I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five days*.
As I feared, userboxes have proven to be the canary in the coal mine. Now it's articlespace that is being jerked around.
Wikipedia ultimately must decide whether it wants to be Jimbo's personal fiefdom, or be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The two are clearly mutually exclusive at this point.
On 2/21/06, Joshua Griisser JDGRII8338@ngcsu.edu wrote:
I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five days*.
As I feared, userboxes have proven to be the canary in the coal mine. Now it's articlespace that is being jerked around.
Wikipedia ultimately must decide whether it wants to be Jimbo's personal fiefdom, or be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The two are clearly mutually exclusive at this point.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You do realize that angry people call the office of Wikimedia very angry? And that all sorts of people write in to the email addresses, which we then have to deal with via OTRS clamoring for libel damages, article deletion, and various sorts of things. This is just one way that we can help/deal with all these people, who frankly don't care for editing, and get Wikipedia on its way. Trust Jimbo: if something important gets deleted, you'll hear the community soon enough.
-- Ben Emmel Wikipedia - User:Bratsche "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -- William Blake
On 2/22/06, Joshua Griisser JDGRII8338@ngcsu.edu wrote:
I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the encyclopedia article >[[Brian Peppers]] -
I belive the formal aproach is to complain about "damned deletionists"
not to mention his locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of
[[Harry Reid]] for >*five days*.
Yeah I don't get that back when the helpdesk recived such complaints we talk to the people made such edits as were required while staying with in the normal editing process then moved on (with the exception of newsmax where I made the mistake of telling them they could edit wikipedia which resulted in a revert war and the evential blocking of one newsmax employee). It seemed to work mostly.
As I feared, userboxes have proven to be the canary in the coal mine. Now it's >articlespace that is being jerked around.
Wikipedia ultimately must decide whether it wants to be Jimbo's personal fiefdom, or be >"the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The two are clearly mutually exclusive at >this point.
Jimbo can't keep track of all the wikis. However any attempt to define Brian Peppers as a species will be resisted.
-- geni
Joshua Griisser wrote:
I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five days*.
I'm very confused by this one. I wrote a one-sentence, factual, verifiable, referenced stub reading something like the following (from memory):
--- '''Brian Peppers''' is the subject of an [[internet fad]] due to his unusual appearance in a police [[mug shot]] photograph.
==References== * [[Urban Legends Reference Pages]] (snopes.com). [http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/peppers.asp "Who's a Pepper?"]. Accessed February 17, 2006. ---
I fail to see how this could possibly be legally problematic. What's more, deleting it from the encyclopedia reduces our coverage of internet culture, which is currently an active area of academic research.
There are some books on internet fads currently in press, scheduled to appear within the next year. If one of them mentions Brian Peppers, will we still prohibit an article in Wikipedia about it?
I can see arguments against using Wikipedia to *create* fads, but that is clearly not the case here. Are we going to delete [[Star Wars kid]] if his family complains, too? After all, he too is famous against his own will, and in that case the famous video was even leaked onto the internet illegally (while in Brian Peppers case the famous photograph was officially posted by the State of Ohio on its website in accordance with state law).
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
I'm very confused by this one. I wrote a one-sentence, factual, verifiable, referenced stub reading something like the following (from memory):
P.S.: The Wikimedia Foundation is now republishing a version of my article in its entirety here: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-February/040229.html
Better scour the mailing list archives too! =]
-Mark
On 2/22/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Delirium wrote:
I'm very confused by this one. I wrote a one-sentence, factual, verifiable, referenced stub reading something like the following (from memory):
P.S.: The Wikimedia Foundation is now republishing a version of my article in its entirety here: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-February/040229.html
Better scour the mailing list archives too! =]
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If he did, well done to him. There is no legitimate reason for an article on Mr Peppers other than people on a couple of websites chose to make fun of his appearance. In the latest AfD, one voter said words to effect of we're just making fun of his appearance. Surely, Wikipedia should have higher purposes than mocking the disabled which his article has generally tended to be.
In general, we need to pay much more attention to people's privacy than we have. As one of the world's most popular Internet sites, articles on people generally tend to be high up on the first page of a Google search. If people do a Google search for a potential employee or date, our articles come up fairly quickly. If we have an article alleging criminal or other antisocial behavior, we need to ensure that the case is well-known and highly verifiable through reliable sources.
We therefore need to ensure that if we have articles on people for a negative reason, our policies on verifiability and reliable sources are applied vigorously. As well, our editorial red pencils should be vigilant about negative claims about individuals and if they don't have a reliable source/s or don't comply with NPOV, they should be taken out.
Our longterm credibility as a biographical source and much else depends on it. We now have a reasonable degree of prominence and we should endeavour to use it responsibly.
Regards
*Keith Old*
On 2/22/06, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
If he did, well done to him. There is no legitimate reason for an article on Mr Peppers other than people on a couple of websites chose to make fun of his appearance. In the latest AfD, one voter said words to effect of we're just making fun of his appearance. Surely, Wikipedia should have higher purposes than mocking the disabled which his article has generally tended to be.
The article has not tended to do that.
In general, we need to pay much more attention to people's privacy than we have. As one of the world's most popular Internet sites, articles on people generally tend to be high up on the first page of a Google search. If people do a Google search for a potential employee or date, our articles come up fairly quickly. If we have an article alleging criminal or other antisocial behavior, we need to ensure that the case is well-known and highly verifiable through reliable sources.
[[Brian Peppers]] forfilled both of those depending on your defintion of well know.
We therefore need to ensure that if we have articles on people for a negative reason, our policies on verifiability and reliable sources are applied vigorously. As well, our editorial red pencils should be vigilant about negative claims about individuals and if they don't have a reliable source/s or don't comply with NPOV, they should be taken out.
Um yeah that is kinda what was going on with [[Brain Peppers]]. -- geni
On 2/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/22/06, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
If he did, well done to him. There is no legitimate reason for an
article on
Mr Peppers other than people on a couple of websites chose to make fun
of
his appearance. In the latest AfD, one voter said words to effect of
we're
just making fun of his appearance. Surely, Wikipedia should have higher purposes than mocking the disabled which his article has generally
tended to
be.
The article has not tended to do that.
In general, we need to pay much more attention to people's privacy than
we
have. As one of the world's most popular Internet sites, articles on
people
generally tend to be high up on the first page of a Google search. If
people
do a Google search for a potential employee or date, our articles come
up
fairly quickly. If we have an article alleging criminal or other
antisocial
behavior, we need to ensure that the case is well-known and highly verifiable through reliable sources.
[[Brian Peppers]] forfilled both of those depending on your defintion of well know.
We therefore need to ensure that if we have articles on people for a negative reason, our policies on verifiability and reliable sources are applied vigorously. As well, our editorial red pencils should be
vigilant
about negative claims about individuals and if they don't have a
reliable
source/s or don't comply with NPOV, they should be taken out.
Um yeah that is kinda what was going on with [[Brain Peppers]].
geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I hold the opinion that any article on this man is not going to be NPOV, since the only reason he is popular is because Peppers is unfortuantely stricken with a condition that makes him look funny. Our editorial standards should be such that we don't have to stoop to have an article designed to inflicy more problems on the article subject.
-- Ben Emmel Wikipedia - User:Bratsche "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -- William Blake
On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
I hold the opinion that any article on this man is not going to be NPOV, since the only reason he is popular is because Peppers is unfortuantely stricken with a condition that makes him look funny.
Not entirely - the person has a Snopes.com entry, and is a registered sex offender in Ohio.
I'm not endorsing it one way or another (for now), but it's certainly not a "slam dunk" case.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 2/21/06, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
I hold the opinion that any article on this man is not going to be NPOV, since the only reason he is popular is because Peppers is unfortuantely stricken with a condition that makes him look funny.
Not entirely - the person has a Snopes.com entry, and is a registered sex offender in Ohio.
I'm not endorsing it one way or another (for now), but it's certainly not a "slam dunk" case.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No, I do agree that it's not a open-and-shut decision. But like Jimbo said, if we still care about this article in a year, then we can argue then. It's a pretty good way to find out notability. My logic goes like this: a person with a disability is not inherently notable, a sex offender is not inherently notable, so a combination of the two is only barely notable. Given that we should have high editorial standards, I think our Brian Peppers slips beneath our bar.
If I was him, or a member of his family, I certainly wouldn't want it up there.
-- Ben Emmel Wikipedia - User:Bratsche "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -- William Blake
On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/21/06, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
I hold the opinion that any article on this man is not going to be NPOV, since the only reason he is popular is because Peppers is unfortuantely stricken with a condition that makes him look funny.
Not entirely - the person has a Snopes.com entry, and is a registered sex offender in Ohio.
I'm not endorsing it one way or another (for now), but it's certainly not a "slam dunk" case.
No, I do agree that it's not a open-and-shut decision. But like Jimbo said, if we still care about this article in a year, then we can argue then. It's a pretty good way to find out notability. My logic goes like this: a person with a disability is not inherently notable, a sex offender is not inherently notable, so a combination of the two is only barely notable. Given that we should have high editorial standards, I think our Brian Peppers slips beneath our bar.
We can debate whether the math should be 0.5 x 0.5 or 0.5 + 0.5
But you did not address the fact that it has become such a referenced urban legend that it made it into Snopes.com's files.
If I was him, or a member of his family, I certainly wouldn't want it up there.
But that has never been a criteria for inclusion or exclusion.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 2/21/06, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
But you did not address the fact that it has become such a referenced urban legend that it made it into Snopes.com's files.
If I was him, or a member of his family, I certainly wouldn't want it up there.
But that has never been a criteria for inclusion or exclusion.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Snopes has a lot of stuff that I don't think would populate the annals of Wikipedia. And while the wishes of one don't determine the inclusion, they're something that we should at least keep in mind.
Please realize that I'm not entirely sure on whether the article should be kept or deleted. Obviously, we're going to wait for a year anyways.
-- Ben Emmel Wikipedia - User:Bratsche "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -- William Blake
Ben Emmel wrote:
No, I do agree that it's not a open-and-shut decision. But like Jimbo said, if we still care about this article in a year, then we can argue then. It's a pretty good way to find out notability. My logic goes like this: a person with a disability is not inherently notable, a sex offender is not inherently notable, so a combination of the two is only barely notable. Given that we should have high editorial standards, I think our Brian Peppers slips beneath our bar.
If I was him, or a member of his family, I certainly wouldn't want it up there.
Nobody is arguing that having a disability or being a sex offender is inherently notable. The article is not even primarily about the person, but about the internet fad the person has caused, which *is* a notable sociological phenomenon.
Whether someone wants an article or not does and should not have any relevant whatsoever. [[en:Star Wars kid]], another internet fad, doesn't want an article either, but there you have one. Brian Peppers is a less well-known internet fad, but still certainly at the level where he would warrant inclusion in any more than cursary treatment of the subject.
Since I hope Wikipedia will become, in the long term, a compendium of all human knowledge, I think it sad that an unexplained decision to unilaterally remove content has poked holes in its coverage of internet culture, an important area of current sociological research at which Wikipedia ought naturally to excel.
-Mark
On 2/22/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Ben Emmel wrote: Whether someone wants an article or not does and should not have any relevant whatsoever. [[en:Star Wars kid]], another internet fad, doesn't want an article either, but there you have one. Brian Peppers is a less well-known internet fad, but still certainly at the level where he would warrant inclusion in any more than cursary treatment of the subject.
Just on the notability thing, I wonder if BP will really stack up well on the "ten years from now" test. Sure, he's interesting *now*, but in 2016?
On the treatment of deformities as WP articles, see [[Joseph Merrick]]. There's someone who didn't seem to achieve anything notable that wasn't directly related to his deformity.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
Just on the notability thing, I wonder if BP will really stack up well on the "ten years from now" test. Sure, he's interesting *now*, but in 2016?
Depends on who you are, and what you consider "interesting". If the year is 2016 and you're researching internet culture of the first decade of the 21st century, I'd imagine you might find it interesting.
Wikipedia already has plenty of uninteresting-to-me bits of pop-culture trivia from previous decades, but they may well be of interest to people who research or otherwise have an interest in such things. I haven't heard of most of the television shows on [[List of television shows canceled after one episode]], for example, and don't really care to, but I'm glad we cover them, and in fact it would be nice if fewer of them were red links.
-Mark
Whether someone wants an article or not does and should not have any relevant whatsoever. [[en:Star Wars kid]], another internet fad, doesn't want an article either, but there you have one. Brian Peppers is a less well-known internet fad, but still certainly at the level where he would warrant inclusion in any more than cursary treatment of the subject.
Just on the notability thing, I wonder if BP will really stack up well on the "ten years from now" test. Sure, he's interesting *now*, but in 2016?
2016 it will be interesting that Brian Pepper was interesting ten years earlier.
On the treatment of deformities as WP articles, see [[Joseph Merrick]]. There's someone who didn't seem to achieve anything notable that wasn't directly related to his deformity.
Mhm? See [[John Siegenthaler]]. There's someone who didn't seem to achieve anything notable that wasn't directly related to the Kennedy assassination.
-- mvh Björn
G'day Mark,
Since I hope Wikipedia will become, in the long term, a compendium of all human knowledge, I think it sad that an unexplained decision to unilaterally remove content has poked holes in its coverage of internet culture, an important area of current sociological research at which Wikipedia ought naturally to excel.
Fear not, my good man! I'm sure the denizens of Encyclopedia Dramatica are more than ready to step up to the plate and document the phenomenon of Mr Peppers' deformity; if anything, their coverage will be more complete, and feature more swearing and callous mockery. As such, they can do a much better job of recording Internet culture than we'll *ever* do.
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Mark,
Since I hope Wikipedia will become, in the long term, a compendium of all human knowledge, I think it sad that an unexplained decision to unilaterally remove content has poked holes in its coverage of internet culture, an important area of current sociological research at which Wikipedia ought naturally to excel.
Fear not, my good man! I'm sure the denizens of Encyclopedia Dramatica are more than ready to step up to the plate and document the phenomenon of Mr Peppers' deformity; if anything, their coverage will be more complete, and feature more swearing and callous mockery. As such, they can do a much better job of recording Internet culture than we'll *ever* do.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who endores /that/ trollpit can go *directly* to Hell.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Mark,
Since I hope Wikipedia will become, in the long term, a compendium of all human knowledge, I think it sad that an unexplained decision to unilaterally remove content has poked holes in its coverage of internet culture, an important area of current sociological research at which Wikipedia ought naturally to excel.
