to interact directly with us and tell us that their article is wrong in some way. It is, in my opinion, silly for us to reject even harmless corrections on the grounds that they cannot be traced to a reliable source. If Wikipedia itself becomes a primary source in the process of someone commenting on "their" article, what is the problem with that from a purely factual point of view? Depending on the nature of the statement, such comments could be either incorporated as corrections (date of birth) or attributed statements (".. denies that he ever had sexual relations with that woman").
I wouldn't be surprised if such interactions are even common among traditional encyclopedias, and corrections are simply quietly incorporated (they don't have talk pages). The main problem with us seems to be making the source "reliable", but there seem reasonable ways to do so (OTRS, "update this website please", call a volunteer, ...). No, just like any credentials verification, WMF shouldn't be involved directly. But while I generally fully support the need for good sourcing in any article, I often find it absurd how people who point out simple corrections are treated.
On 3/14/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
It is increasingly common that subjects of articles wish to interact directly with us and tell us that their article is wrong in some way. It is, in my opinion, silly for us to reject even harmless corrections on the grounds that they cannot be traced to a reliable source. If
It's also silly for us to object to Joe Smith fixing his birthday on [[Joe Smith]] while simultaneously complaining that people don't seem to realise that people can edit the encyclopaedia themselves. See the other topic, about the history tab and the edit button being invisible.
Wikipedia itself becomes a primary source in the process of someone commenting on "their" article, what is the problem with that from a purely factual point of view? Depending on the nature of the statement, such comments could be either incorporated as corrections (date of birth) or attributed statements (".. denies that he ever had sexual relations with that woman").
You mean, if Joe Smith deletes "was seeing Jane Bloggs" from his article, we can then add "Joe Smith denies being in a relationship with Jane Bloggs" with a link to the diff as the citation for the denial? How pervertedly weirdly plausible.
...). No, just like any credentials verification, WMF shouldn't be involved directly. But while I generally fully support the need for good sourcing in any article, I often find it absurd how people who point out simple corrections are treated.
Simple corrections from the source itself should just be accepted. Anything vaguely controversial we should ask for something on their website we can link to. Ie, if we have a semi-reliable source saying someone was in the IRA, and they privately claim they weren't, we should at least ask to see a public declaration that they weren't. Then we can publish as "The Camden local paper says that he was in the IRA<ref.../>, a claim which he denies strongly<ref.../>
Steve
On 13/03/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/14/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
It is increasingly common that subjects of articles wish to interact directly with us and tell us that their article is wrong in some way. It is, in my opinion, silly for us to reject even harmless corrections on the grounds that they cannot be traced to a reliable source. If
It's also silly for us to object to Joe Smith fixing his birthday on [[Joe Smith]] while simultaneously complaining that people don't seem to realise that people can edit the encyclopaedia themselves. See the other topic, about the history tab and the edit button being invisible.
Wikipedia itself becomes a primary source in the process of someone commenting on "their" article, what is the problem with that from a purely factual point of view? Depending on the nature of the statement, such comments could be either incorporated as corrections (date of birth) or attributed statements (".. denies that he ever had sexual relations with that woman").
You mean, if Joe Smith deletes "was seeing Jane Bloggs" from his article, we can then add "Joe Smith denies being in a relationship with Jane Bloggs" with a link to the diff as the citation for the denial? How pervertedly weirdly plausible.
...). No, just like any credentials verification, WMF shouldn't be involved directly. But while I generally fully support the need for good sourcing in any article, I often find it absurd how people who point out simple corrections are treated.
Simple corrections from the source itself should just be accepted.
I do this all the time! The problem arises when the (honest, good-faith, probably correct) correction sent to us doesn't have a cite, but the existing detail does, because it's a common error or a misconception or a differing interpretation or just one of IMDB's bizzare glitches being quoted as gospel. Then we either balk at doing it, or we do it and it gets reverted with a mistaken cite.
Two anecdotes.
a) A man was listed as being born in X, New York. He was actually born in Y, New York, but for some reason the other one comes up a lot (I think he went to school there), and a cite can be found for it but not for X. Mentioned in passing only, nothing significant or depending on it... but still just about citable.
b) A man whose deathdate was invariably wrong - he committed suicide, and the newspaper obits got slightly confused and gave the date of discovery whereas he had actually died the previous afternoon. Later obituaries, in scholarly journals and the like, were generally correct.
In a), I corresponded for a bit with the guy's son via OTRS when he was wondering why his correction didn't seem to take; he was very gracious about it, and was quite happy to accept that by our policies we were going to have to live with yet another report printing the wrong one, but nonetheless it seems silly.
In b), a friend of mine was somewhat annoyed that we had 'picked' the wrong one, and I offered to look into it for her. I eventually got the correct date in with a clarifying footnote clarifying; the crowning piece of evidence in the little 'duelling citations' battle on the talk-page was that I'd turned up a letter to a newspaper from a relative of the subject which mentioned, in passing, the correct deathdate - it seemed fair to accept that where sources differed, going to a source as close as possible to the subject seemed the most accurate.
