So, I've been going through the endless barrel of fun that is [[Category:Rapists]], slapping prod tags on the people of no encyclopedic significance ("X priest got two years in jail for groping some choirboys") and, in a couple of cases, encountering entirely unsourced articles. Perhaps the most obvious of these was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sedley_Alley&oldid=64313689
What ought we to do with them? I mean, policy is aggressively attack anything unsourced that would be defamation if it was false; where there were other avenues of notability, I've done that.
But in this case, when we remove all forms of the negative material, we get
Sedley Alley (August 16, 1955 – June 28, 2006) was married to a military person
...which is in and of itself a candidate for speedy deletion, though I suspect doing that would get me brickbatted for nefarious deletionism.
What I've done in the three or four cases where I ran across this was put a prod tag on, saying that we simply cannot have any article of this form without sources. Better, I feel, to have it deleted than to have a dodgy article left up (even if the subject's dead, it's still ethically iffy) I've been told this is "impatience"; I'm jumping past normal cleanup procedures and slapping a "fix in X days or else" warning on.
Thoughts? I'm really not convinced we have another way to deal with things like this that actually works...
I'm a rampant inclusionist but I completely agree with you in this case. If an article is wholly unverifiable and/or factually inaccurate (especially an article as contentious as this), it should be deleted as soon as possible.
Are there currently any active WikiProjects to monitor these "dangerous" categories for defamation (particularly defamation of living people)? If not, I suggest a few of us attempt to set one up. We cannot tolerate the the use of Wikipedia to injure others unnecessarily.
On 19/07/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
So, I've been going through the endless barrel of fun that is [[Category:Rapists]], slapping prod tags on the people of no encyclopedic significance ("X priest got two years in jail for groping some choirboys") and, in a couple of cases, encountering entirely unsourced articles. Perhaps the most obvious of these was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sedley_Alley&oldid=64313689
What ought we to do with them? I mean, policy is aggressively attack anything unsourced that would be defamation if it was false; where there were other avenues of notability, I've done that.
But in this case, when we remove all forms of the negative material, we get
Sedley Alley (August 16, 1955 – June 28, 2006) was married to a military person
...which is in and of itself a candidate for speedy deletion, though I suspect doing that would get me brickbatted for nefarious deletionism.
What I've done in the three or four cases where I ran across this was put a prod tag on, saying that we simply cannot have any article of this form without sources. Better, I feel, to have it deleted than to have a dodgy article left up (even if the subject's dead, it's still ethically iffy) I've been told this is "impatience"; I'm jumping past normal cleanup procedures and slapping a "fix in X days or else" warning on.
Thoughts? I'm really not convinced we have another way to deal with things like this that actually works...
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
IMHO, delete as "Unsourced attack article" and have done. -kc-
Andrew Gray wrote:
So, I've been going through the endless barrel of fun that is [[Category:Rapists]], slapping prod tags on the people of no encyclopedic significance ("X priest got two years in jail for groping some choirboys") and, in a couple of cases, encountering entirely unsourced articles. Perhaps the most obvious of these was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sedley_Alley&oldid=64313689
What ought we to do with them? I mean, policy is aggressively attack anything unsourced that would be defamation if it was false; where there were other avenues of notability, I've done that.
But in this case, when we remove all forms of the negative material, we get
Sedley Alley (August 16, 1955 – June 28, 2006) was married to a military person
...which is in and of itself a candidate for speedy deletion, though I suspect doing that would get me brickbatted for nefarious deletionism.
What I've done in the three or four cases where I ran across this was put a prod tag on, saying that we simply cannot have any article of this form without sources. Better, I feel, to have it deleted than to have a dodgy article left up (even if the subject's dead, it's still ethically iffy) I've been told this is "impatience"; I'm jumping past normal cleanup procedures and slapping a "fix in X days or else" warning on.
Thoughts? I'm really not convinced we have another way to deal with things like this that actually works...
On 7/19/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Thoughts? I'm really not convinced we have another way to deal with things like this that actually works...
If the central claim to notability of a person (such as a notable rape) cannot be verifiably established, we ought not have an article on them. Probably the best is move the text to AFC, ask for a source, and speedy the original under "no claim to notability". Kind of an abuse of the system, though, if it's the same person that deleted the previous claim to notability :)
Steve
If the rape is "notable" then there will necessarily be sources; if not primary, secondary. If it is truly "notable" then it would have been widely reported?
On 19/07/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/19/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Thoughts? I'm really not convinced we have another way to deal with things like this that actually works...
If the central claim to notability of a person (such as a notable rape) cannot be verifiably established, we ought not have an article on them. Probably the best is move the text to AFC, ask for a source, and speedy the original under "no claim to notability". Kind of an abuse of the system, though, if it's the same person that deleted the previous claim to notability :)
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/19/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
So, I've been going through the endless barrel of fun that is [[Category:Rapists]], slapping prod tags on the people of no encyclopedic significance ("X priest got two years in jail for groping some choirboys") and, in a couple of cases, encountering entirely unsourced articles. Perhaps the most obvious of these was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sedley_Alley&oldid=64313689
What ought we to do with them? I mean, policy is aggressively attack anything unsourced that would be defamation if it was false; where there were other avenues of notability, I've done that.
But in this case, when we remove all forms of the negative material, we get
Sedley Alley (August 16, 1955 – June 28, 2006) was married to a military person
...which is in and of itself a candidate for speedy deletion, though I suspect doing that would get me brickbatted for nefarious deletionism.
Um, did you try to find sources, or did you just remove stuff that didn't already have a source listed? What was your source for his death date? Because it didn't take me more than a few seconds to find tons of sources on this person.
By the way, it's not possible to defame dead people, is it?
Anthony