Fear not, my good man! I'm sure the denizens of Encyclopedia Dramatica are more than ready to step up to the plate and document the phenomenon of Mr Peppers' deformity; if anything, their coverage will be more complete, and feature more swearing and callous mockery. As such, they can do a much better job of recording Internet culture than we'll *ever* do.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who endorses /that/ trollpit can go *directly* to Hell.
Ben Emmel wrote:
No, I do agree that it's not a open-and-shut decision. But like Jimbo said, if we still care about this article in a year, then we can argue then.
Woah, a whole _year_? I'd thought the article was just temporarily deleted while some details got sorted out. _Now_ I've got a serious grounds for objection. What happens if the deleted article database gets purged at some point before then? And what if there are notable developments in the details of this topic over the course of the next year? We shouldn't have to be keeping notes offline for a whole year, we'll lose out on all sorts of opportunity for the organic article growth that Wikipedia excels at.
Granted, this isn't a "big topic" like a war or political scandal. But this seems like a very dubious approach in general and I'm not sure it should be condoned.
On 2/22/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Ben Emmel wrote:
No, I do agree that it's not a open-and-shut decision. But like Jimbo said, if we still care about this article in a year, then we can argue then.
Woah, a whole _year_? I'd thought the article was just temporarily deleted while some details got sorted out. _Now_ I've got a serious grounds for objection. What happens if the deleted article database gets purged at some point before then?
If there's not enough information left on the Internet in a year to re-create an article about him, then clearly he wasn't notable enough for an article in the first place.
And what if there are notable developments in the details of this topic over the course of the next year?
If Brian Peppers goes out and assassinates the president tomorrow, then we can re-visit the subject.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
On 2/23/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Woah, a whole _year_? I'd thought the article was just temporarily deleted while some details got sorted out. _Now_ I've got a serious grounds for objection. What happens if the deleted article database gets purged at some point before then? And what if there are notable developments in the details of this topic over the course of the next year? We shouldn't have to be keeping notes offline for a whole year, we'll lose out on all sorts of opportunity for the organic article growth that Wikipedia excels at.
Hmm... I wonder why do we have articles like [[Alfonso X of Castile]] that happened 800 years ago?? who kept notes offline so much time?
I wonder if someone did is because he actually is, *ahem* *ahem* notable?
Drini drini wrote:
Hmm... I wonder why do we have articles like [[Alfonso X of Castile]] that happened 800 years ago?? who kept notes offline so much time?
I wonder if someone did is because he actually is, *ahem* *ahem* notable?
The point is to avoid the extra work involved in recreating the article from scratch and of having to research events up to a year old rather than inserting them as they occur. Sure, you can do it the hard way, but why should we _have_ to? I'll bet a whole barrel of fine Albertan crude oil that if February 22 rolls around again and the article's still stored away in the deletion database it's going to be undeleted straight away, and if that's acceptable then I don't see why it's not acceptable to store the article somewhere more appropriate during the intervening year instead.
Deletion is not an appropriate way of _storing_ articles. It is an appropriate way of _deleting_ things. The fact that they can usually be viewed and undeleted later by admins doesn't make it so, it just means it can be misused for it.
What would have been far better, IMO, would be to move the article to a subpage off its talk page; [[Talk:Brian Peppers/Temp]] for example. That's done on other controversial articles to allow for reworking of material without messing with the main article space, and it would keep it from showing up in Wikipedia's mirrors if that's a concern. If it's Google searches that's the problem, store it in a subpage of some Wikipedia: namespace instead. We had a discussion about AfD pages along these same lines and I was just as vigorous in my opposition then when it was proposed that they all be deleted as a way to store them "out of sight."
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Ben Emmel wrote:
No, I do agree that it's not a open-and-shut decision. But like Jimbo said, if we still care about this article in a year, then we can argue then.
Woah, a whole _year_? I'd thought the article was just temporarily deleted while some details got sorted out. _Now_ I've got a serious grounds for objection.
The point here is not the article itself, it is the abuse of process that was involved.
As I said in another post, I'm happy to reduce the time period from one year, but what I'd really like to see first is for us to all take a really serious look at WP:LIVING, and in particular a strengthening of the "Presumption in favor of Privacy".
"In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales "In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."
That's the job of WikiNews...
Pete, cub reporter http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:Skyring
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Woah, a whole _year_? I'd thought the article was just temporarily deleted while some details got sorted out. _Now_ I've got a serious grounds for objection.
The point here is not the article itself, it is the abuse of process that was involved.
My understanding of the process involved has changed several times since I first involved myself in reaction. Initially, I thought you'd instituted some sort of unique Jimbo decree that the article be put "on hold" for a year and had used deletion as a way to do that. This was the source of my vehement initial reaction - deletion is not a way to "store" stuff. I wasn't aware of any of the many AfD/VfDs that had gone before since there weren't notices in the talk page.
Then I found out that you'd deleted it "in process" after an AfD delete result, and I started feeling quite embarrassed that I'd stuck my foot in my mouth as a result of incomplete information. I may disagree with the structure of AfD and many of its results but at least it's part of Wikipedia's functioning that is being debated widely and may be changed.
Then I found out that the AfD delete result had been for a previous version of the article and that the current version had _survived_ AfD, suggesting your deletion was a unique "Jimbo thing" after all. I'm back to being concerned that your intervention has inappropriately short-circuited the development of what seems to be to be a legitimate article, but having been burned by misunderstanding before I'm hesitant to jump back in to the debate. So far I've just tried to ensure that the Brian Pepper talk page has prominent links to the previous AfD pages to hopefully keep my original misunderstanding from happening to others.
As I said in another post, I'm happy to reduce the time period from one year, but what I'd really like to see first is for us to all take a really serious look at WP:LIVING, and in particular a strengthening of the "Presumption in favor of Privacy".
Since I'm just an editor in the trenches and don't participate in all the higher-level helpdesk/committee/Foundation stuff I may have a skewed perspective on all this, but I worry that this post-Siegenthaler biography tizzy is turning into a moral panic of some sort. I would think that the existing verifiability and no original research policies would be sufficient to deal with almost all of these sorts of cases already. Going too far in deference to the privacy wishes of the subjects of articles verges into POV territory.
IMO, of course.
Andrew Lih wrote:
On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
I hold the opinion that any article on this man is not going to be NPOV, since the only reason he is popular is because Peppers is unfortuantely stricken with a condition that makes him look funny.
Not entirely - the person has a Snopes.com entry, and is a registered sex offender in Ohio.
I'm not endorsing it one way or another (for now), but it's certainly not a "slam dunk" case.
Agreed. But it was AfD'd more than once and people kept recreating it.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Andrew Lih wrote:
On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
I hold the opinion that any article on this man is not going to be NPOV, since the only reason he is popular is because Peppers is unfortuantely stricken with a condition that makes him look funny.
Not entirely - the person has a Snopes.com entry, and is a registered sex offender in Ohio.
I'm not endorsing it one way or another (for now), but it's certainly not a "slam dunk" case.
Agreed. But it was AfD'd more than once and people kept recreating it.
No.
A crappy version a long time ago that didn't read anything close to an encyclopedia article was AfD'd. A new version, more neutral, was created, and it was AfD'd *unsuccessfully* something like 5 times, interspersed with some sysops occasionally speedying it and it being unspeedied.
Every vote on the article in question (i.e. not the very early one) has come out somewhere near a deadlock. The most I've seen in favor of deleting is something like 60-65%, which is nowhere near the consensus to delete typically required on AfD.
-Mark
"Delirium" delirium@hackish.org wrote in message news:43FD78D3.1030306@hackish.org... [snip]
... The most I've seen in favor of deleting is something like 60-65%, which is nowhere near the consensus to delete typically required on AfD.
...whereas WP:DRV works on a simple majority system, so if you want an article gone and that's the vote you got, you can simply delete it and wait for it to pop upon WP:DRV whereupon your deletion is endorsed.
Somebody tell me I'm too cyncial, go on :-)
Phil Boswell wrote:
"Delirium" delirium@hackish.org wrote in message news:43FD78D3.1030306@hackish.org... [snip]
... The most I've seen in favor of deleting is something like 60-65%, which is nowhere near the consensus to delete typically required on AfD.
...whereas WP:DRV works on a simple majority system, so if you want an article gone and that's the vote you got, you can simply delete it and wait for it to pop upon WP:DRV whereupon your deletion is endorsed.
Somebody tell me I'm too cyncial, go on :-)
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-January/038092.html
On 2/23/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
A crappy version a long time ago that didn't read anything close to an encyclopedia article was AfD'd. A new version, more neutral, was created, and it was AfD'd *unsuccessfully* something like 5 times, interspersed with some sysops occasionally speedying it and it being unspeedied.
Yet another confusion of content and subject. If the subject is un Wikipiedia-like, then it doesn't matter whether the old version was "crappy" or not.
Every vote on the article in question (i.e. not the very early one) has come out somewhere near a deadlock. The most I've seen in favor of deleting is something like 60-65%, which is nowhere near the consensus to delete typically required on AfD.
Were these votes on the basis of content or subject?
Sorry to keep on harping on, but it's a pretty important question, and most of these arguments seem to completely blur the line.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
Every vote on the article in question (i.e. not the very early one) has come out somewhere near a deadlock. The most I've seen in favor of deleting is something like 60-65%, which is nowhere near the consensus to delete typically required on AfD.
Were these votes on the basis of content or subject?
Sorry to keep on harping on, but it's a pretty important question, and most of these arguments seem to completely blur the line.
Since most people don't explicitly give their reasoning in their votes, it's hard to say. I would assert that most of the original "delete" votes were based on content, not subject, which is why once the content improved, the percentage of "delete" votes dwindled.
But this, among other reasons, is why we need to get rid of AfD and DRV in the first place. "Non-notability" is often a red herring used by people to delete articles with which they have an ideological disagreement.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Every vote on the article in question (i.e. not the very early one) has come out somewhere near a deadlock. The most I've seen in favor of deleting is something like 60-65%, which is nowhere near the consensus to delete typically required on AfD.
Were these votes on the basis of content or subject?
Sorry to keep on harping on, but it's a pretty important question, and most of these arguments seem to completely blur the line.
Since most people don't explicitly give their reasoning in their votes, it's hard to say. I would assert that most of the original "delete" votes were based on content, not subject, which is why once the content improved, the percentage of "delete" votes dwindled.
But this, among other reasons, is why we need to get rid of AfD and DRV in the first place. "Non-notability" is often a red herring used by people to delete articles with which they have an ideological disagreement.
-Mark
Often? Please. Nobody denies it's abused. But "often"? Even David Gerard confesses that 95% of the stuff on AfD is crap that needs to go, and it's difficult (to say the least) to justify deletion of articles (such as those on garage bands) without appealing to the concept (if not the phrase) of non-notability.
John
On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
I hold the opinion that any article on this man is not going to be NPOV, since the only reason he is popular is because Peppers is unfortuantely stricken with a condition that makes him look funny.
I don't think you will be able to use that to get [[Joseph Merrick]] through AFD
Our editorial standards should be such that we don't have to stoop to have an article designed to inflicy more problems on the article subject.
The article wasn't designed to do that
-- geni
On 2/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think you will be able to use that to get [[Joseph Merrick]] through AFD
Brian Peppers doesn't have nine books about him, nor a Tony-award winning play, an Oscar-winning movie, and a TV special.
On a side note, the Merrick article needs a POV check. Can we be guessing on whether he never found love? -- Ben Emmel Wikipedia - User:Bratsche "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -- William Blake
On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think you will be able to use that to get [[Joseph Merrick]] through AFD
Brian Peppers doesn't have nine books about him, nor a Tony-award winning play, an Oscar-winning movie, and a TV special.
Ah so we are back to the good old notibilty criteria. Now generaly at this point an inclusionist should turn up and propose some incredibily liberal criteria then refuse to budge makeing further debate tricky.
On a side note, the Merrick article needs a POV check. Can we be guessing on whether he never found love?
No he complained about it at one point. I think there is a mention of it on the BBC website. I think he hoped to meet a blind woman.
-- geni
I will be writing a Tony-award-winning musical about Brian Peppers within the next year entitled "0.5 + 0.5 = My Heart: The Brian Peppers Story". I will then petition Jimbo to unblock the page.
That, my friends, is *bold*.
On 2/21/06, Ben Emmel bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think you will be able to use that to get [[Joseph Merrick]] through AFD
Brian Peppers doesn't have nine books about him, nor a Tony-award winning play, an Oscar-winning movie, and a TV special.
On a side note, the Merrick article needs a POV check. Can we be guessing on whether he never found love? -- Ben Emmel Wikipedia - User:Bratsche "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -- William Blake _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ben Lowe wrote:
I will be writing a Tony-award-winning musical about Brian Peppers within the next year entitled "0.5 + 0.5 = My Heart: The Brian Peppers Story". I will then petition Jimbo to unblock the page.
That, my friends, is *bold*.
No, it's disruption of Broadway in order to make a point. ;)
grm_wnr
On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
I hold the opinion that any article on this man is not going to be NPOV, since the only reason he is popular is because Peppers is unfortuantely stricken with a condition that makes him look funny. Our editorial standards should be such that we don't have to stoop to have an article designed to inflicy more problems on the article subject.
You're either misunderstanding NPOV or have very low standards for Wikipedia authors. If we can have basically NPOV articles on abortion, Hitler and terrorism, I don't think an NPOV article on Brian Peppers is beyond us.
I'm not even sure what the POV is that you're alleging that our article would have.
Steve
Keith Old wrote:
If he did, well done to him. There is no legitimate reason for an article on Mr Peppers other than people on a couple of websites chose to make fun of his appearance.
I don't have any particular investment in the article (I think I voted in an AfD on it), but what you just wrote here seems to me to be similar to saying "there is no legitimate reason for an article on Mr. Peppers other than the legitimate reason there's an article on him." It may not be _nice_ to make fun of someone based on their appearance, but if it's happening enough it becomes a valid subject for an article IMO. As someone else pointed out there's an article on Ghyslain Raza as another example of fame through mockery making a person notable.
In the latest AfD, one voter said words to effect of we're just making fun of his appearance. Surely, Wikipedia should have higher purposes than mocking the disabled which his article has generally tended to be.
Wikipedia isn't making fun of his appearance any more than Wikipedia is accusing Thomas Quick of being a murderer. Wikipedia is hosting an article about how _other people_ are making fun of his appearance/accusing Thomas Quick of being a murderer.