These are, really, absolutely harmless corrections to make - there was no significance to whether b) died on August 6th or 7th, there was no contentious debate over a) and his claimed "hometown affiliation". Simply little details that most sources get wrong, which we are in a position to report correctly - and, perhaps, explain the error if appropriate.
I really don't see anything wrong with me footnoting a) as "was born in Such-and-Such<ref>Personal correspondence with the Wikimedia Foundation, June 17th, reference ABC1234567</ref>. Yes, we could ask them to issue a rather dull press release, or write a blog post, or (in one case I recall) update the details on their myspace page. But no reasonable academic or reporter objects to incorporating corrections of trivial, non-contentious details from those who know about the article; why should we?
Anything vaguely controversial we should ask for something on their website we can link to. Ie, if we have a semi-reliable source saying someone was in the IRA, and they privately claim they weren't, we should at least ask to see a public declaration that they weren't. Then we can publish as "The Camden local paper says that he was in the IRA<ref.../>, a claim which he denies strongly<ref.../>
Mmmm... matters of denial or interpretation are probably over the line I'd like to draw this at, but YMMV.
On 3/13/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I really don't see anything wrong with me footnoting a) as "was born in Such-and-Such<ref>Personal correspondence with the Wikimedia Foundation, June 17th, reference ABC1234567</ref>.
I disagree. There are lots of problems with this. 1) You're not the Wikimedia Foundation; 2) It's not a published source which can be easily accessed; and 3) it's not a reliable source even if it's true, as the person no doubt does not remember his own birth.
Yes, we could ask them to issue a rather dull press release, or write a blog post, or (in one case I recall) update the details on their myspace page. But no reasonable academic or reporter objects to incorporating corrections of trivial, non-contentious details from those who know about the article; why should we?
Because we want to be better? If the detail is so trivial as to not matter if it's correct or not, why include it in the first place? Alternatively, if the truth might actually matter, then we should make sure to get it right.
[duplicate, sorry]
On 13/03/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 3/13/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I really don't see anything wrong with me footnoting a) as "was born in Such-and-Such<ref>Personal correspondence with the Wikimedia Foundation, June 17th, reference ABC1234567</ref>.
I disagree. There are lots of problems with this. 1) You're not the Wikimedia Foundation; 2) It's not a published source which can be easily accessed; and 3) it's not a reliable source even if it's true, as the person no doubt does not remember his own birth.
1) I forgot the minor detail that I was corresponding with the chap via OTRS...
2) Does it have to be easily accessed by a random passer-by if the Foundation can verify it? That is really the point of this discussion... stating it won't work because of this is kind of circular.
3) This is a bit silly. I can tell you all sorts of factual details about my own birth which I don't remember, but I still know to be true... am I an unreliable source because I got them from my mother or my medical records? It also doesn't help with cases which aren't "give a birthday"
Yes, we could ask them to issue a rather dull press release, or write a blog post, or (in one case I recall) update the details on their myspace page. But no reasonable academic or reporter objects to incorporating corrections of trivial, non-contentious details from those who know about the article; why should we?
Because we want to be better? If the detail is so trivial as to not matter if it's correct or not, why include it in the first place?
Okay, one we might have an interest in getting right... manner of death. We usually give this if known. Not at all unknown for obituaries to get it wrong, especially if published quickly; small details in obituaries are rarely corrected afterwards for various reasons (most often that the only people who know it's wrong are otherwise preoccupied with mourning), and all too often that's the last thing published on them before we come along.
Spouse's names, that's another one we get a good few corrections over. Little things, yes, and we can say "why should we include them?", but the fact is we *do* include them, and it really seems futile to insist on a method whereby if we include them we get them wrong.
Alternatively, if the truth might actually matter, then we should make sure to get it right.
Which this proposal is one means to achieve. Not everything someone quibbles with the article over is significant, it's just that when it is significant we're less happy to take their unadorned word for it...
On 3/14/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
- Does it have to be easily accessed by a random passer-by if the
Foundation can verify it? That is really the point of this discussion... stating it won't work because of this is kind of circular.
Erm, yeah, that's sort of what verif^H^H^H^H^Hattributability is all about. What would stop a reader putting down any random fact about anyone and claiming 'personal correspondance with WMF'?
Steve
On 13/03/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/14/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
- Does it have to be easily accessed by a random passer-by if the
Foundation can verify it? That is really the point of this discussion... stating it won't work because of this is kind of circular.
Erm, yeah, that's sort of what verif^H^H^H^H^Hattributability is all about. What would stop a reader putting down any random fact about anyone and claiming 'personal correspondance with WMF'?
Right now, what's to stop anyone uploading any image they choose and claiming permission to GFDL it has been filed with WMF? Nothing, except the fact we come down on them like a ton of bricks when we catch them...
On 3/14/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Right now, what's to stop anyone uploading any image they choose and claiming permission to GFDL it has been filed with WMF? Nothing, except the fact we come down on them like a ton of bricks when we catch them...
Copyright is a completely different kettle of fish. We have never demanded verifiability for licensing. I guess we assume a bit of good faith, and for extraordinary claims ("This professional quality photo of Tom Cruise was taken by me!") we ask for a bit more proof.
In general, very little harm can occur if we inadvertently use a copyrighted image inappropriately. Compared to the amount of harm if we inadvertently state something false and defamatory about someone.
