<<In a message dated 12/28/2008 7:36:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, newyorkbrad@gmail.com writes:
But this response really does not sufficiently take into account the profound impact that our coverage has on the subjects of our articles.>> -----------------
And the counter-argument is, if someone has taken the step to become a public person, say the mayor of Santa Cruz, no one is to *blame* for that step except themselves. If we then turn up an article from a newspaper 20 years earlier that states that they were arrested for three DUIs, well, again they did it. The fact that we re-report it, and that we can collect it all together with other tidbits, into a biography, is the mere fact of our project to create a biography on the person.
We aren't here to meekly parrot press releases, that would be a slap in the face of what creating an encyclopedia means.
The "profound impact" is merely that Sarah Palin doesn't want you to dig into her past as reported in reliable sources, once she has become a bigger name than merely the mayor of a tiny Alaskan town. However we do, they do, that's the purpose of writing a biography. "This is your life" it's not our fault you messed it up. It is however our duty to report it. History is not always nice and sweet.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc...)
Is it really, *our duty* to report it? And at what cost to a living person? I think that for those marginally notable, an opt out is not an "extreme step", not as extreme as my first suggestion.
I'll agree, that it is their life, and their choice to make it public. But must we be the agents of their perpetual embarrassment? Most especially, if their articles are frequent targets of hatcheting and libel. Most especially, if the notability is 'marginal'.
Jon-
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
<<In a message dated 12/28/2008 7:36:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, newyorkbrad@gmail.com writes:
But this response really does not sufficiently take into account the profound impact that our coverage has on the subjects of our articles.>>
And the counter-argument is, if someone has taken the step to become a public person, say the mayor of Santa Cruz, no one is to *blame* for that step except themselves. If we then turn up an article from a newspaper 20 years earlier that states that they were arrested for three DUIs, well, again they did it. The fact that we re-report it, and that we can collect it all together with other tidbits, into a biography, is the mere fact of our project to create a biography on the person.
We aren't here to meekly parrot press releases, that would be a slap in the face of what creating an encyclopedia means.
The "profound impact" is merely that Sarah Palin doesn't want you to dig into her past as reported in reliable sources, once she has become a bigger name than merely the mayor of a tiny Alaskan town. However we do, they do, that's the purpose of writing a biography. "This is your life" it's not our fault you messed it up. It is however our duty to report it. History is not always nice and sweet.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc...) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Perhaps we just need stricter criteria on what makes a *person* notable?
On 12/28/08, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Is it really, *our duty* to report it? And at what cost to a living person? I think that for those marginally notable, an opt out is not an "extreme step", not as extreme as my first suggestion.
I'll agree, that it is their life, and their choice to make it public. But must we be the agents of their perpetual embarrassment? Most especially, if their articles are frequent targets of hatcheting and libel. Most especially, if the notability is 'marginal'.
Jon-
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
<<In a message dated 12/28/2008 7:36:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, newyorkbrad@gmail.com writes:
But this response really does not sufficiently take into account the profound impact that our coverage has on the subjects of our articles.>>
And the counter-argument is, if someone has taken the step to become a public person, say the mayor of Santa Cruz, no one is to *blame* for that step except themselves. If we then turn up an article from a newspaper 20 years earlier that states that they were arrested for three DUIs, well, again they did it. The fact that we re-report it, and that we can collect it all together with other tidbits, into a biography, is the mere fact of our project to create a biography on the person.
We aren't here to meekly parrot press releases, that would be a slap in the face of what creating an encyclopedia means.
The "profound impact" is merely that Sarah Palin doesn't want you to dig into her past as reported in reliable sources, once she has become a bigger name than merely the mayor of a tiny Alaskan town. However we do, they do, that's the purpose of writing a biography. "This is your life" it's not our fault you messed it up. It is however our duty to report it. History is not always nice and sweet.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc...) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If we permit opt out, we will have a situation where we have, for all medium-level people who are somewhat less than famous, favorable bios only. There is no possible way to have both NPOV content and subjects owning the articles on themselves. Whatever way we solve the difficulties with BLP, it shouldn't be turning us into an publicity platform.
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.org wrote:
Perhaps we just need stricter criteria on what makes a *person* notable?
On 12/28/08, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Is it really, *our duty* to report it? And at what cost to a living person? I think that for those marginally notable, an opt out is not an "extreme step", not as extreme as my first suggestion.
I'll agree, that it is their life, and their choice to make it public. But must we be the agents of their perpetual embarrassment? Most especially, if their articles are frequent targets of hatcheting and libel. Most especially, if the notability is 'marginal'.