If Wikipedia were to make fun of his appearance that would probably fall under "No Original Research" anyway, all issues of morality and politeness aside.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
I don't have any particular investment in the article (I think I voted in an AfD on it), but what you just wrote here seems to me to be similar to saying "there is no legitimate reason for an article on Mr. Peppers other than the legitimate reason there's an article on him." It may not be _nice_ to make fun of someone based on their appearance, but if it's happening enough it becomes a valid subject for an article IMO. As someone else pointed out there's an article on Ghyslain Raza as another example of fame through mockery making a person notable.
Yes to all that. But there's a bit of a curious circularity now that we've become very very big and very very powerful. *If* something has become notable enough *outside wikipedia* then yes, we can and should have an article about it. But we should be very extreme in our caution that a Wikipedia entry not be used to *drive* the very notability upon which the entry is supposed to *depend*.
On 2/24/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
I don't have any particular investment in the article (I think I voted in an AfD on it), but what you just wrote here seems to me to be similar to saying "there is no legitimate reason for an article on Mr. Peppers other than the legitimate reason there's an article on him." It may not be _nice_ to make fun of someone based on their appearance, but if it's happening enough it becomes a valid subject for an article IMO. As someone else pointed out there's an article on Ghyslain Raza as another example of fame through mockery making a person notable.
Yes to all that. But there's a bit of a curious circularity now that we've become very very big and very very powerful. *If* something has become notable enough *outside wikipedia* then yes, we can and should have an article about it. But we should be very extreme in our caution that a Wikipedia entry not be used to *drive* the very notability upon which the entry is supposed to *depend*.
I think it is safe to say that snopes will do a good enough job of driving it's notability along with various other less solid reference works around the web.
-- geni
"Jimmy Wales" wrote
But we should be very extreme in our caution that a Wikipedia entry not be used to *drive* the very notability upon which the entry is supposed to *depend*.
Couple this with the well-known debate here 'notability isn't policy'. We get a complex picture.
'Encyclopedic interest' should encompass much of what 'it is in the public interest to know'; but it need not include all that 'the public are interested in knowing'. This distinction is exactly what gets slurred in the public interest defence of 'tabloid journalism', with its slippage into prurience.
I think tabloid journalism in its pejorative sense is always going to fall foul of our living persons guidelines. If not, then the guidelines need tightening up, in the direction of coming down harder on sensationalism. We are not here to sell newspapers.
Pedians may be a rather pre-filtered collection of people; but effectively we do operate a policy on 'human interest'. At AfD an article found interesting by enough will survive, even if the topic is somewhat obscure.
We really do need a tweaked version of the 'notability' discussion, where it is laid out that:-
- we have an encyclopedia to write, and there is going to be some cut-off to what we take to be reference information; - we have a media-style duty, which is not to suppress informative things within the reach of NPOV-Verifiability, when these are matters the public should have documented for them; - we are also an ethical and voluntary organisation, supported in effect as a public service of global reach, and have at all times to be mindful of that.
Charles
Although I should say that my deletion was a commentary on process, not a commentary on the worth of the article per se, I have to say that I agree completely with the thrust of Keith Old's remarks here.
Keith Old wrote:
If he did, well done to him. There is no legitimate reason for an article on Mr Peppers other than people on a couple of websites chose to make fun of his appearance. In the latest AfD, one voter said words to effect of we're just making fun of his appearance. Surely, Wikipedia should have higher purposes than mocking the disabled which his article has generally tended to be.
In general, we need to pay much more attention to people's privacy than we have. As one of the world's most popular Internet sites, articles on people generally tend to be high up on the first page of a Google search. If people do a Google search for a potential employee or date, our articles come up fairly quickly. If we have an article alleging criminal or other antisocial behavior, we need to ensure that the case is well-known and highly verifiable through reliable sources.
We therefore need to ensure that if we have articles on people for a negative reason, our policies on verifiability and reliable sources are applied vigorously. As well, our editorial red pencils should be vigilant about negative claims about individuals and if they don't have a reliable source/s or don't comply with NPOV, they should be taken out.
Our longterm credibility as a biographical source and much else depends on it. We now have a reasonable degree of prominence and we should endeavour to use it responsibly.
Regards
*Keith Old* _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"Delirium" delirium@hackish.org wrote in message news:43FBD5CA.6000904@hackish.org...
Joshua Griisser wrote:
I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five days*.
I'm very confused by this one. I wrote a one-sentence, factual, verifiable, referenced stub reading something like the following (from memory):
[snip]
I fail to see how this could possibly be legally problematic. What's more, deleting it from the encyclopedia reduces our coverage of internet culture, which is currently an active area of academic research.
At this stage, I think the legal angle pales into insignificance next to the FireStorm this article has generated on Wikipedia.
My impression is that this is a particularly egregious example of the poisonous atmosphere in the Deletion-related arenas abut which Jimbo has previously commented.
There are some books on internet fads currently in press, scheduled to appear within the next year. If one of them mentions Brian Peppers, will we still prohibit an article in Wikipedia about it?
Well, there is a deadline. Whether a proper article or a troll-piece hits the presses first will be interesting...
Brian Peppers is a pitiful person we should not be making fun of (using our "power"). There is no legal problem, but not the point. Harry Reid will likely be Majority leader of the Senate. I have not followed any controversy regarding his article, but some attention needs to be paid to the quality of the article.
Fred
On Feb 21, 2006, at 8:08 PM, Delirium wrote:
Joshua Griisser wrote:
I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five days*.
I'm very confused by this one. I wrote a one-sentence, factual, verifiable, referenced stub reading something like the following (from memory):
'''Brian Peppers''' is the subject of an [[internet fad]] due to his unusual appearance in a police [[mug shot]] photograph.
==References==
- [[Urban Legends Reference Pages]] (snopes.com).
[http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/peppers.asp "Who's a Pepper?"]. Accessed February 17, 2006.
I fail to see how this could possibly be legally problematic. What's more, deleting it from the encyclopedia reduces our coverage of internet culture, which is currently an active area of academic research.
There are some books on internet fads currently in press, scheduled to appear within the next year. If one of them mentions Brian Peppers, will we still prohibit an article in Wikipedia about it?
I can see arguments against using Wikipedia to *create* fads, but that is clearly not the case here. Are we going to delete [[Star Wars kid]] if his family complains, too? After all, he too is famous against his own will, and in that case the famous video was even leaked onto the internet illegally (while in Brian Peppers case the famous photograph was officially posted by the State of Ohio on its website in accordance with state law).
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Delirium wrote
I fail to see how this could possibly be legally problematic. What's more, deleting it from the encyclopedia reduces our coverage of internet culture, which is currently an active area of academic research.
I don't think it's legally problematic. It's morally deeply problematic, but that's a different question altogether.
The issue is that it was a recreation of already AfD'd content.
I can see arguments against using Wikipedia to *create* fads, but that is clearly not the case here. Are we going to delete [[Star Wars kid]] if his family complains, too? After all, he too is famous against his own will, and in that case the famous video was even leaked onto the internet illegally (while in Brian Peppers case the famous photograph was officially posted by the State of Ohio on its website in accordance with state law).
I don't know anything about this case, but in general, I would say that a thoughtful approach to our astounding global power to hurt people deeply by having inappropriate articles on people who are not famous through any fault or merit of their own will may lead us to respectfully decline to have abusive articles about such people.
This is why I merged the culprit in the Siegenthaler case into the Siegenthaler page. It is just deeply inappropriate when the #2 hit in google is to this poor fellow who made one simple stupid mistake in his life (which is made, we know, by dozens of people daily who are trolling wikipedia) and accidentally got famous because of it.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I can see arguments against using Wikipedia to *create* fads, but that is clearly not the case here. Are we going to delete [[Star Wars kid]] if his family complains, too? After all, he too is famous against his own will, and in that case the famous video was even leaked onto the internet illegally (while in Brian Peppers case the famous photograph was officially posted by the State of Ohio on its website in accordance with state law).
I don't know anything about this case, but in general, I would say that a thoughtful approach to our astounding global power to hurt people deeply by having inappropriate articles on people who are not famous through any fault or merit of their own will may lead us to respectfully decline to have abusive articles about such people.
Have you tried googling for "Brian Peppers" recently? Wikipedia was, until the article was deleted, the most neutral, calm, matter-of-fact source of information on the subject, reporting that the poor guy was the victim of a meme based on his unusual experience likely caused by a disability, without getting all sensational and/or insulting.
Now, the Snopes article is the best of the remaining lot, and some are a *lot* worse. I don't see how we're doing this guy any favors by directing people searching for his name to much more offensive sites instead of providing factual, encyclopedic information ourselves.
-Mark
G'day Josh,
I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five days*.
As I feared, userboxes have proven to be the canary in the coal mine. Now it's articlespace that is being jerked around.
Wikipedia ultimately must decide whether it wants to be Jimbo's personal fiefdom, or be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The two are clearly mutually exclusive at this point.
We were just discussing that ... Wikipedia *doesn't* want to be "the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". There's too much abuse, too much ranting from trolls with a sense of self-entitlement, encouraged by that tagline.
I quite like the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, where good authors are always welcome".
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse
Mark Gallagher wrote:
We were just discussing that ... Wikipedia *doesn't* want to be "the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". There's too much abuse, too much ranting from trolls with a sense of self-entitlement, encouraged by that tagline.
I quite like the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, where good authors are always welcome".
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
Wouldn't that be a better tagline for Wikibooks? :P
On 2/22/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
We were just discussing that ... Wikipedia *doesn't* want to be "the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". There's too much abuse, too much ranting from trolls with a sense of self-entitlement, encouraged by that tagline.
I quite like the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, where good authors are always welcome".
Oh, very well said. '''Support'''
Steve
On 2/21/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Josh,
I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five days*.
As I feared, userboxes have proven to be the canary in the coal mine. Now it's articlespace that is being jerked around.
Wikipedia ultimately must decide whether it wants to be Jimbo's personal fiefdom, or be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The two are clearly mutually exclusive at this point.
We were just discussing that ... Wikipedia *doesn't* want to be "the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". There's too much abuse, too much ranting from trolls with a sense of self-entitlement, encouraged by that tagline.
I quite like the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, where good authors are always welcome".
Funny, I never realized you were the One True Prophet through whom Wikipedia speaks.
(Because you're not.)
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Funny, I never realized you were the One True Prophet through whom Wikipedia speaks.
(Because you're not.)
That was uncalled for, you know. We're all entitled to express our view of what Wikipedia is or should become, and all entitled to attempt to interpret the will of "the community".
Steve
On 2/28/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/21/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
We were just discussing that ... Wikipedia *doesn't* want to be "the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". There's too much abuse, too much ranting from trolls with a sense of self-entitlement, encouraged by that tagline.
I quite like the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, where good authors are always welcome".
Funny, I never realized you were the One True Prophet through whom Wikipedia speaks.
(Because you're not.)
That was uncalled for, you know. We're all entitled to express our view of what Wikipedia is or should become, and all entitled to attempt to interpret the will of "the community".
You're right. I'm sorry.
But I think that Mark Gallagher's approach is dangerously wrong. Restricting Wikipedia to "good" people smacks of Animal-Farm-esque groupthink.
That attitude gives "our enemies" way too much attention and credit.
It creates way too much of an us-vs.-them paradigm which I've fought against from day one.
And Wikipedia doesn't like that.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 2/28/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/21/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
We were just discussing that ... Wikipedia *doesn't* want to be "the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". There's too much abuse, too much ranting from trolls with a sense of self-entitlement, encouraged by that tagline.
I quite like the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, where good authors are always welcome".
Funny, I never realized you were the One True Prophet through whom Wikipedia speaks.
(Because you're not.)
That was uncalled for, you know. We're all entitled to express our view of what Wikipedia is or should become, and all entitled to attempt to interpret the will of "the community".
You're right. I'm sorry.
But I think that Mark Gallagher's approach is dangerously wrong. Restricting Wikipedia to "good" people smacks of Animal-Farm-esque groupthink.
That attitude gives "our enemies" way too much attention and credit.
It creates way too much of an us-vs.-them paradigm which I've fought against from day one.
And Wikipedia doesn't like that.
[[WP:NOT]] a social experiment. We're not here to see if trolls or "bad" people can be rehabilitated. We're here to write an encyclopedia, and anyone more interested in doing "bad" things can go busy themselves on any of the millions of other websites on the internet. While I dislike us vs them dichotomies as much as the next fellow, I can certainly bear those acting in good faith vs those acting in bad faith.
John
On 2/28/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 2/28/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/21/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
We were just discussing that ... Wikipedia *doesn't* want to be "the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". There's too much abuse, too much ranting from trolls with a sense of self-entitlement, encouraged by that tagline.
I quite like the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, where good authors are always welcome".
Funny, I never realized you were the One True Prophet through whom Wikipedia speaks.
(Because you're not.)
That was uncalled for, you know. We're all entitled to express our view of what Wikipedia is or should become, and all entitled to attempt to interpret the will of "the community".
You're right. I'm sorry.
But I think that Mark Gallagher's approach is dangerously wrong. Restricting Wikipedia to "good" people smacks of Animal-Farm-esque groupthink.
That attitude gives "our enemies" way too much attention and credit.
It creates way too much of an us-vs.-them paradigm which I've fought against from day one.
And Wikipedia doesn't like that.
[[WP:NOT]] a social experiment. We're not here to see if trolls or "bad" people can be rehabilitated. We're here to write an encyclopedia, and anyone more interested in doing "bad" things can go busy themselves on any of the millions of other websites on the internet. While I dislike us vs them dichotomies as much as the next fellow, I can certainly bear those acting in good faith vs those acting in bad faith.
Technically, Wikipedia is a social experiment. It's not the goal of the project, but the project is certainly an experiement in Internet-based collaboration.
We're not here to define "bad" people, either.
Our welcome message should not assume bad faith, is my only point.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of The Cunctator
But I think that Mark Gallagher's approach is dangerously wrong. Restricting Wikipedia to "good" people smacks of Animal-Farm-esque groupthink.
Some of the "good people" just aren't that good. In many cases, whether you are seen as good or not depends more on *who* says you are good than on any intrinsic standard of goodness.
Peter, doubleplus
Just a number of observations on this topic.
1. If a person is a topic of sufficient attention, for whatever reason, Wikipedia should have an article on that person.
2. I thought Delerium's stub was quite accurate & NPOV.
3. The edit history of this article had 675 edits -- including Delerium's. Sheesh.
4. I am reminded of a strategy I mentioned in another thread --
a. Silently acquiese to opponent's edits; after all, there's many other articles in need of attention. b. Wait x number of weeks. c. Revert opponent's edits while carefully leaving any later contributions intact. d. Repeat steps 2 & 3 as often as needed.
and of the variations other people mentioned.