Steve
On 3/14/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Because we want to be better? If the detail is so trivial as to not matter if it's correct or not, why include it in the first place?
We always include birthdates. All publications do. But on a scale of importance, there are much bigger mistakes we could make.
Steve
On 3/14/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
talk-page was that I'd turned up a letter to a newspaper from a relative of the subject which mentioned, in passing, the correct deathdate - it seemed fair to accept that where sources differed, going to a source as close as possible to the subject seemed the most accurate.
If you've got two sources saying different things, NPOV generally encourages you to cite both. I did something like this in [[Kate McTell]] where half the sources I used claimed that Ruby Glaze was a pseudonym, and half said they were two distinct people. IMHO it's much easier to convince the reader that you're right if you cite both versions and explain why one is more likely.
I really don't see anything wrong with me footnoting a) as "was born in Such-and-Such<ref>Personal correspondence with the Wikimedia Foundation, June 17th, reference ABC1234567</ref>. Yes, we could ask them to issue a rather dull press release, or write a blog post, or (in one case I recall) update the details on their myspace page. But no reasonable academic or reporter objects to incorporating corrections of trivial, non-contentious details from those who know about the article; why should we?
Well, the obvious problem is that a future editor is not going to know the background to the problem, and, following policy, will probably reinstate the "public record" version. That's why "private correspondance" just isn't good enough in most cases. It's just not durable enough.
Steve
On 13/03/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/14/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
talk-page was that I'd turned up a letter to a newspaper from a relative of the subject which mentioned, in passing, the correct deathdate - it seemed fair to accept that where sources differed, going to a source as close as possible to the subject seemed the most accurate.
If you've got two sources saying different things, NPOV generally encourages you to cite both. I did something like this in [[Kate McTell]] where half the sources I used claimed that Ruby Glaze was a pseudonym, and half said they were two distinct people. IMHO it's much easier to convince the reader that you're right if you cite both versions and explain why one is more likely.
I really don't see anything wrong with me footnoting a) as "was born in Such-and-Such<ref>Personal correspondence with the Wikimedia Foundation, June 17th, reference ABC1234567</ref>. Yes, we could ask them to issue a rather dull press release, or write a blog post, or (in one case I recall) update the details on their myspace page. But no reasonable academic or reporter objects to incorporating corrections of trivial, non-contentious details from those who know about the article; why should we?
Well, the obvious problem is that a future editor is not going to know the background to the problem, and, following policy, will probably reinstate the "public record" version. That's why "private correspondance" just isn't good enough in most cases. It's just not durable enough.
Which is why any correspondence we use is footnoted as such, and filed with the Foundation. You don't have to know the background to be able to tell that when we have a footnote saying "correction from subject, filed at X", there is probably a reason why it doesn't correspond to the public record...
On 3/14/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Which is why any correspondence we use is footnoted as such, and filed with the Foundation. You don't have to know the background to be able
Ok, I missed that, sorry.
Steve
Which is why any correspondence we use is footnoted as such, and filed with the Foundation. You don't have to know the background to be able to tell that when we have a footnote saying "correction from subject, filed at X", there is probably a reason why it doesn't correspond to the public record...
But then, the source the actually WMF, and WMF is not a reliable source. Why should anyone trust some random person on OTRS to have correctly interpreted the email and copied the information across without making any typos, etc? The whole point of citing sources is so readers can go and check for themselves to confirm it's right - citing a private source is pretty much useless because it's really just saying "I know I'm right, just trust me on it." Just because I'm the foundation doesn't make me trustworthy.
On 13/03/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Which is why any correspondence we use is footnoted as such, and filed with the Foundation. You don't have to know the background to be able to tell that when we have a footnote saying "correction from subject, filed at X", there is probably a reason why it doesn't correspond to the public record...
But then, the source the actually WMF, and WMF is not a reliable source. Why should anyone trust some random person on OTRS to have correctly interpreted the email and copied the information across without making any typos, etc?
a) No, the foundation is *not* the source. It is simply somewhere which happens to archive the source for the purposes of using it to write an encyclopedia. The source is the, well, the source; the person who wrote to us with the correction. (I write articles and give the book I worked from as the source. I don't give the library I read the book in, which seems to be the appropriate analogy here...)
b) Right now we trust thousands of those random people to write the entire encyclopedia, interpreting and synthesising like crazy without even requiring the minimum sanity checks we'd impose on the "handlers" here. I don't see how entrusting them with turning "good article, thanks, but I got divorced two years ago" into a correction is dangerous.
If it's complex, ask them to clarify.
The whole point of citing sources is so readers can go and check for themselves to confirm it's right - citing a private source is pretty much useless because it's really just saying "I know I'm right, just trust me on it." Just because I'm the foundation doesn't make me trustworthy.
*One* reason to provide sources is so that people can go and double-check, but it's a minor one. By far the most common reason is to indicate the reliability of the information, what kind of accuracy and currency you can expect from it. In this case, we'd be attributing
We're not saying "we should institute a method for any random person to make unqualified, unassailable, assertions". We're talking about letting *the subject* point factual errors out to us. If we're automatically assuming that subjects are untrustworthy, I look forward to banning the use of autobiographies and corporate histories as sources.