Jon-
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
<<In a message dated 12/28/2008 7:36:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, newyorkbrad@gmail.com writes:
But this response really does not sufficiently take into account the profound impact that our coverage has on the subjects of our articles.>>
And the counter-argument is, if someone has taken the step to become a public person, say the mayor of Santa Cruz, no one is to *blame* for that step except themselves. If we then turn up an article from a newspaper 20 years earlier that states that they were arrested for three DUIs, well, again they did it. The fact that we re-report it, and that we can collect it all together with other tidbits, into a biography, is the mere fact of our project to create a biography on the person.
We aren't here to meekly parrot press releases, that would be a slap in the face of what creating an encyclopedia means.
The "profound impact" is merely that Sarah Palin doesn't want you to dig into her past as reported in reliable sources, once she has become a bigger name than merely the mayor of a tiny Alaskan town. However we do, they do, that's the purpose of writing a biography. "This is your life" it's not our fault you messed it up. It is however our duty to report it. History is not always nice and sweet.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc...) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/12/29 David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
If we permit opt out, we will have a situation where we have, for all medium-level people who are somewhat less than famous, favorable bios only. There is no possible way to have both NPOV content and subjects owning the articles on themselves. Whatever way we solve the difficulties with BLP, it shouldn't be turning us into an publicity platform.
Correct. Opt-out will violate NPOV.
- d.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:14 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/29 David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
If we permit opt out, we will have a situation where we have, for all medium-level people who are somewhat less than famous, favorable bios only. There is no possible way to have both NPOV content and subjects owning the articles on themselves. Whatever way we solve the difficulties with BLP, it shouldn't be turning us into an publicity platform.
Correct. Opt-out will violate NPOV.
- d.
I think opt-out more than flagged, more than semi, more than anything else would be fought to the death over by some extremists. But I don't know if it would violate NPOV. Is an absence a violation?
- Joe
Its absence is not a violation provided we write biographies with tact as blp advises us to do.
On 12/29/08, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:14 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/29 David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
If we permit opt out, we will have a situation where we have, for all medium-level people who are somewhat less than famous, favorable bios only. There is no possible way to have both NPOV content and subjects owning the articles on themselves. Whatever way we solve the difficulties with BLP, it shouldn't be turning us into an publicity platform.
Correct. Opt-out will violate NPOV.
- d.
I think opt-out more than flagged, more than semi, more than anything else would be fought to the death over by some extremists. But I don't know if it would violate NPOV. Is an absence a violation?
- Joe
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/12/29 Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com:
Correct. Opt-out will violate NPOV.
I think opt-out more than flagged, more than semi, more than anything else would be fought to the death over by some extremists. But I don't know if it would violate NPOV. Is an absence a violation?
Philosophically, it probably wouldn't violate NPOV. *Practically*, it might well - as was pointed out upthread, anyone who has on balance a negative article would be more likely to ask for it to be removed than anyone who has one which is on balance positive.
In many ways, the most effective solution would be a hard-and-bright line like the DNB uses - no-one who is alive, end of story, and we could deal with living people as tangential notes in their work. But it certainly wouldn't be popular!
I remember talk of ja.wp having a more hardline definition of notability, roughly defined as "is a public figure", thus neatly eliding anyone who isn't Pretty Damn Famous - any idea if they still hold to that and if so how it works out?
On 12/29/08, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
In many ways, the most effective solution would be a hard-and-bright line like the DNB uses - no-one who is alive, end of story, and we could deal with living people as tangential notes in their work. But it certainly wouldn't be popular!
How many sentences can be written about the late Tommy Burks without including the non-late Byron (Low Tax) Looper as a more-than-tangential note? Truth be told I think "notability" arguments would favor a merge in the opposite direction.
I remember talk of ja.wp having a more hardline definition of notability, roughly defined as "is a public figure", thus neatly eliding anyone who isn't Pretty Damn Famous - any idea if they still hold to that and if so how it works out?
The Japanese definition of "notability" seems to be a rough translation of ours (and I don't mean "super karate monkey death car"-rough either): http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E7%89%B9%E7%AD%86%E6%80%A7
—C.W.
2008/12/29 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com:
Correct. Opt-out will violate NPOV.
Why?
As answered by others, opt-out will select for whitewashes and publicity pieces.
BLPs have two problems:
1. Puff pieces. 2. Hack pieces.
We can't fix 2. by doing something that will bias to 1.
BLP does not and cannot override NPOV, or this isn't Wikipedia but something else that isn't an NPOV encyclopedia.
Is it possible to write bios that are NPOV? Of course. Are there strong forces pulling them away from being NPOV? You've got them right here in this thread.
- d.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
Correct. Opt-out will violate NPOV.
- d.
Why?
Newyorkbrad _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Because then the subject of any given biography can say "Remove the parts I don't like or I'll request opt-out." In essence, it means we can only have hagiographies approved by subjects and/or their PR department. We should be careful to impeccably source and duly weight negative or controversial information, and note that it is in dispute if it is. We should -not- remove it upon request if this is done.