5. When I hear that this person's family is concerned about the article, are they more worried about the picture of his appearance, or that he was declared guilty in a court of law for a sex crime -- specifically on the charge of "Gross Sexual Imposition" & an attempt to do the same?
6. And just what is "Gross Sexual Imposition"? For the curious, I found a definition at http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/training/pubs/cert/unit2-2C_rev0506.pdf -- which defines it as involuntary sexual groping, with the usual conditions that apply to a definition of rape: use or threat of use of force, whether the parties involved are married[*], whether the victim was capable of consenting to this act, & if the victim was less than 13 years of age. FWIW, when I Googled for the specific part of the Ohio Revised Code that he was convicted under, I found a hit that explains this is one crime that explicitly cannot be expunged from his record.
7. Looking at this guy's picture & considering the crime he was convicted of, I have to wonder if this wasn't some mean-spirited practical joke gone badly wrong, & for which he is being mangled by the gears of justice. (Of course this kind of thing happens -- & not only in the US: I remember reading about a case in the UK where a pair of homeless bums were arrested & convicted of being notorious IRA bombers, despite the fact both were obviously incapable of holding a normal job or even attempting to apply for one, let alone managing such a demanding chore as making & setting these complicated devices.)
8. Again, FWIW I went to school with a guy with a similar deformity similar this one. He exhibited normal intelligence. If the findings of the court were accurate, then he knew what he was doing: coercing another person to being groped.
9. Are we more worried about providing verifiable information in Wikipedia, or if people are going to object to the nature of our information? After all, are we going to back off from stating that Vice-President Cheney shot Whittington in the face with a shotgun, & that Whittington later apologized to Cheny & his family for the accident?
Geoff
[*] I am not expressing an opinion on this clause of the relevant section of the Ohio Revised Code. I am merely reporting what it says.
I really don't know what to think about the Brian Peppers article, so I'm not going to comment on that one.
However, I do think the Harry Reid issue raises an interesting question. If Wikipedia is going to be a trusted source of information, there seems to me that there is a need for us to vet "living people" articles in a way that allows those people to respond to criticisms. We criticized Congressional staffers who "anonymously" edited articles both of the people that they were working for and of the opposition. In this instance, with Harry Reid's staff, they are making a very open request to Jimbo and the others in WP:OFFICE to identify things that they disagree with in the article about Reid.
I don't know how Wikipedia is going to handle this as it continues to become a more widely read source of information. People, especially politicians, are going to want to be able to have a voice in that information. How do we balance that with NPOV? On the Abramoff / Reid situation, I don't think you'll be able to reach NPOV. Folks on the right and possibly centrists are going to point to certain facts and say that it shows Reid is connected to the lobbying scandal and that he's a hypocrite for saying he's not. Folks on the left are going to call it a giant smear campaign by the right to try and downplay their culpability. Has any news outlet reached consensus on this one?
Sue Anne [[User:Sreed1234]] sreed1234@yahoo.com
On 2/22/06, Sue Anne Reed sreed1234@yahoo.com wrote:
I really don't know what to think about the Brian Peppers article, so I'm not going to comment on that one.
However, I do think the Harry Reid issue raises an interesting question. If Wikipedia is going to be a trusted source of information, there seems to me that there is a need for us to vet "living people" articles in a way that allows those people to respond to criticisms. We criticized Congressional staffers who "anonymously" edited articles both of the people that they were working for and of the opposition. In this instance, with Harry Reid's staff, they are making a very open request to Jimbo and the others in WP:OFFICE to identify things that they disagree with in the article about Reid.
Most people would just use the talk page.
I don't know how Wikipedia is going to handle this as it continues to become a more widely read source of information. People, especially politicians, are going to want to be able to have a voice in that information. How do we balance that with NPOV? On the Abramoff / Reid situation, I don't think you'll be able to reach NPOV. Folks on the right and possibly centrists are going to point to certain facts and say that it shows Reid is connected to the lobbying scandal and that he's a hypocrite for saying he's not. Folks on the left are going to call it a giant smear campaign by the right to try and downplay their culpability. Has any news outlet reached consensus on this one?
Sue Anne [[User:Sreed1234]] sreed1234@yahoo.com
What about those of use who have never herd of Harry Reid?
-- geni
geni wrote:
Most people would just use the talk page.
That's great for Wikipedians, but a nuance that we can't expect the now almost 72,000 living people (and growing) to be nuanced in Wikipedia and how it all works.
What about those of use who have never herd of Harry Reid?
[[Insert your current prime minister, head of Parliament, leader of the opposition political party, sovereign, etc. here]] and the same questions are still valid.
Sue Anne [[User:Sreed1234]] sreed1234@yahoo.com
On 2/22/06, Sue Anne Reed sreed1234@yahoo.com wrote:
geni wrote:
Most people would just use the talk page.
That's great for Wikipedians, but a nuance that we can't expect the now almost 72,000 living people (and growing) to be nuanced in Wikipedia and how it all works.
Click the edit button. If they are emailing us we can give instructions on how to click the edit button if required.
What about those of use who have never herd of Harry Reid?
[[Insert your current prime minister, head of Parliament, leader of the opposition political party, sovereign, etc. here]] and the same questions are still valid.
Not really. [[David Cameron]] appears to be an acceptable article.
-- geni
On 2/22/06, Sue Anne Reed sreed1234@yahoo.com wrote:
However, I do think the Harry Reid issue raises an interesting question. If Wikipedia is going to be a trusted source of information, there seems to me that there is a need for us to vet "living people" articles in a way that allows those people to respond to criticisms. We criticized Congressional staffers who "anonymously" edited articles both of the people that they were working for and of the opposition. In this instance, with Harry Reid's staff, they are making a very open request to Jimbo and the others in WP:OFFICE to identify things that they disagree with in the article about Reid.
This happens all the time, doesn't it? People contact the help desk, editors are alerted, and whatever changes are made as we see fit. Usually the problem is a lack of attention to the article causing a distortion as a function of the few editors who've worked on it.
The basic approach of "drastic changes to placate complainant first, ask questions later" seems quite reasonable. Has it been abused?
I don't know how Wikipedia is going to handle this as it continues to become a more widely read source of information. People, especially politicians, are going to want to be able to have a voice in that information. How do we balance that with NPOV? On the Abramoff / Reid situation, I don't think you'll be able to reach NPOV. Folks on the right and possibly centrists are going to point to certain facts and say that it shows Reid is connected to the lobbying scandal and that he's a hypocrite for saying he's not. Folks on the left are going to call it a giant smear campaign by the right to try and downplay their culpability.
Wikipedia doesn't try and be the One True Voice Of Reason - it simply includes the relevant viewpoints in seemingly fair proportions. So there would be no reason not to include accusations from both 'the right' and 'the left'. It's up to news organizations how they choose to use them.
Steve
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 01:54:07 -0800, you wrote:
However, I do think the Harry Reid issue raises an interesting question. If Wikipedia is going to be a trusted source of information, there seems to me that there is a need for us to vet "living people" articles in a way that allows those people to respond to criticisms. We criticized Congressional staffers who "anonymously" edited articles both of the people that they were working for and of the opposition. In this instance, with Harry Reid's staff, they are making a very open request to Jimbo and the others in WP:OFFICE to identify things that they disagree with in the article about Reid.
I don't see a problem with an open and honest request for factual correction. We have always encouraged living people to engage with the community in keeping their biographies factually accurate - just not by actually editing them. Engage on the talk page, go to the Office, whatever. And if they point out an error which can be verified as an error, that's good. And if they dislike the fact that verifiable but unflattering information is in there, maybe they should have thought about that before they did whatever they did :-)
Rambling aside: my friend David Silsoe was lead counsel for the proposers in a number of highly acrimonious planning inquiries, including Sizewell B, Hinkley Point C, Heathrow Terminal 4 and Terminal 5. And despite that, I could not find anybody who had a bad word to say about him. Even his opponents liked him. A lot of public figures fail to pull off that particular feat, and the problem is theirs not ours. As long as we stick to WP:V and WP:RS and of course "do no harm" we won't go far wrong, I think. Guy (JzG)
On 2/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I don't see a problem with an open and honest request for factual correction. We have always encouraged living people to engage with the community in keeping their biographies factually accurate - just not by actually editing them. Engage on the talk page, go to the Office, whatever. And if they point out an error which can be verified as an error, that's good. And if they dislike the fact that verifiable but unflattering information is in there, maybe they should have thought about that before they did whatever they did :-)
The way to get around NOR problems in this case might be to suggest that we recommend that they create a webpage on their own webspace that says "I have been characterized in X source [wherever Wikipedia is getting the info] as having done Y. This is untrue, in reality I only did Z."
Then, once that page is up (and stable), we change the article to say "Source X says that Mr. SoandSo did Y. On his own webpage, Mr. SoandSo later claimed that this was untrue, and that he had only done Z."
I think in that sort of article, that would be an acceptable form of balancingout the NPOV without running into NOR problems. It also serves our goal to encourage the people to take up the question of truth with the original sources -- not Wikipedia's distillation of them -- and that if they do so, we'll be happy to record that they did.
Just a thought... obviously it would be a lot more work than most of these people would be willing to do, but NOR is a Very Good Thing and I don't see how any other approach would really get around that, assuming the offending information is well-cited itself.
FF
Fastfission wrote:
On 2/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I don't see a problem with an open and honest request for factual correction. We have always encouraged living people to engage with the community in keeping their biographies factually accurate - just not by actually editing them. Engage on the talk page, go to the Office, whatever. And if they point out an error which can be verified as an error, that's good. And if they dislike the fact that verifiable but unflattering information is in there, maybe they should have thought about that before they did whatever they did :-)
The way to get around NOR problems in this case might be to suggest that we recommend that they create a webpage on their own webspace that says "I have been characterized in X source [wherever Wikipedia is getting the info] as having done Y. This is untrue, in reality I only did Z."
You assume that these people have their own webspace.
On 2/22/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
You assume that these people have their own webspace.
Frankly, I think most of them probably do in the cases where this has come up. If they are big enough to have a Wikipedia biography full of things about themselves they object to, they probably have their own webspace.
For those rare few who don't, there are plenty of free hosting sites out there. For those who can't do that -- well, I'm just not sure of any other way for them to contribute facts to articles about themselves which doesn't violate NOR.
FF
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:58:08 -0500, you wrote:
The way to get around NOR problems in this case might be to suggest that we recommend that they create a webpage on their own webspace that says "I have been characterized in X source [wherever Wikipedia is getting the info] as having done Y. This is untrue, in reality I only did Z."
Honestly, I don't see that as necessary. If someone wants to come to the talk page and deny it, we can say they deny it. If they can cite reliable sources to support the denial, we can say the denial is supported by reliable sources. If they can prove it's all a figment of someone's imagination, or a vendetta conducted by a rival or whatever, we can just remove it. I don't have a problem interacting directly with biography subjects, as long as they are prepared to accept that their Wikipedia portrait will, in the end, be of the Oliver Cromwell school: warts and all. Guy (JzG)
The article has been unprotected for nearly 24 hours now and the world hasn't ended.
-- geni
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:03:34 +0000, you wrote:
The article has been unprotected for nearly 24 hours now and the world hasn't ended.
I don't know how many contentious living person bios you've been involved in. My first was a guy who, according to his detractors, "should be granted a dictionary of his own, so far has he stretched the meaning of the English language", and "has trodden the tightrope of confusing semantics with the balance of Blondel and the focus of a train spotter" (taken verbatim from the article as they wrote it). Any attempt to rephrase this in neutral terms was met with reversion (apparently it is forbidden to change "book text, approved by lawyers" even when released under GFDL), followed by personal attacks, and in fairly short order the publishing of my personal details on the website of the attackers, characterised as a hagiographer.
Not surprisingly the subject contacted the help desk and the article was stubbed and locked by Jimbo. It is now much more neutral, but there is still a battle going on between the detractors and those who have no evident vested interest. The most recent spat in which I was involved had them wanting to add some screed about a lecture the guy gave which, apparently due to credible threats of disruption, was seemingly subject to a decision by the hosts to discourage external audience. For some reason they think the venue (a college) and the subject should be personally accountable to them for their failure to be able to implement an effective protest.
I have grown wary of these things. Guy (JzG)
Sue Anne Reed wrote:
In this instance, with Harry Reid's staff, they are making a very open request to Jimbo and the others in WP:OFFICE to identify things that they disagree with in the article about Reid.
I want to strongly point out that WP:OFFICE is not designed or intended to change *anything* about NPOV or the community process of editing articles. Often, Danny will not be using it to protect articles, but just to remove a section while asking people not to add it back without cites.
This is a great way to handle disputed bios, and it has been quite successful when I have done it myself. In many cases, I have nuked entire articles with a kind request that they be very carefully sourced, and the net result has been very good.
But, I'm on the road again, and it's hard for me to do this in a timely fashion, especially when a telephone complaint comes to the office.
Sue Anne Reed wrote:
I don't know how Wikipedia is going to handle this as it continues to become a more widely read source of information. People, especially politicians, are going to want to be able to have a voice in that information. How do we balance that with NPOV? On the Abramoff / Reid situation, I don't think you'll be able to reach NPOV. Folks on the right and possibly centrists are going to point to certain facts and say that it shows Reid is connected to the lobbying scandal and that he's a hypocrite for saying he's not. Folks on the left are going to call it a giant smear campaign by the right to try and downplay their culpability. Has any news outlet reached consensus on this one?
This kind of issue will continue to face us regularly with different people. The issues must be faced directly; you don't achieve NPOV by avoidance,
Ec
On 2/21/06 10:41 PM, "Geoff Burling" llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
If the findings of the court were accurate, then he knew what he was doing: coercing another person to being groped.
I really didn't want to fuel this fire, but here goes. So, what? Lots of people are convicted of groping other people every day in the United States. Does that means] that every person who's ever been convicted of a minor sex offense should have their biography on Wikipedia simply because we can print what the government said about them? Is this Wikisexoffenderregistry?
The fact is that the quantity of verifiable attention paid to this person outside YTMND and other such joke forums is so infinitesmally small as to be practically equivalent to zero. As has been endlessly pointed out, there are no verifiable, NPOV recountings of this person's life. We have no information about his crime, we have no information about his life, we have no information about him period. The only source that can be cited is Snopes, and while Snopes might be a great source for urban legends like the rocket car dude, it's of questionable value when talking about a [[WP:BLP|living person]].