On 3/14/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
a) No, the foundation is *not* the source. It is simply somewhere which happens to archive the source for the purposes of using it to write an encyclopedia. The source is the, well, the source; the person who wrote to us with the correction.
Would it be possible to publish the email sent to OTRS? I'd be much more comfortable treating the email itself as the source, rather than extending the [[telephone game]] by that extra link. There's just too much room for error, unintentional or intentional, when we say "Andrew Gray said that John Doe said (in an email to OTRS) that his mom told him he was born in Brooklyn."
I'd still be somewhat uncomfortable with using an email to OTRS as a source, though. How would one be able to confirm that the email is actually from the person in question?
Anthony
a) No, the foundation is *not* the source. It is simply somewhere which happens to archive the source for the purposes of using it to write an encyclopedia. The source is the, well, the source; the person who wrote to us with the correction. (I write articles and give the book I worked from as the source. I don't give the library I read the book in, which seems to be the appropriate analogy here...)
When you cite a book that book is a published source that can be confirmed by anyone visiting a well stocked library. When you cite an unpublished email you are actually citing the person who read the email, as that is the only link in the chain that can be confirmed (since the person reading it will have said so on the article).
The source of a piece of information, for all meaningful purposes, is the last link in the chain that you can get to without taking an unreliable step. The step from the person reading the email to the email itself is not reliable, so the effective source is the person reading the email.
On 3/14/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
We're not saying "we should institute a method for any random person to make unqualified, unassailable, assertions". We're talking about letting *the subject* point factual errors out to us. If we're automatically assuming that subjects are untrustworthy, I look forward to banning the use of autobiographies and corporate histories as sources.
I can see what Eloquence was getting at now, in the sense that there needs to be something inbetween the Office and the Mob - using an open version of the OTRS model.
I think the OTRS part is a great idea, but making the leap from "edit this wiki" to "primary source" is an enormous and presumptive interpretation -- perhaps overstated, but nevertheless something best left to people to judge after a new system is set up.
I suggested something like a ticket-based model just as a way to organize workflow. I never would have come up with the idea that subjects would want to register themselves. This "registrationalism" might infringe on NPOV. We aren't qualified to take people's affidavits after all, nor to investigate particular claims. And because its tacky to edit your own articles after all, ultimately they would want to make their changes anonymously, which sort of contradicts your idea, doesnt it. Foundation bureaucracy 2.0?
Maybe Im not reading it right. -Stevertigo
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 13/03/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Simple corrections from the source itself should just be accepted.
I do this all the time!
Last time I passed through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Beesley there was a big fight going on over her birthdate. Two sources were being cited; a link to the diff of an edit Angela made to Meta using her logged-in account wherein she announced her birthdate, and a link to the birth records for her claimed birth town that showed someone with her name being born on that day.
The reference to Meta was being rejected on account of it being unreliable and on account of it being a "self-reference" (which IMO is not a correct interpretation of the manual of style guideline against self-reference, it's intended simply to keep Wikipedia's contents location-neutral in case someone else hosts it). Even the old [[WP:RS]] guideline explicitly allows this sort of thing; "Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as a primary source of information about the author or the material itself, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material"
The reference to the birth records were being rejected because it just indicated that _a_ woman with the same name, claimed birthdate, and claimed birth location existed, not that it was the same _specific_ woman the article was about.
Against such obstinate nitpickery, what's a guy to do? I decided not to waste my time and moved on.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
The reference to the birth records were being rejected because it just indicated that _a_ woman with the same name, claimed birthdate, and claimed birth location existed, not that it was the same _specific_ woman the article was about.
Against such obstinate nitpickery, what's a guy to do? I decided not to waste my time and moved on.
Huh - now I want to abuse my admin powers just this once and change the main page to say "the free encyclopedia that only non-freaks may edit"....
I always thought the "proof of identity" was an interesting thought experiment, but not something any rational person did in real life!
Stan
On 3/14/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
The reference to Meta was being rejected on account of it being unreliable and on account of it being a "self-reference" (which IMO is not a correct interpretation of the manual of style guideline against self-reference, it's intended simply to keep Wikipedia's contents location-neutral in case someone else hosts it). Even the old [[WP:RS]] guideline explicitly allows this sort of thing; "Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as a primary source of information about the author or the material itself, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material"
The self-ref rule in this case basically should be interpreted as "don't give that diff special authority just because it was made on Wikipedia".[1] Would you have accepted a diff made on pokemonwiki.com by a user who seriously appeared to be her? (a serious question)
Steve [1] Though I guess since she's a Wikipedia user, perhaps there is a special authority due to it being her "home ground" so to speak.
Steve Bennett wrote:
The self-ref rule in this case basically should be interpreted as "don't give that diff special authority just because it was made on Wikipedia".[1] Would you have accepted a diff made on pokemonwiki.com by a user who seriously appeared to be her? (a serious question)
If I was as sure of the authenticity of the user as I am of Angela's Meta account, then sure.
[1] Though I guess since she's a Wikipedia user, perhaps there is a special authority due to it being her "home ground" so to speak.