Basically, all that we can can verifiably write about Mr. Peppers is that he exists, that he was convicted of committing some unknown minor sex offense and that his photo was mocked by Internet dimwits. That doesn't add up to Wikipedia material in my book.
-FCYTravis
"Travis Mason-Bushman" travis@gpsports-eng.com wrote in message news:C0217631.AA21%travis@gpsports-eng.com... [snip]
Basically, all that we can can verifiably write about Mr. Peppers is that he exists, that he was convicted of committing some unknown minor sex offense and that his photo was mocked by Internet dimwits. That doesn't add up to Wikipedia material in my book.
But don't you see that what you have written there is the essence of what the article **should** say? It should be expanded a bit, but you've summarised it nicely.
If Wikipedia is to become the best repository of organised knowledge on the Internet, then if we **don't** mention something for which people are likely to search, we're going to look stupid.
If, on the other hand, we can authoritatively say "this guy was the victim of a prank meme, no more to see here", then people can be satisfied that they understand what is happening.
HTH HAND
On 2/22/06 2:26 AM, "Phil Boswell" phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
But don't you see that what you have written there is the essence of what the article **should** say? It should be expanded a bit, but you've summarised it nicely.
A compromise was proposed that I - and a few others - could have lived with - a protected redirect to a short paragraph on [[Internet phenomenon]] or [[List of YTMND fads]], which simply states he was some guy who got convicted of a minor sex crime and had his picture turned into an Internet meme.
No, that was not good enough for the article's proponents - we had to have his complete life story (such as it is) and picture for all to see. The proposal was rejected.
So, now we have nothing for a year.
-FCYTravis
Travis Mason-Bushman wrote:
On 2/22/06 2:26 AM, "Phil Boswell" phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
But don't you see that what you have written there is the essence of what the article **should** say? It should be expanded a bit, but you've summarised it nicely.
A compromise was proposed that I - and a few others - could have lived with
- a protected redirect to a short paragraph on [[Internet phenomenon]] or
[[List of YTMND fads]], which simply states he was some guy who got convicted of a minor sex crime and had his picture turned into an Internet meme.
No, that was not good enough for the article's proponents - we had to have his complete life story (such as it is) and picture for all to see. The proposal was rejected.
So, now we have nothing for a year.
I opposed redirecting to "YTMND fads" since the article listed Fark and Something Awful as other places the photo was being used extensively as well, which meant it wasn't just a YTMND fad and so redirection there when linking to [[Brian Peppers]] would be misleading. Provided it's true that Peppers has been used elsewhere, I still stand by that - nothing has changed, it'd still be misleading to redirect there.
But there's no reason why we can't _also_ have paragraphs at those two other places you mention, especially given that an independent article is apparently out at the moment. It just means we can't have a {{main|Brian Peppers}} at the start of them.
Travis Mason-Bushman wrote:
A compromise was proposed that I - and a few others - could have
lived with
- a protected redirect to a short paragraph on [[Internet phenomenon]] or
[[List of YTMND fads]], which simply states he was some guy who got convicted of a minor sex crime and had his picture turned into an Internet meme.
No, that was not good enough for the article's proponents - we had to have his complete life story (such as it is) and picture for all to see. The proposal was rejected.
So, now we have nothing for a year.
Well, it still may be appropriate to do whatever would have been done, had the AfD been respected in the first place.
On 2/24/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Well, it still may be appropriate to do whatever would have been done, had the AfD been respected in the first place.
It was respected.
You see somewhere in the long running battle between the deletionists and the inclusionists the inclusionists managed to get the idea that if an article was recreated with substantially different content into the policy. The version of the article that was kept had substantially different content.
-- geni
On 2/22/06, Travis Mason-Bushman travis@gpsports-eng.com wrote:
Basically, all that we can can verifiably write about Mr. Peppers is that he exists, that he was convicted of committing some unknown minor sex offense and that his photo was mocked by Internet dimwits. That doesn't add up to Wikipedia material in my book.
I see we have still made little progress in deciding why exactly we want to have rules on notability, or what notability means in the Wikipedia context. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I do note that many others seem to have very different views on why certain subjects should or should not feature in Wikipedia.
For what it's worth, I feel we should begin by posing ourselves the question: How likely is it that someone will come to Wikipedia looking for information on this topic. On Peppers, I would say "fairly likely".
Steve
On 2/22/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
For what it's worth, I feel we should begin by posing ourselves the question: How likely is it that someone will come to Wikipedia looking for information on this topic. On Peppers, I would say "fairly likely".
Steve
Judging by the last stats we have it is a near certianty. Goatse is probably one of our most popular articles.
-- geni
Steve Bennett wrote:
I see we have still made little progress in deciding why exactly we want to have rules on notability, or what notability means in the Wikipedia context. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I do note that many others seem to have very different views on why certain subjects should or should not feature in Wikipedia.
For what it's worth, I feel we should begin by posing ourselves the question: How likely is it that someone will come to Wikipedia looking for information on this topic. On Peppers, I would say "fairly likely".
That is certainly one question we should ask.
Another question is: does human dignity matter at all?
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales
Steve Bennett wrote:
I see we have still made little progress in deciding why exactly we want to have rules on notability, or what notability means in the Wikipedia context. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I do note that many others seem to have very different views on why
certain subjects
should or should not feature in Wikipedia.
For what it's worth, I feel we should begin by posing ourselves the question: How likely is it that someone will come to
Wikipedia looking
for information on this topic. On Peppers, I would say "fairly likely".
That is certainly one question we should ask.
Another question is: does human dignity matter at all?
On sober reflection, unless we are publishing articles on ALL lowgrade sex offenders (and what Peppers is listed as doing seems to rank very low on the scale of such things) then by having an article on him, we are singling him out for demonisation and ridicule based on his looks. Sure, he's notable after a fashion, but the casual reader might conclude that if we have an article on Peppers, busted for forcing his affection on somebody, and not on Joe Blow down the street just released after twenty years inside for rude things with great aunts and fluffy white ducks, then we must know something they don't. Particularly looking the way he does.
It's no great step to find his address on the Ohio database thing, and before we know it we have crowds of the Wikicurious lurking outside his house and dogging his steps when he goes shopping so as to get a photograph for GFDL uploading. "For the good of the encyclopaedia. We're here to write an encyclopaedia. Moral behaviour and civic responsibility take second place."
Do we really want people to be Wikipediaed in much the same way as websites are routinely Slashdotted?
Peter (Skyring)
On Feb 23, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Peter Mackay wrote:
On sober reflection, unless we are publishing articles on ALL lowgrade sex offenders (and what Peppers is listed as doing seems to rank very low on the scale of such things) then by having an article on him, we are singling him out for demonisation and ridicule based on his looks.
Perhaps we're singling him out for neutral, unbiased coverage based upon the widespread ridicule he has already received based on his looks?
A funny-looking sex offender isn't notable. A gang of internet troglodytes pointing and laughing at a funny-looking sex offender very well may be. Being who and what they are, the troglodytes are unlikely to provide a fair accounting as to who Brian Peppers is and why they're making fun of him. That's supposed to be our job.
(I don't really care one way or another whether we have an article about him, I'm just bringing these points up in fairness.)
It's no great step to find his address on the Ohio database thing, and before we know it we have crowds of the Wikicurious lurking outside his house and dogging his steps when he goes shopping so as to get a photograph for GFDL uploading. "For the good of the encyclopaedia. We're here to write an encyclopaedia. Moral behaviour and civic responsibility take second place."
He's wheelchair-bound and lives in a nursing home.
Incidentally, I wish we did have mobs of Wikipedians out to take GFDL photographs of people we have articles on. It would save us from a lot of fair use problems.
Do we really want people to be Wikipediaed in much the same way as websites are routinely Slashdotted?
If by "Wikipediaed" you mean "having a fair and neutral biography about them written in a freely accessible online encyclopedia", absolutely!
Jimmy Wales wrote:
That is certainly one question we should ask.
Another question is: does human dignity matter at all?
That's a bit of a loaded question, and doesn't directly address the issue actually at hand.
The more specific issue facing us is: To what extent ought we to censor Wikipedia out of concern for human dignity?
-Mark
On 2/24/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
The more specific issue facing us is: To what extent ought we to censor Wikipedia out of concern for human dignity?
Quite a lot, I should hope.
We're in the business of education, not titillation. We should feel comfortable in drawing the line pretty sharply on the side of education. If a private individual, which this man certainly is, suffers indignity because of our actions, then we should definitely spend some time reconsidering our actions.
A year seems about right. if the article really is so necessary to Wikipedia that we should disregard or set aside such concerns. Or five years. Let's not rush in making such a difficult and possibly very damaging decision.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 2/24/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
The more specific issue facing us is: To what extent ought we to censor Wikipedia out of concern for human dignity?
Quite a lot, I should hope.
We're in the business of education, not titillation. We should feel comfortable in drawing the line pretty sharply on the side of education. If a private individual, which this man certainly is, suffers indignity because of our actions, then we should definitely spend some time reconsidering our actions.
A year seems about right. if the article really is so necessary to Wikipedia that we should disregard or set aside such concerns. Or five years. Let's not rush in making such a difficult and possibly very damaging decision.
God, I have so damn had it with all this Brian Peppers crap flooding the list. Since it's aggravating me to no end (and the masochist that I am, I can't pull away from my mail client), I think I'll chip in: Wikipedia covers a lot of private individuals who don't want to be covered and feel their dignity is being violated. Remember [[Gary Brolsma]]? The [[Star Wars Kid]]? Or even the recent case of that deceased German hacker whose parents got a court order banning the German Wikipedia from publishing his name? With the internet, a lot of people are getting their fifteen minutes of fame -- and in some cases, a lot more than that. I'm not about to embroil myself in the dispute over whether Peppers is sufficiently notable for inclusion, but I find the excuse used by some that "being funny-looking does not make one notable" is missing the point -- being made fun of by some of the most popular websites on the internet and getting media coverage for this *can* be considered notability.
Having said that, I don't care whether [[Brian Peppers]] stays or goes, although as one might be able to tell, I'm leaning in favour of keeping. But it makes no real difference to me. Keep or delete him, whatever -- just don't use logical fallacies or faulty reasoning to support your decision.
John
G'day Mark,
Jimmy Wales wrote:
That is certainly one question we should ask.
Another question is: does human dignity matter at all?
That's a bit of a loaded question, and doesn't directly address the issue actually at hand.
The more specific issue facing us is: To what extent ought we to censor Wikipedia out of concern for human dignity?
You're right, that *is* a better question (although I think you're being a bit mischeivous with "censor", there).
I'm a bit concerned that sometimes Wikipedians have a habit of writing articles or including information, not because it's the right thing to do, but just basically as a way of saying "you can't tell US what to do, mate" whenever the subject of an article complains. In our rush to send a big "FUCK YOU" to any censors, real or imagined, we can ignore what's editorially or morally appropriate. As the man who has to deal with the angry 'phone calls and possible press issues afterwards, it's quite clear why Jimbo might object to that sort of thing.
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse
Mark Gallagher wrote:
I'm a bit concerned that sometimes Wikipedians have a habit of writing articles or including information, not because it's the right thing to do, but just basically as a way of saying "you can't tell US what to do, mate" whenever the subject of an article complains. In our rush to send a big "FUCK YOU" to any censors, real or imagined, we can ignore what's editorially or morally appropriate. As the man who has to deal with the angry 'phone calls and possible press issues afterwards, it's quite clear why Jimbo might object to that sort of thing.
That may be why some people support it, but I think it's ascribing too much bad faith to accuse most of us of supporting publishing information simply as a way of saying "fuck you".
I, personally, believe correct, verifiable information on a subject someone might be looking for is nearly always a net positive, and that withholding such information is almost always a net negative. Publicly-available information is a cat that can't be put back into a bag, and refusing to provide it in a neutral, verifiable manner does nothing but: 1) increase the prominence of misinformation from alternative sources; and 2) increase inequality in access to information.
Many people object to many things Wikipedia publishes, and make arguments for why we should make a special rule against publishing a specific type of information. Among other cases are: * Information some organizations consider non-public, such as Mormon temple rites, Freemason ceremonies, and so on. * Leaked information alleged to be damaging to the national security of one or another country (e.g. details on how military training in specific countries operates). * Photographs deemed by some cultures to be highly offensive (e.g. [[en:clitoris]] or the Jyllands-Posten Muhammed cartoons).
In each of those cases, the eventual decision has been to continue publishing the information, which I think is the correct decision. I don't see how we can reasonably begin to limit what we publish for moral reasons, especially since Wikipedians come from all over the world, with vast differences in their moral views. I also don't think it would be ethical to do so, anyway.
-Mark
P.S. -- Lest the above get misconstrued into an overly radical inclusionist viewpoint, I should point out that I do support a weak notability criterion. If someone is so non-famous that the only people who might seek information on them are actually connected with the person somehow (friends, family, employers, potential employers, friends of friends, and so on), then an encyclopedia is not the proper place for information on them. That covers many of the speedy-delete cases (garage bands, high-school students, and so on).
btw, [[Brian Peppers]] got unlocked about 20 minutes ago..... any theories?
On 2/24/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
I'm a bit concerned that sometimes Wikipedians have a habit of writing articles or including information, not because it's the right thing to do, but just basically as a way of saying "you can't tell US what to do, mate" whenever the subject of an article complains. In our rush to send a big "FUCK YOU" to any censors, real or imagined, we can ignore what's editorially or morally appropriate. As the man who has to deal with the angry 'phone calls and possible press issues afterwards, it's quite clear why Jimbo might object to that sort of thing.
That may be why some people support it, but I think it's ascribing too much bad faith to accuse most of us of supporting publishing information simply as a way of saying "fuck you".
I, personally, believe correct, verifiable information on a subject someone might be looking for is nearly always a net positive, and that withholding such information is almost always a net negative. Publicly-available information is a cat that can't be put back into a bag, and refusing to provide it in a neutral, verifiable manner does nothing but: 1) increase the prominence of misinformation from alternative sources; and 2) increase inequality in access to information.
Many people object to many things Wikipedia publishes, and make arguments for why we should make a special rule against publishing a specific type of information. Among other cases are:
- Information some organizations consider non-public, such as Mormon
temple rites, Freemason ceremonies, and so on.
- Leaked information alleged to be damaging to the national security of
one or another country (e.g. details on how military training in specific countries operates).
- Photographs deemed by some cultures to be highly offensive (e.g.
[[en:clitoris]] or the Jyllands-Posten Muhammed cartoons).
In each of those cases, the eventual decision has been to continue publishing the information, which I think is the correct decision. I don't see how we can reasonably begin to limit what we publish for moral reasons, especially since Wikipedians come from all over the world, with vast differences in their moral views. I also don't think it would be ethical to do so, anyway.
-Mark
P.S. -- Lest the above get misconstrued into an overly radical inclusionist viewpoint, I should point out that I do support a weak notability criterion. If someone is so non-famous that the only people who might seek information on them are actually connected with the person somehow (friends, family, employers, potential employers, friends of friends, and so on), then an encyclopedia is not the proper place for information on them. That covers many of the speedy-delete cases (garage bands, high-school students, and so on).
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium I, personally, believe correct, verifiable information on a subject someone might be looking for is nearly always a net positive, and that withholding such information is almost always a net negative. Publicly-available information is a cat that can't be put back into a bag, and refusing to provide it in a neutral, verifiable manner does nothing but: 1) increase the prominence of misinformation from alternative sources; and 2) increase inequality in access to information.
Some public information, such as contained in registers of sex offenders or sale prices on house transfers, is generally relatively difficult to find and search. Sure, it's public info, but it's not readily available.
Having a Wikipedia article - a notorious Wikipedia article - is a different thing. For one thing, it will tend to rank high on a Google search, whereas that Ohio register doesn't seem to be at all prominent. For another, the mere fact that there *is* an article when so many more notorious sex offenders go unmentioned here sends a message, and not one that I think Wikipedia should be sending.
The reason the subject of the article was in WP is not because of his crime(s), but because of his appearance. To my mind, by including the article, we are not presenting a professional face to the world.
And saying that the subject is now notorious and therefore notable is a circular argument.
Peter (Skyring)
Peter Mackay wrote:
Some public information, such as contained in registers of sex offenders or sale prices on house transfers, is generally relatively difficult to find and search. Sure, it's public info, but it's not readily available.
Having a Wikipedia article - a notorious Wikipedia article - is a different thing. For one thing, it will tend to rank high on a Google search, whereas that Ohio register doesn't seem to be at all prominent.
Are you at all familiar with the subject we're discussing? Have you actually tried searching Google for "Brian Peppers"? Information on him is quite readily available, quite apart from any obscure sex-offender registry. Wikipedia is not even the highest-ranked result (snopes.com is), and there are *161,000* hits. It's not as if Wikipedia pulled some obscure sex offender out of a registry and catapulted him to notoriety---he was catapulted to notoriety by fark.com, somethingawful.com, ytmnd.com, and various other high-traffic places on the internet, and we just reported that fact.
The reason the subject of the article was in WP is not because of his crime(s), but because of his appearance. To my mind, by including the article, we are not presenting a professional face to the world.
Neither of those is the reason. The subject of the article is in WP for the same reason [[en:Star Wars kid]] is: because he gained notoriety as the result of an internet fad.
And saying that the subject is now notorious and therefore notable is a circular argument.
It's not circular at all. If Wikipedia had made him notable, that would be circular. However, he became notable through no action of our own, and now we're documenting it, like we document everything people might look for information on.
-Mark
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium Sent: Friday, 24 February 2006 16:55 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny
Peter Mackay wrote:
Some public information, such as contained in registers of sex offenders or sale prices on house transfers, is generally relatively difficult to find and search. Sure, it's public info, but
it's not readily available.
Having a Wikipedia article - a notorious Wikipedia article - is a different thing. For one thing, it will tend to rank high on
a Google
search, whereas that Ohio register doesn't seem to be at all
prominent.
Are you at all familiar with the subject we're discussing? Have you actually tried searching Google for "Brian Peppers"?
Your tone leaves a lttle to be desired, but yes, I know what we are talking about and yes, I Googled him before posting.
Information on him is quite readily available, quite apart from any obscure sex-offender registry. Wikipedia is not even the highest-ranked result (snopes.com is), and there are *161,000* hits. It's not as if Wikipedia pulled some obscure sex offender out of a registry and catapulted him to notoriety---he was catapulted to notoriety by fark.com, somethingawful.com, ytmnd.com, and various other high-traffic places on the internet, and we just reported that fact.
I'm well aware of this, but it's immaterial. There's a lot of stuff on the Internet, but we don't use the fact that information is available or even prominent on the Internet as the overarching criterion for inclusion.
The reason the subject of the article was in WP is not
because of his
crime(s), but because of his appearance. To my mind, by
including the
article, we are not presenting a professional face to the world.
Neither of those is the reason. The subject of the article is in WP for the same reason [[en:Star Wars kid]] is: because he gained notoriety as the result of an internet fad.
With all due respect, this is tosh. He's notorious because of his face. Saying he's notorious for any other reason is evading the point.
And saying that the subject is now notorious and therefore
notable is a
circular argument.
It's not circular at all. If Wikipedia had made him notable, that would be circular.
I think we'll have to disagree on this. Having a Wikipedia article - a notorious Wikipedia article - makes a person even more notorious. We're part of the process, even if you think we have no impact.
However, he became notable through no action of our own, and now we're documenting it, like we document everything people might look for information on.
Let them look for it on Snopes then. I'm with Jimbo on this one. We don't need to assist in demonising people. Let's have some standards, please.
Peter (Skyring)
Delirium wrote:
Have you actually tried searching Google for "Brian Peppers"? Information on him is quite readily available, quite apart from any obscure sex-offender registry. Wikipedia is not even the highest-ranked result (snopes.com is), and there are *161,000* hits.
I only see 92,000, while "Stan Shebs" gets 115,000. So how is it that he's notable enough to have an article and I'm not? I even have actual accomplishments to describe, albeit no bizarre physical features to snicker at (or at least I haven't noticed any pointing and giggling :-) ).
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
I only see 92,000, while "Stan Shebs" gets 115,000. So how is it that he's notable enough to have an article and I'm not? I even have actual accomplishments to describe, albeit no bizarre physical features to snicker at (or at least I haven't noticed any pointing and giggling :-) ).
In any case, it's in the multiple tens of thousands, so I think we can agree that the original Wikipedia article writer didn't dig up Brian Peppers from the obscurity of the Ohio sex offenders registry.
As for why you don't have an article, I would've thought that is fairly obvious. Unless you're famous in some area I don't know about, it would seem not very many people have commented publicly about you. If they have, or if you do something that causes a few thousands of people to write about you, then I should think you ought to have a Wikipedia article.
-Mark
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium
Stan Shebs wrote:
I only see 92,000, while "Stan Shebs" gets 115,000. So how
is it that
he's notable enough to have an article and I'm not? I even
have actual
accomplishments to describe, albeit no bizarre physical features to snicker at (or at least I haven't noticed any pointing and
giggling :-)
).
In any case, it's in the multiple tens of thousands, so I think we can agree that the original Wikipedia article writer didn't dig up Brian Peppers from the obscurity of the Ohio sex offenders registry.
Nevertheless, that's the only source we have. Everything else merely references it or comments on it.
As for why you don't have an article, I would've thought that is fairly obvious. Unless you're famous in some area I don't know about, it would seem not very many people have commented publicly about you.
115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the face.
If they have, or if you do something that causes a few thousands of people to write about you, then I should think you ought to have a Wikipedia article.
115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the face. Start writing.
Pete, deservedly obscure
Peter Mackay wrote:
As for why you don't have an article, I would've thought that is fairly obvious. Unless you're famous in some area I don't know about, it would seem not very many people have commented publicly about you.
115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the face.
Did you look at any of them? Note in my quote I said "not very many people have commented about you", which empirically appears to be true: Almost all of those hits are either for other people named Stan Shebs, or to posts written by our Stan Shebs himself (e.g. on Wikipedia or on mailing lists).
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
-Mark
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium
Peter Mackay wrote:
As for why you don't have an article, I would've thought that is fairly obvious. Unless you're famous in some area I don't
know about,
it would seem not very many people have commented publicly
about you.
115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the face.
Did you look at any of them? Note in my quote I said "not very many people have commented about you", which empirically appears to be true: Almost all of those hits are either for other people named Stan Shebs, or to posts written by our Stan Shebs himself (e.g. on Wikipedia or on mailing lists).
And how many of the tens of thousands of Google hits for "Brian Peppers" have you personally checked?
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
No.
Peter (Skyring)
Peter Mackay wrote:
Did you look at any of them? Note in my quote I said "not very many people have commented about you", which empirically appears to be true: Almost all of those hits are either for other people named Stan Shebs, or to posts written by our Stan Shebs himself (e.g. on Wikipedia or on mailing lists).
And how many of the tens of thousands of Google hits for "Brian Peppers" have you personally checked?
I checked the first 50 or so results of both, and spot-checked later pages.
Oh, and here's an in-print reference to Brian Peppers as a noteworthy internet fad:
Lichman, John. "'Teh interweb' -- It offers more than porn." _Washington Square News_. February 3, 2006. (Also available online at http://www.nyunews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/02/03/43e31129220d1)
-Mark
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium Sent: Friday, 24 February 2006 20:23 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny
Peter Mackay wrote:
Did you look at any of them? Note in my quote I said "not
very many
people have commented about you", which empirically appears to be true: Almost all of those hits are either for other people named
Stan Shebs,
or to posts written by our Stan Shebs himself (e.g. on
Wikipedia or on
mailing lists).
And how many of the tens of thousands of Google hits for
"Brian Peppers"
have you personally checked?
I checked the first 50 or so results of both, and spot-checked later pages.
Thanks.
Oh, and here's an in-print reference to Brian Peppers as a noteworthy internet fad:
Lichman, John. "'Teh interweb' -- It offers more than porn." _Washington Square News_. February 3, 2006. (Also available online at http://www.nyunews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/02/03/43e31129220d1)
Nobody is disputing that there are lots of references on the net. That's not the point. In fact, at the moment, the article is a redirect to [[Internet phenomenon]] of which BP has been removed by User:UninvitedCompany as "not notable". I think he's probably worth a brief mention there, but not as a standalone article.
Do you see why an article is inappropriate?
Peter (Skyring)
Peter Mackay wrote:
Do you see why an article is inappropriate?
No.
I can see that you have a moral opposition to having an article, but that does not mean it is inappropriate. Other people have moral opposition to divulging Freemasonry rituals in [[Freemasonry]], or including a photograph of a clitoris on [[clitoris]], but that doesn't make it inappropriate to do any of that.
-Mark
I don't think moral absolutes have any place in this argument. Perhaps thoughtlessly, I rewrote the Brian Peppers article in December, because I thought a subject that had been debunked by Snopes probably merited one. I think I probably made a bad decision then, and certainly have no problem with the idea that we should all have a good, long hard think about articles that may seriously affect the privacy of people mentioned in them.
Wikipedia is big and popular, and a Wikipedia article on an individual may seriously affect his life. In my opinion (and I recognise that there are other ways of looking at it) taking a risk like that would have to be justifiable, and I don't think that the article that I wrote was justifiable in that context. Although I wrote about the meme and the debunking of the belief that the photograph was faked, it was foreseeable that others would choose to expand the article to describe the man in ways that could be damaging.
Actually moral absolutes do have a role. But sending you straight to hell is not a good option. Next time, if the only notable thing about a person is that they are pitiful, consider whether that is notable enough to balance the damage it does to Wikipedia to include it.
Fred
On Feb 24, 2006, at 5:59 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
I don't think moral absolutes have any place in this argument. Perhaps thoughtlessly, I rewrote the Brian Peppers article in December, because I thought a subject that had been debunked by Snopes probably merited one. I think I probably made a bad decision then, and certainly have no problem with the idea that we should all have a good, long hard think about articles that may seriously affect the privacy of people mentioned in them.
Wikipedia is big and popular, and a Wikipedia article on an individual may seriously affect his life. In my opinion (and I recognise that there are other ways of looking at it) taking a risk like that would have to be justifiable, and I don't think that the article that I wrote was justifiable in that context. Although I wrote about the meme and the debunking of the belief that the photograph was faked, it was foreseeable that others would choose to expand the article to describe the man in ways that could be damaging. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
Actually moral absolutes do have a role. But sending you straight to hell is not a good option. Next time, if the only notable thing about a person is that they are pitiful, consider whether that is notable enough to balance the damage it does to Wikipedia to include it.
Please, the demonization of people we disagree with in this thread is getting ridiculous. I don't think a single one of the people who've been arguing that an article on Peppers is notable enough to have is arguing that it's just because he "looks funny." He's being said to be notable because of the _fad_ that's sprung up around his unusual appearance. We don't have an article about [[Marty Feldman]] just because he looked funny either.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Bryan Derksen Sent: Saturday, 25 February 2006 03:49
Please, the demonization of people we disagree with in this thread is getting ridiculous. I don't think a single one of the people who've been arguing that an article on Peppers is notable enough to have is arguing that it's just because he "looks funny." He's being said to be notable because of the _fad_ that's sprung up around his unusual appearance. We don't have an article about [[Marty Feldman]] just because he looked funny either.
At the risk of being tedious upon this subject, I agree with you, but make the point that there may be a gap between intent and outcome.
Peter (Skyring)
Fred Bauder wrote:
Actually moral absolutes do have a role. But sending you straight to hell is not a good option. Next time, if the only notable thing about a person is that they are pitiful, consider whether that is notable enough to balance the damage it does to Wikipedia to include it.
Imagine the damage that would be done to Wikipedia if it became known that our authors' personal ethical beliefs overtly and purposely influenced the information we provide.
-Mark
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium
Imagine the damage that would be done to Wikipedia if it became known that our authors' personal ethical beliefs overtly and purposely influenced the information we provide.
Seems to be a winning strategy so far. <g>
Results 1 - 10 of about 215,000,000 for Wikipedia. (0.09 seconds) Results 1 - 20 of about 79 for "Moral virtue". (0.42 seconds)
Peter (Skyring)
Peter Mackay wrote:
Imagine the damage that would be done to Wikipedia if it became known that our authors' personal ethical beliefs overtly and purposely influenced the information we provide.
Seems to be a winning strategy so far. <g>
Results 1 - 10 of about 215,000,000 for Wikipedia. (0.09 seconds) Results 1 - 20 of about 79 for "Moral virtue". (0.42 seconds)
Amazing that it should take nearly five times as long to find so little moral virtue. :-)
Ec
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
Peter Mackay wrote:
Imagine the damage that would be done to Wikipedia if it
became known
that our authors' personal ethical beliefs overtly and purposely influenced the information we provide.