It also helps that since I and most of the other editors are already familiar with the workings of Wikipedia and its prominent members we're much more easily able to judge the likelihood that it's really her and not someone spoofing her or hacking her account or something. If it were pokemonwiki.com I'd have to spend a lot longer sleuthing around to be sure things were on the level.
Erik Moeller wrote:
It is increasingly common that subjects of articles wish to interact directly with us and tell us that their article is wrong in some way. It is, in my opinion, silly for us to reject even harmless corrections on the grounds that they cannot be traced to a reliable source. If Wikipedia itself becomes a primary source in the process of someone commenting on "their" article, what is the problem with that from a purely factual point of view? Depending on the nature of the statement, such comments could be either incorporated as corrections (date of birth) or attributed statements (".. denies that he ever had sexual relations with that woman").
Because WP:V requires that challenged statements have sources. You can't replace one unsourced statement with anohter like that, nor would it be acceptable to replace a sourced statement with an unsourced one.
-Jeff
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
It is increasingly common that subjects of articles wish to interact directly with us and tell us that their article is wrong in some way. It is, in my opinion, silly for us to reject even harmless corrections on the grounds that they cannot be traced to a reliable source. If Wikipedia itself becomes a primary source in the process of someone commenting on "their" article, what is the problem with that from a purely factual point of view? Depending on the nature of the statement, such comments could be either incorporated as corrections (date of birth) or attributed statements (".. denies that he ever had sexual relations with that woman").
Because WP:V requires that challenged statements have sources. You can't replace one unsourced statement with anohter like that, nor would it be acceptable to replace a sourced statement with an unsourced one.
-Jeff
Can't we discuss these sort of ideas without resorting to quoting policy? Ok, yes, we can state what the current policy *is*, but sometimes it's worth considering what the policy *should be*, or what the actual practice should be. Or, why the current policy is the correct policy. But, in this kind of a conversation, just simply quoting policy is not particularly useful (IMHO).
-Rich
on 3/13/07 10:08 AM, Rich Holton at richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Can't we discuss these sort of ideas without resorting to quoting policy? Ok, yes, we can state what the current policy *is*, but sometimes it's worth considering what the policy *should be*, or what the actual practice should be. Or, why the current policy is the correct policy. But, in this kind of a conversation, just simply quoting policy is not particularly useful (IMHO).
That would require thinking outside of the box - something many of the contributors to this List seem reluctant to do.
Marc Riddell
on 3/13/07 10:20 AM, Marc Riddell at michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
That would require thinking outside of the box - something many of the contributors to this List seem reluctant to do.
Folks,
This was bullshit statement for me to make. It was not worthy of you or me.
I apologize.
Marc
Erik Moeller wrote:
It is increasingly common that subjects of articles wish to interact directly with us and tell us that their article is wrong in some way. It is, in my opinion, silly for us to reject even harmless corrections on the grounds that they cannot be traced to a reliable source.
The policy on sources, WP:ATT, allows self-published sources to be used in biographies of living persons. This means we can use the subject's personal website or blog, so if someone wants to address an issue in their Wikipedia article, they only have to publish it themselves on their blog first, which anyone can set up at no cost.
The reason we require this is so that readers can check that X really does say what we say he says, and also so that the subject is making a public commitment to that version of events, which we are simply repeating.
In order to prevent the subject's Wikipedia article from becoming, in effect, an extension of his personal website (he publishes something on his blog so that it ends up on Wikipedia), we've built in some safeguards, namely that the material shouldn't be contentious or unduly self-serving, and shouldn't involve claims about third parties or events not directly related to the subject. Also, articles are not allowed to be based on such primary sources.
It seems to work pretty well in that it allows subjects a right of reply or opportunity to correct factual errors, while ensuring that we don't become first publishers, and that Wikipedia biographies don't turn into platforms for their subjects' views.
Sarah
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Slim Virgin wrote:
The policy on sources, WP:ATT, allows self-published sources to be used in biographies of living persons. This means we can use the subject's personal website or blog, so if someone wants to address an issue in their Wikipedia article, they only have to publish it themselves on their blog first, which anyone can set up at no cost.
Setting up a blog can be quite a hassle, especially for a non-techie, even if he doesn't have to pay to get it. Basically, "if you want this fixed, set up a blog" is a big hoop you're making people jump through in order to fix something that they probably didn't even want in the first place.
On 3/13/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Slim Virgin wrote:
The policy on sources, WP:ATT, allows self-published sources to be used in biographies of living persons. This means we can use the subject's personal website or blog, so if someone wants to address an issue in their Wikipedia article, they only have to publish it themselves on their blog first, which anyone can set up at no cost.
Setting up a blog can be quite a hassle, especially for a non-techie, even if he doesn't have to pay to get it. Basically, "if you want this fixed, set up a blog" is a big hoop you're making people jump through in order to fix something that they probably didn't even want in the first place.
We could always set up the blog for them. Or we could set up a wiki which allows original research, and which can be referenced from Wikipedia.
Anthony
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Anthony wrote:
The policy on sources, WP:ATT, allows self-published sources to be used in biographies of living persons. This means we can use the subject's personal website or blog, so if someone wants to address an issue in their Wikipedia article, they only have to publish it themselves on their blog first, which anyone can set up at no cost.