Seems to be a winning strategy so far. <g>
Results 1 - 10 of about 215,000,000 for Wikipedia. (0.09 seconds) Results 1 - 20 of about 79 for "Moral virtue". (0.42 seconds)
Amazing that it should take nearly five times as long to find so little moral virtue. :-)
Appropriately enough, I cheated. I used the Google Image search for the second one, and I gotta say that there are some weird and woolly images for "moral virtue"!
Pete, of dubious virtue
On 2/24/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Actually moral absolutes do have a role. But sending you straight to hell is not a good option.
Wikipedia Review? Been there. It's boring and it smells of wet string.
On 2/25/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/24/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Actually moral absolutes do have a role. But sending you straight to hell is not a good option.
Wikipedia Review? Been there. It's boring and it smells of wet string.
No being condemed to sort out the all the abuse of fair use and other parts of copyright law on wikipedia. -- geni
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Tony Sidaway
On 2/24/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Actually moral absolutes do have a role. But sending you
straight to
hell is not a good option.
Wikipedia Review? Been there. It's boring and it smells of wet string.
And sour grapes. Last time I looked, they were talking about establishing a secure area where they could grizzle privately without people like me coming over and saying that the world wasn't that bad, really.
Pete, spreading sweetness and light
Delirium wrote:
Peter Mackay wrote:
As for why you don't have an article, I would've thought that is fairly obvious. Unless you're famous in some area I don't know about, it would seem not very many people have commented publicly about you.
115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the face.
Did you look at any of them? Note in my quote I said "not very many people have commented about you", which empirically appears to be true: Almost all of those hits are either for other people named Stan Shebs, or to posts written by our Stan Shebs himself (e.g. on Wikipedia or on mailing lists).
As it happens, there's only the one me. In fact, since my last name is the result of creativity on the part of the authorities when my grandfather immigrated, all the "Shebs" one finds on the net are my relatives (save for a handful of uses as a casual form of "Sheba").
As you say, nearly all the hits are not so much about me personally than about the projects I've been involved in, but you were the one holding up raw Google hits as a measure of notability. We have lots of uncontroversial bios for which there is one or two pages with life story, and every other Google hit is a citation of works or reference to the person's activities.
In Brian Peppers' case, being ridiculed by a handful of lusers on the net, who are in turn mirrored by more lusers, just confirms to me non-notability of that part of the net community, not Brian's notability. An analogy might be a McDonald's franchise - even a small one will have thousands of customers annually, but that's still not enough to make that particular store notable.
(For the record, I'm indifferent as to whether I have an article. But there's at least a million other articles that would be more interesting and useful to write first.)
Stan
On 2/24/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium
Stan Shebs wrote:
I only see 92,000, while "Stan Shebs" gets 115,000. So how
is it that
he's notable enough to have an article and I'm not? I even
have actual
accomplishments to describe, albeit no bizarre physical features to snicker at (or at least I haven't noticed any pointing and
giggling :-)
).
In any case, it's in the multiple tens of thousands, so I think we can agree that the original Wikipedia article writer didn't dig up Brian Peppers from the obscurity of the Ohio sex offenders registry.
Nevertheless, that's the only source we have. Everything else merely references it or comments on it.
As for why you don't have an article, I would've thought that is fairly obvious. Unless you're famous in some area I don't know about, it would seem not very many people have commented publicly about you.
115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the face.
If they have, or if you do something that causes a few thousands of people to write about you, then I should think you ought to have a Wikipedia article.
115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the face. Start writing.
Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for "brian peppers". (0.05 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 154,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.03 seconds)
Let's cut the ridiculousness of this Google testing track.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Lih Sent: Friday, 24 February 2006 19:37 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny
On 2/24/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium
Stan Shebs wrote:
I only see 92,000, while "Stan Shebs" gets 115,000. So how
is it that
he's notable enough to have an article and I'm not? I even
have actual
accomplishments to describe, albeit no bizarre physical
features to
snicker at (or at least I haven't noticed any pointing and
giggling :-)
).
In any case, it's in the multiple tens of thousands, so I
think we
can agree that the original Wikipedia article writer
didn't dig up
Brian Peppers from the obscurity of the Ohio sex
offenders registry.
Nevertheless, that's the only source we have. Everything
else merely
references it or comments on it.
As for why you don't have an article, I would've thought that is fairly obvious. Unless you're famous in some area I don't know about, it would seem not very many people have commented publicly about you.
115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the face.
If they have, or if you do something that causes a few
thousands of
people to write about you, then I should think you ought
to have a
Wikipedia article.
115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the
face. Start writing.
Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for "brian peppers". (0.05 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 154,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.03 seconds)
Let's cut the ridiculousness of this Google testing track.
I agree. We don't need any Google hits at all if a subject is truly worth inclusion, and we might get millions for something that's never going to make it in.
Results 1 - 10 of about 95,700 for "Brian Peppers". (0.31 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 115,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.18 seconds)
Seems to vary to a remarkable degree. For what that's worth. As I noted earlier, we're not going to check every one of those hits.
Peter (Skyring)
Andrew Lih wrote:
Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for "brian peppers". (0.05 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 154,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.03 seconds)
Let's cut the ridiculousness of this Google testing track.
"jimmy wales" - 36,500,000 "elvis presley" - 14,400,000
it's pretty silly
Oh, you're just showing off! ;-)
But well, yes, because both you and Elvis Presley are hugely notable. 161,000 doesn't put you at the Olympian heights of a Wales or a Presley, but it's solid memedom, I'd say.
On 2/24/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Andrew Lih wrote:
Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for "brian peppers". (0.05 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 154,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.03 seconds)
Let's cut the ridiculousness of this Google testing track.
"jimmy wales" - 36,500,000 "elvis presley" - 14,400,000
it's pretty silly
-- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # #######################################################################
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't know about all that, but it does seem like awful powerful proof that Elvis is still alive. :-) Ec
Baba Jobu wrote:
Oh, you're just showing off! ;-)
But well, yes, because both you and Elvis Presley are hugely notable. 161,000 doesn't put you at the Olympian heights of a Wales or a Presley, but it's solid memedom, I'd say.
On 2/24/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Andrew Lih wrote:
Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for "brian peppers". (0.05 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 154,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.03 seconds)
Let's cut the ridiculousness of this Google testing track.
"jimmy wales" - 36,500,000 "elvis presley" - 14,400,000
it's pretty silly
Liar, liar
Results 1 - 10 of about 608,000 for "Jimmy wales"
Results 1 - 10 of about 19,300,000 for "bill gates".
Fred
On Feb 24, 2006, at 12:03 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Andrew Lih wrote:
Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for "brian peppers". (0.05 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 154,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.03 seconds)
Let's cut the ridiculousness of this Google testing track.
"jimmy wales" - 36,500,000 "elvis presley" - 14,400,000
it's pretty silly
-- ###################################################################### # # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # ###################################################################### # _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fred Bauder
Liar, liar
Results 1 - 10 of about 608,000 for "Jimmy wales"
Results 1 - 10 of about 19,300,000 for "bill gates".
Obviously you aren't a member of "Google Premium". Jimbo has access to the true figures whereas you are just getting the pap they approve for general consumption.
Pete, astonished to find that on Google China the medal tally for the Winter Olympics is very very different
On 2/24/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Pete, astonished to find that on Google China the medal tally for the Winter Olympics is very very different
Was this just a tongue in cheek remark? What do you mean the medal tally "on Google China"? URL?
Steve
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
On 2/24/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Pete, astonished to find that on Google China the medal
tally for the
Winter Olympics is very very different
Was this just a tongue in cheek remark? What do you mean the medal tally "on Google China"? URL?
You can pretty much take it as read that if I say something as a mock-sig line after "Pete," then it's intended to be amusing.
Pete, not always bang on target
Damn, I love a good conspiracy theory.
Steve
On 2/26/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
On 2/24/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Pete, astonished to find that on Google China the medal
tally for the
Winter Olympics is very very different
Was this just a tongue in cheek remark? What do you mean the medal tally "on Google China"? URL?
You can pretty much take it as read that if I say something as a mock-sig line after "Pete," then it's intended to be amusing.
Pete, not always bang on target
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"Jimmy Wales" wrote
"jimmy wales" - 36,500,000 "elvis presley" - 14,400,000
it's pretty silly
The King is Dead - rumours to the contrary - but Long Live the (God)King.
However if you search for the exact phrase, "Charles Matthews'' beats "Jimbo Wales" at Google. Put the actual Coronation on hold.
Charles
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of charles matthews
However if you search for the exact phrase, "Charles Matthews'' beats "Jimbo Wales" at Google. Put the actual Coronation on hold.
Probably not the best thread or place for it, but may I say how much I enjoyed the photograph of you on your user page "going completely wild"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charles_Matthews
Peter (Skyring)
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Andrew Lih wrote:
Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for "brian peppers". (0.05 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 154,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.03 seconds)
Let's cut the ridiculousness of this Google testing track.
"jimmy wales" - 36,500,000 "elvis presley" - 14,400,000
it's pretty silly
Interesting. I get
40,300,000 for "Jimmy Wales" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Jimmy+Wales%22&btnG=...
and 42,700,000 for "Jesus Christ" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Jesus+Christ%22&btnG...
-- mav
PS - IIRC, the same search a month ago had over 50,000,000 hits for "Jimmy Wales" and about 43,000,000 for "Jesus Christ". So you aint more popular than Jesus anymore. :)
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 2/24/06, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Andrew Lih wrote:
Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for "brian peppers". (0.05 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 154,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.03 seconds)
Let's cut the ridiculousness of this Google testing track.
"jimmy wales" - 36,500,000 "elvis presley" - 14,400,000
it's pretty silly
Interesting. I get
40,300,000 for "Jimmy Wales" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Jimmy+Wales%22&btnG=...
and 42,700,000 for "Jesus Christ" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Jesus+Christ%22&btnG...
-- mav
PS - IIRC, the same search a month ago had over 50,000,000 hits for "Jimmy Wales" and about 43,000,000 for "Jesus Christ". So you ain't more popular than Jesus anymore. :)
Those figures were messed with by jimbo haveing his name at the top of every single wikipedia page.
-- geni
geni wrote:
Those figures were messed with by jimbo haveing his name at the top of every single wikipedia page.
Indeed. My mother pointed this out to me when the phenomenon was at or near the peak -- I hit 120 million there for a bit.
On 2/24/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
geni wrote:
Those figures were messed with by jimbo haveing his name at the top of every single wikipedia page.
Indeed. My mother pointed this out to me when the phenomenon was at or near the peak -- I hit 120 million there for a bit.
And seceeded in devualing the sumeries provived by google yahoo and alta vista (posebly other search engins but I got board).
-- geni
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Mayer Interesting. I get
40,300,000 for "Jimmy Wales" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Jimmy+Wales%22&btnG=...
and 42,700,000 for "Jesus Christ" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Jesus+Christ%22&bt nG=Search
-- mav
PS - IIRC, the same search a month ago had over 50,000,000 hits for "Jimmy Wales" and about 43,000,000 for "Jesus Christ". So you ain't more popular than Jesus anymore. :)
Or googlenotable, at any rate. I suspect that there are a lot of Christians with limited Internet access, and if you crowded them all into an arena and asked for a show of hands as to who knew of Jimmy Wales, you would get no more than two, maybe three.
Pete, leaving this as an exercise for the reader
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:41:36 +1100, you wrote:
Or googlenotable, at any rate. I suspect that there are a lot of Christians with limited Internet access, and if you crowded them all into an arena and asked for a show of hands as to who knew of Jimmy Wales, you would get no more than two, maybe three.
Nah, Gastrich has spammed them all now to vote for alumni of his favourite unaccredited bible college ;-) Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:41:36 +1100, you wrote:
Or googlenotable, at any rate. I suspect that there are a lot of Christians with limited Internet access, and if you crowded them all into an arena and asked for a show of hands as to who knew of Jimmy Wales, you would get no more than two, maybe three.
Nah, Gastrich has spammed them all now to vote for alumni of his favourite unaccredited bible college ;-)
For the record, I was spammed, and I used our usual inclusion criteria when voting.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Guy Chapman aka JzG
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:41:36 +1100, you wrote:
Or googlenotable, at any rate. I suspect that there are a lot of Christians with limited Internet access, and if you crowded them all into an arena and asked for a show of hands as to who knew of Jimmy Wales, you would get no more than two, maybe three.
Nah, Gastrich has spammed them all now to vote for alumni of his favourite unaccredited bible college ;-) Guy (JzG)
This thread is beginning to exert some sort of hideous fascination for me. Obviously there are wikiundercurrents I wot not, and passions that have soared over my unheeding nose, for it takes true dedication to spam those without Internet access.
Pete, unblinking. loglike
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:27:31 +1100, you wrote:
it takes true dedication to spam those without Internet access.
Ahem: it was *limited* not no access. Guy (JzG)
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Guy Chapman aka JzG Sent: Saturday, 25 February 2006 23:55 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:27:31 +1100, you wrote:
it takes true dedication to spam those without Internet access.
Ahem: it was *limited* not no access.
Point taken. I was being diplomatic, thinking of all those millions of Christians in the Philippines and Brazil who think "Internet" is a pretty young trainee.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 06:11:25 +1100, you wrote:
I was being diplomatic, thinking of all those millions of Christians in the Philippines and Brazil who think "Internet" is a pretty young trainee.
Cloff! Guy (JzG)
On 2/23/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Delirium wrote:
Have you actually tried searching Google for "Brian Peppers"? Information on him is quite readily available, quite apart from any obscure sex-offender registry. Wikipedia is not even the highest-ranked result (snopes.com is), and there are *161,000* hits.
I only see 92,000, while "Stan Shebs" gets 115,000. So how is it that he's notable enough to have an article and I'm not? I even have actual accomplishments to describe, albeit no bizarre physical features to snicker at (or at least I haven't noticed any pointing and giggling :-) ).
<snicker>Lookit his nose!</snicker>
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
On 2/22/06, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
Just a number of observations on this topic.
- If a person is a topic of sufficient attention, for whatever
reason, Wikipedia should have an article on that person.
I thought Delerium's stub was quite accurate & NPOV.
The edit history of this article had 675 edits -- including
Delerium's. Sheesh.