Setting up a blog can be quite a hassle, especially for a non-techie, even if he doesn't have to pay to get it. Basically, "if you want this fixed, set up a blog" is a big hoop you're making people jump through in order to fix something that they probably didn't even want in the first place.
We could always set up the blog for them.
That's another form of "you can't fix your article unless you jump through these ridiculous hoops". Finding someone in an all-volunteer Wikipedia willing to set up a blog for a random complainer is at least as difficult as setting up the blog himself.
Or we could set up a wiki which allows original research, and which can be referenced from Wikipedia.
This won't work, because the attribution FAQ says that Wikis are not legitimate sources. I tried to change it to allow wikis when self-published sources are allowed. It didn't get in.
On 3/14/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Anthony wrote:
The policy on sources, WP:ATT, allows self-published sources to be used in biographies of living persons. This means we can use the subject's personal website or blog, so if someone wants to address an issue in their Wikipedia article, they only have to publish it themselves on their blog first, which anyone can set up at no cost.
Setting up a blog can be quite a hassle, especially for a non-techie, even if he doesn't have to pay to get it. Basically, "if you want this fixed, set up a blog" is a big hoop you're making people jump through in order to fix something that they probably didn't even want in the first place.
We could always set up the blog for them.
That's another form of "you can't fix your article unless you jump through these ridiculous hoops". Finding someone in an all-volunteer Wikipedia willing to set up a blog for a random complainer is at least as difficult as setting up the blog himself.
Well, I certainly disagree. Finding one person out of the thousands of volunteers who are capable of doing this seems much easier than teaching a random complainer how to do it himself.
It also seems easier than rewriting all the rules and standards of Wikipedia which rely upon not allowing original research, though this is more arguable, I guess.
Or we could set up a wiki which allows original research, and which can be referenced from Wikipedia.
This won't work, because the attribution FAQ says that Wikis are not legitimate sources. I tried to change it to allow wikis when self-published sources are allowed. It didn't get in.
So, do you actually have a suggestion which doesn't involve changing anything?
Otherwise, allowing a wiki set up by the foundation to be used as a source in Wikipedia articles seems much less drastic than dropping the rules against original research altogether. It also seems to me to provide much better accountability.
Anthony
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Anthony wrote:
We could always set up the blog for them.
That's another form of "you can't fix your article unless you jump through these ridiculous hoops". Finding someone in an all-volunteer Wikipedia willing to set up a blog for a random complainer is at least as difficult as setting up the blog himself.
Well, I certainly disagree. Finding one person out of the thousands of volunteers who are capable of doing this seems much easier than teaching a random complainer how to do it himself.
Even if this is true, isn't a line on a Wikipedia talk page saying "so- and-so told Wikipedia that... and it was verified to come from him by ..." basically a one line blog hosted by Wikipedia anyway? (At least if we link to the diff, which nobody can edit.)
Or we could set up a wiki which allows original research, and which can be referenced from Wikipedia.
For that matter, what's the difference between this, and putting some lines on a Wikipedia talk page, saying "this type of talk page is to be treated as a wiki which allows OR and can be referenced from Wikipedia"?
On 3/14/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Anthony wrote:
We could always set up the blog for them.
That's another form of "you can't fix your article unless you jump through these ridiculous hoops". Finding someone in an all-volunteer Wikipedia willing to set up a blog for a random complainer is at least as difficult as setting up the blog himself.
Well, I certainly disagree. Finding one person out of the thousands of volunteers who are capable of doing this seems much easier than teaching a random complainer how to do it himself.
Even if this is true, isn't a line on a Wikipedia talk page saying "so- and-so told Wikipedia that... and it was verified to come from him by ..." basically a one line blog hosted by Wikipedia anyway? (At least if we link to the diff, which nobody can edit.)
I dunno. Why don't you ask on the talk page for WP:ATT? I certainly wouldn't call a line written on a talk page a blog, but I'm not familiar enough with WP:ATT to say whether or not it falls under the term as used there.
Or we could set up a wiki which allows original research, and which can be referenced from Wikipedia.
For that matter, what's the difference between this, and putting some lines on a Wikipedia talk page, saying "this type of talk page is to be treated as a wiki which allows OR and can be referenced from Wikipedia"?
Not much except for precedent (and correspondingly a set of rules and guidelines governing the use of talk pages in such a way). It also seems like an awfully poor way to organize things. If you're going to borrow a namespace, the meta namespace would probably be better, as it'd have much less overlap.
Anthony
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Anthony wrote:
Even if this is true, isn't a line on a Wikipedia talk page saying "so- and-so told Wikipedia that... and it was verified to come from him by ..." basically a one line blog hosted by Wikipedia anyway? (At least if we link to the diff, which nobody can edit.)
I dunno. Why don't you ask on the talk page for WP:ATT? I certainly wouldn't call a line written on a talk page a blog, but I'm not familiar enough with WP:ATT to say whether or not it falls under the term as used there.
You are answering the wrong question. I'm not asking if it's a blog by our definition; I'm asking there's any *practical difference* between it and a blog. What characteristics does the line on the talk page have, that the blog does not, that would justify why we'd *want* the rules to prohibit one but not the other?
On 3/14/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Anthony wrote:
Even if this is true, isn't a line on a Wikipedia talk page saying "so- and-so told Wikipedia that... and it was verified to come from him by ..." basically a one line blog hosted by Wikipedia anyway? (At least if we link to the diff, which nobody can edit.)
I dunno. Why don't you ask on the talk page for WP:ATT? I certainly wouldn't call a line written on a talk page a blog, but I'm not familiar enough with WP:ATT to say whether or not it falls under the term as used there.
You are answering the wrong question. I'm not asking if it's a blog by our definition; I'm asking there's any *practical difference* between it and a blog. What characteristics does the line on the talk page have, that the blog does not, that would justify why we'd *want* the rules to prohibit one but not the other?
Well, I'm still the wrong one to answer, because I don't think a blog is per say justifiable in the first place. Only if we're talking about a well established blog with an author who is a reliable source for the fact in question do I think we should be relying on blogs.
But apparently the rules say otherwise. So if you want to know why the rules prohibit one but not the other, ask the people who made the rules - it wasn't me.
Anthony
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Anthony wrote:
But apparently the rules say otherwise. So if you want to know why the rules prohibit one but not the other, ask the people who made the rules - it wasn't me.
Then what's your point? We're talking about what the rules *should* say. If you're only willing to discuss what the rules do say, you're not really discussing at all.
On 3/15/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Anthony wrote:
But apparently the rules say otherwise. So if you want to know why the rules prohibit one but not the other, ask the people who made the rules - it wasn't me.
Then what's your point? We're talking about what the rules *should* say. If you're only willing to discuss what the rules do say, you're not really discussing at all.
It seems to me that you're the one who keeps bringing up what the rules say, and that's precisely the part I'm not interested in discussing.
Anthony
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Anthony wrote:
But apparently the rules say otherwise. So if you want to know why the rules prohibit one but not the other, ask the people who made the rules - it wasn't me.
Then what's your point? We're talking about what the rules *should* say. If you're only willing to discuss what the rules do say, you're not really discussing at all.
It seems to me that you're the one who keeps bringing up what the rules say, and that's precisely the part I'm not interested in discussing.
I'm bringing uop the rules in order to discuss how they may be changed. You're bringing them up to say "we can't do it that way because that isn't in the rules".
On 3/16/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Anthony wrote:
But apparently the rules say otherwise. So if you want to know why the rules prohibit one but not the other, ask the people who made the rules - it wasn't me.
Then what's your point? We're talking about what the rules *should* say. If you're only willing to discuss what the rules do say, you're not really discussing at all.
It seems to me that you're the one who keeps bringing up what the rules say, and that's precisely the part I'm not interested in discussing.
I'm bringing uop the rules in order to discuss how they may be changed. You're bringing them up to say "we can't do it that way because that isn't in the rules".
I think if you look back at this ridiculous thread between the two of us you'll find that isn't true. In fact, I've never brought up the rules at all.
Anthony
On Mar 13, 2007, at 7:35 AM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Setting up a blog can be quite a hassle, especially for a non- techie, even if he doesn't have to pay to get it
That is somewhat incorrect, Ken. There are tools that anyone can use to start blogging without being a techie.
-- Jossi
Rich Holton wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
It is increasingly common that subjects of articles wish to interact directly with us and tell us that their article is wrong in some way. It is, in my opinion, silly for us to reject even harmless corrections on the grounds that they cannot be traced to a reliable source. If Wikipedia itself becomes a primary source in the process of someone commenting on "their" article, what is the problem with that from a purely factual point of view? Depending on the nature of the statement, such comments could be either incorporated as corrections (date of birth) or attributed statements (".. denies that he ever had sexual relations with that woman").
Because WP:V requires that challenged statements have sources. You can't replace one unsourced statement with anohter like that, nor would it be acceptable to replace a sourced statement with an unsourced one.
Can't we discuss these sort of ideas without resorting to quoting policy? Ok, yes, we can state what the current policy *is*, but sometimes it's worth considering what the policy *should be*, or what the actual practice should be. Or, why the current policy is the correct policy. But, in this kind of a conversation, just simply quoting policy is not particularly useful (IMHO).
An excellent suggestion!
Ec
Erik Moeller wrote:
It is increasingly common that subjects of articles wish to interact directly with us and tell us that their article is wrong in some way. It is, in my opinion, silly for us to reject even harmless corrections on the grounds that they cannot be traced to a reliable source.
For instance, if someone says he's a tenured professor of theology, we should just paste it in unquestioningly, right?
:-)
I think it's a valuable lesson in WP policies to ask subjects of articles to adhere to the same standards that we supposedly follow for everything else. If they object, we can say, "yes we trust you, but are you willing to give us your personal phone number and put it in on the article's talk page, so editors can call you up at any time, day or night, in the future and clarify something?" So far as I know, no one's ever signed up to that kind of open-ended commitment.
The idea that anybody famous can call up the WP office and expect "harmless corrections" on demand will be very damaging in the long run - first it will be subjects of articles, then articles connected to the subject of an article, then any article. Note that Edwina Currie's criticism wasn't directed at just her own bio, but at related articles, so in one breath she's already angling to slant non-biographies.
Just as we need to be known for not allowing corporations to buy slanted coverage, we need it to be known that celebrities can't get the slant they want just by asking.
Stan
On 3/14/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Just as we need to be known for not allowing corporations to buy slanted coverage, we need it to be known that celebrities can't get the slant they want just by asking.
De-slanting is not the same thing as a harmless correction. If we have no source for a birthdate, and the celebrity says it's wrong, we should just fix it. If we have no source for a mildly embarrassing statement, and the celebrity says it's wrong, we should try and find out one way or another ASAP. Which (iirc) is what we usually do.
So far, I'm comfortable with kowtowing to loudmouthed celebrities who complain about their articles. I don't see that it does our cause a great deal of good to stubbornly keep a crappy article in place when the world's attention has just been brought to it. Better to clean it up and make it "nice", at the expense of true NPOV, and let it drift back to a more neutral position in the days afterwards.
Steve
On 3/13/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
De-slanting is not the same thing as a harmless correction. If we have no source for a birthdate, and the celebrity says it's wrong, we should just fix it.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree there. If we have no source for a birthdate, then we shouldn't list a birthdate.
Why do we need a birthdate in an article in the first place? If a fact is so trivial that we're going to believe whatever one person tells us on the matter, then it doesn't need to be in the encyclopedia in the first place.
Anthony
On 3/13/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
The idea that anybody famous can call up the WP office
I think I explicitly said that the office shouldn't be involved at all in this.
Just as we need to be known for not allowing corporations to buy slanted coverage, we need it to be known that celebrities can't get the slant they want just by asking.
It's not about slant. It's mostly about very basic, undisputed fact corrections where the only objection is a dogmatic "Oh, you may *say* your birth date is so-and-so, but can you *prove it with a reliable source*"?. If there's no consensus for inclusion, then it wouldn't be included, except in some cases as an attributed statement.
I'm not concerned about a slippery slope here. Wikipedians tend to be pretty paranoid the moment anyone vaguely connected to an article says anything (and rightly so). Policy and processes are built on consensus; there will be no consensus for anything sinister. What I propose is not sinister, it is reasonable.
Putting statements on blogs or websites is one way of making them "official", but not the only way, and has its own problems (websites disappear, especially those that were just set up to make some Wikipedia editor happy). IMHO it would be perfectly fine for Wikipedia to accept such statements & corrections directly, and to refer to them as <ref>correction/statement submitted by XX, ticket ID #123, received ...</ref>. The main issue here is verifying identity, but that could be handled by trusted people who have access to the respective OTRS queue.
I agree that it is silly to <ref> diffs and talk pages, but having a specific tracking system (which we incidentally are using already anyway) be put to use for this strikes me as completely sound.
This is better than just letting subjects edit directly (because we can trace it, because humans act as COI filters, and because we can implement peer-to-peer methods of verification), and it certainly seems a lot more reasonable to me than current practices.
On 3/14/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Wikipedia editor happy). IMHO it would be perfectly fine for Wikipedia to accept such statements & corrections directly, and to refer to them as <ref>correction/statement submitted by XX, ticket ID #123, received ...</ref>. The main issue here is verifying identity, but that could be handled by trusted people who have access to the respective OTRS queue.
It's a bit ugly, and very self-referential. Which is something we normally try and avoid. Wikipedia tries to document the external world, not itself...see WP:SELF.
However, it's probably an acceptable, if somewhat last-resort, solution.
Steve
On 3/13/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think I explicitly said that the office shouldn't be involved at all in this.
and
The main issue here is verifying identity, but that could be handled by trusted people who have access to the respective OTRS queue.
So its not an *office action, but a system of *trusted action, for "very basic, undisputed fact corrections" which people do themselves anyway?
I'm not concerned about a slippery slope here. Wikipedians tend to be pretty paranoid the moment anyone vaguely connected to an article says anything (and rightly so).
This general claim about how Wikipedias tend to act needs a citation. A "reliable" source, preferably.
What I propose is not sinister, it is reasonable.
Hmmm.
IMHO it would be perfectly fine for Wikipedia to accept such statements & corrections directly, and to refer to them as <ref>correction/statement submitted by XX, ticket ID #123, received ...</ref>. I agree that it is silly to <ref> diffs and talk pages, but having a specific tracking system (which we incidentally are using already anyway) be put to use for this strikes me as completely sound.
What tracking system is this? But we dont have a system set up to document first hand claims. How would these be documented in a public way? Otherwise how would this action be different from an unwiki office action?
This is better than just letting subjects edit directly (because we can trace it, because humans act as COI filters, and because we can implement peer-to-peer methods of verification), and it certainly seems a lot more reasonable to me than current practices.
People already do this. What's the issue?
-Stevertigo
On 14/03/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/13/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm not concerned about a slippery slope here. Wikipedians tend to be pretty paranoid the moment anyone vaguely connected to an article says anything (and rightly so).
This general claim about how Wikipedias tend to act needs a citation. A "reliable" source, preferably.
There's a primary source on foundation-l most of last December. Certainly enough to create the effect described.
- d.