I am reminded of a strategy I mentioned in another thread --
a. Silently acquiese to opponent's edits; after all, there's many other articles in need of attention. b. Wait x number of weeks. c. Revert opponent's edits while carefully leaving any later contributions intact. d. Repeat steps 2 & 3 as often as needed.
and of the variations other people mentioned.
- When I hear that this person's family is concerned about the
article, are they more worried about the picture of his appearance, or that he was declared guilty in a court of law for a sex crime -- specifically on the charge of "Gross Sexual Imposition" & an attempt to do the same?
- And just what is "Gross Sexual Imposition"? For the curious, I
found a definition at http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/training/pubs/cert/unit2-2C_rev0506.pdf -- which defines it as involuntary sexual groping, with the usual conditions that apply to a definition of rape: use or threat of use of force, whether the parties involved are married[*], whether the victim was capable of consenting to this act, & if the victim was less than 13 years of age. FWIW, when I Googled for the specific part of the Ohio Revised Code that he was convicted under, I found a hit that explains this is one crime that explicitly cannot be expunged from his record.
- Looking at this guy's picture & considering the crime he was
convicted of, I have to wonder if this wasn't some mean-spirited practical joke gone badly wrong, & for which he is being mangled by the gears of justice. (Of course this kind of thing happens -- & not only in the US: I remember reading about a case in the UK where a pair of homeless bums were arrested & convicted of being notorious IRA bombers, despite the fact both were obviously incapable of holding a normal job or even attempting to apply for one, let alone managing such a demanding chore as making & setting these complicated devices.)
- Again, FWIW I went to school with a guy with a similar deformity
similar this one. He exhibited normal intelligence. If the findings of the court were accurate, then he knew what he was doing: coercing another person to being groped.
- Are we more worried about providing verifiable information in
Wikipedia, or if people are going to object to the nature of our information? After all, are we going to back off from stating that Vice-President Cheney shot Whittington in the face with a shotgun, & that Whittington later apologized to Cheny & his family for the accident?
Geoff
[*] I am not expressing an opinion on this clause of the relevant section of the Ohio Revised Code. I am merely reporting what it says.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The question is do we have articles on every person convicted of such an offence in Ohio or elsewhere. The answer is we don't nor do we have articles on the vast majority of them. The reason that we have an article on Peppers is that he is disabled and that some people have decided to single him out on a couple of websites. That doesn't excuse his behaviour but it doesn't justify an article.
Should we have? In my view, no we shouldn't unless there is strong public interest in the case as reflected in multiple verifiable sources. All we have for Peppers is the reference from Snopes so the verifiability is shaky.
There is clear interest in the Cheney case reflected in thousands of reliable sources in existence. This is not the case in the Peppers case. In my view, it doesn't even warrant a minor mention in Internet culture.
Regards
Keith Old
Keith Old
On 2/22/06, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
The question is do we have articles on every person convicted of such an offence in Ohio or elsewhere. The answer is we don't nor do we have articles on the vast majority of them. The reason that we have an article on Peppers is that he is disabled and that some people have decided to single him out on a couple of websites. That doesn't excuse his behaviour but it doesn't justify an article.
The fact that we're even having this discussion should point out that Peppers is "not just another disabled groper". He's not notable because he's disabled, and he's not notable because of this offence. He's notable (to whatever extent) because people circulate his photo around and talk about him. In much the same way as that baseballer who lost the world series by letting a ball go through his legs is notable - not as a great baseballer, but because of the enormous publicity surrounding that event.
Of course, if people really don't talk about Peppers that much, then there's no reason to create an article here just to titillate a few teenagers.
Steve
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:41:03 -0500, you wrote:
I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five days*.
I'm not.
The debate over Brian Peppers is complex and involves deep feelings. On the one hand we have people who see him as a victim of crass exploitation, a disabled sufferer of a congenital deformity who has become an object of derision; on the other we have people who believe that the fact of his widespread exploitation being verifiable means we must cover the subject. That group in turn divides between those who want to ensure that the coverage makes plain that he is a victim, and those who resent the implication that they have been (possibly unwillingly) implicit in exploiting someone, so excise verifiable facts like his being resident in a nursing home.
What is the overarching principle here? "Do no harm".
Which does more harm, having and fighting over an article which has been accused by some in good faith of actively contributing to the mimetic process, or stepping back and having nothing to do with it?
My bias is obvious from my statements above, of course. Guy (JzG)
On 2/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:41:03 -0500, you wrote: Which does more harm, having and fighting over an article which has been accused by some in good faith of actively contributing to the mimetic process, or stepping back and having nothing to do with it?
If "stepping back" means banishing the topic from Wikipedia, then I would consider such a precedent potentially very harmful.
Steve
On 2/22/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:41:03 -0500, you wrote: Which does more harm, having and fighting over an article which has been accused by some in good faith of actively contributing to the mimetic process, or stepping back and having nothing to do with it?
If "stepping back" means banishing the topic from Wikipedia, then I would consider such a precedent potentially very harmful.
I agree, especially because the article didn't show the image, nor did it provide much in the way of information about Brian *the person* (only Brian the meme). That said, this is Jimbo's project. If he says the article is banned for a year, it's banned for a year. We my grumble about it (heck, we already *are*), but ultimately, what Jimbo says, goes.
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:28:51 -0500, you wrote:
I agree, especially because the article didn't show the image, nor did it provide much in the way of information about Brian *the person* (only Brian the meme).
Part of the problem is that it *did* / did not / did / did not / did /did not contain the image, details of the man not the meme, details of the meme spreading after Snopes identified him as a sufferer from a congenital deformity and YTMND put up a page detailing the fact that he is disabled and lives in a nursing home. We had every extreme from those who apparently wanted to perpetuate the YTMND fad to those who didn't want the article at all, and there was no possibility of agreeing on a neutral version, and not much chance of enforcing it even then.
Sit back, calm down and wait to see if he's still remembered in a year's time seems a perfectly reasonable approach for an *encyclopaedia* to take here. But of course I was for not having the article in the first place. Guy (JzG)
On 2/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:28:51 -0500, you wrote:
I agree, especially because the article didn't show the image, nor did it provide much in the way of information about Brian *the person* (only
Brian
the meme).
Part of the problem is that it *did* / did not / did / did not / did /did not contain the image, details of the man not the meme, details of the meme spreading after Snopes identified him as a sufferer from a congenital deformity and YTMND put up a page detailing the fact that he is disabled and lives in a nursing home. We had every extreme from those who apparently wanted to perpetuate the YTMND fad to those who didn't want the article at all, and there was no possibility of agreeing on a neutral version, and not much chance of enforcing it even then.
Sit back, calm down and wait to see if he's still remembered in a year's time seems a perfectly reasonable approach for an *encyclopaedia* to take here. But of course I was for not having the article in the first place.
Don't worry, I'm already calm. Whatever my beliefs about Mr. Peppers, I simply don't feel strongly enough to really care about it all that much.
Death Phoenix wrote:
On 2/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:28:51 -0500, you wrote:
I agree, especially because the article didn't show the image, nor did it provide much in the way of information about Brian *the person* (only
Brian
the meme).
Part of the problem is that it *did* / did not / did / did not / did /did not contain the image, details of the man not the meme, details of the meme spreading after Snopes identified him as a sufferer from a congenital deformity and YTMND put up a page detailing the fact that he is disabled and lives in a nursing home. We had every extreme from those who apparently wanted to perpetuate the YTMND fad to those who didn't want the article at all, and there was no possibility of agreeing on a neutral version, and not much chance of enforcing it even then.
Sit back, calm down and wait to see if he's still remembered in a year's time seems a perfectly reasonable approach for an *encyclopaedia* to take here. But of course I was for not having the article in the first place.
Don't worry, I'm already calm. Whatever my beliefs about Mr. Peppers, I simply don't feel strongly enough to really care about it all that much.
That's the spirit. I've become rather apathetic about these meta-debates and the hype surrounding them, and have gotten on with writing the encyclopedia instead (trite as that sounds). Look out for your daily dose of Malaysian articles on DYK until all this emo drama blows over. :)
John
On 2/22/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Death Phoenix wrote:
Don't worry, I'm already calm. Whatever my beliefs about Mr. Peppers, I simply don't feel strongly enough to really care about it all that much.
That's the spirit. I've become rather apathetic about these meta-debates and the hype surrounding them, and have gotten on with writing the encyclopedia instead (trite as that sounds). Look out for your daily dose of Malaysian articles on DYK until all this emo drama blows over. :)
Whatever.
;-)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Sit back, calm down and wait to see if he's still remembered in a year's time seems a perfectly reasonable approach for an *encyclopaedia* to take here. But of course I was for not having the article in the first place. Guy (JzG)
As one who would probably be categorized as an eventualist, and as one who doesn't pay any particular attention to internet fads, I'm pretty calm already. I don't really care about the subject of this article. The thing that is getting my particular dander up is simply the technical abuse of deletion as a way to "store" content we might eventually want back for a long period of time.
The notion that it's better to delete controversial articles than it is to work out the problems with them is also problematic to me, but mainly as a direct consequence of that first bit. Content that we may eventually want back should never be deleted if we can at all help it. Put it in a subpage of the article's talk: page for a year if need be, or some wikipedia: namespace vault somewhere, or even a user: subpage. Heck, even just blanking and protecting the article would be preferable.
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:22:11 -0700, you wrote:
I don't really care about the subject of this article. The thing that is getting my particular dander up is simply the technical abuse of deletion as a way to "store" content we might eventually want back for a long period of time.
And the fact that it had previously been deleted within process multiple times and re-created doesn't bother you? Seems to me it was a case of keep re-creating and keep having it AfDd until those who wanted the article got what they wanted, regardless of previous consensus. But whatever. Guy (JzG)
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:46:01 +0100, you wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:41:03 -0500, you wrote: Which does more harm, having and fighting over an article which has been accused by some in good faith of actively contributing to the mimetic process, or stepping back and having nothing to do with it?
If "stepping back" means banishing the topic from Wikipedia, then I would consider such a precedent potentially very harmful.
I don't see it being banished, I see Jimbo saying let's all walk away and come back if anyone still cares in a year. What's the rush? My view is that no topic should be added until at least a year after it happens, in order to allow formation of a proper perspective, there is no rush to scoop anyone. Wikinews is that way -----> Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
I don't see it being banished, I see Jimbo saying let's all walk away and come back if anyone still cares in a year. What's the rush? My view is that no topic should be added until at least a year after it happens, in order to allow formation of a proper perspective, there is no rush to scoop anyone. Wikinews is that way ----->
No articles on any topic for a year until it happens? Don't you think that's going a bit far?
Here's some articles that'd have to be deleted, just scanning through Current Events * [[European Institute of Technology]] -- was just proposed this week; hasn't even opened * [[Grbavica (film)]] -- just released this month * [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] -- the cartoons were first published 5 months ago, and just got famous a month or so ago * [[2006 Southern Leyte mudslide]] -- happened five days ago
I shouldn't think there's anything so inherently wrong with an encyclopedia having up-to-date coverage to merit such a rule.
-Mark
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:49:52 -0500, you wrote:
I don't see it being banished, I see Jimbo saying let's all walk away and come back if anyone still cares in a year. What's the rush? My view is that no topic should be added until at least a year after it happens, in order to allow formation of a proper perspective, there is no rush to scoop anyone. Wikinews is that way ----->
No articles on any topic for a year until it happens? Don't you think that's going a bit far?
Not a firm policy, just a rule of thumb. How many times have you seen the interpretation of current events change as fuller information becomes available?
Here's some articles that'd have to be deleted, just scanning through Current Events
- [[European Institute of Technology]] -- was just proposed this week;
hasn't even opened
So no article required. It's a footnote in the article on the European Commission until it at least exists.
- [[Grbavica (film)]] -- just released this month
But has been over a year in the conception and making; not really a current event (we are documenting the film, not the release event).
- [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] -- the cartoons were
first published 5 months ago, and just got famous a month or so ago
Yep. Remember how it came out that the most offensive ones had never been published by the paper?
- [[2006 Southern Leyte mudslide]] -- happened five days ago
Indeed. No details of root cause yet, death toll unknown, news still arriving of what has been going on on the ground. Wikinews is thataway ---->
I shouldn't think there's anything so inherently wrong with an encyclopedia having up-to-date coverage to merit such a rule.
It's not about a problem with being up-to-date, it's about lacking the perspective which time provides. Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
I shouldn't think there's anything so inherently wrong with an encyclopedia having up-to-date coverage to merit such a rule.
It's not about a problem with being up-to-date, it's about lacking the perspective which time provides.
That's the rationale behind the {{current event}} header---to let readers know that information is not settled, and may change rapidly. I consider that quite a bit better than not having the information at *all*.
Plus, one year is a pretty arbitrary timeframe. For some things, like the Cold War, you could argue that we really need another 50 years to have the proper back-looking perspective. But we go ahead and write the best article we can now, and then revise it again later as new information and scholarship comes out.
-Mark
Jimbo also deleted one of my stub articles, but it seems that the community overruled against his decission and for so far, decided to keep the article. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeremy_Rosenfel...
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
Jimbo also deleted one of my stub articles, but it seems that the community overruled against his decission and for so far, decided to keep the article. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeremy_Rosenfel...
This is absurd. What an idiotic article.
Let me say again now what I said when I deleted it the first time, but with more detailed. Even though I'm wonderful and charming and obviously the most noteworthy person on the planet (ha), it is still not the case that every person with whom I have had contact needs a biography in Wikipedia.
I consider this bio to be a terrible invasion of privacy for Jeremy, and an embarassment for Wikipedia.
"A-bit-stronger-than-weak Keep there exist a controversy about who presented Jimbo with idea about wiki. Therefore, this guy is controversial enough to became notable."
That's such an overwhelming non sequitur I just don't even know where to begin. Jeremy Rosenfeld is controversial? I think not. He's a nice guy who wandered into my office one day to show me a cool website. The one quote we can come up with is that Larry doesn't remember him well?
I think I'm going to have to take a serious look at AfD, because if it is this far broken, there's something seriously seriously worse about it than I thought.
Ugh. I am tempted to merge that Jeremy Rosenfeld article into something else. I highly doubt it can be expanded beyond that single paragraph.
Zzyzx11 at en.wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11 zzyzx11@hotmail.com
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:27:30 -0800
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
Jimbo also deleted one of my stub articles, but it seems that the community overruled against his decission and for so far, decided to keep the article. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeremy_Rosenfel...
This is absurd. What an idiotic article.
Let me say again now what I said when I deleted it the first time, but with more detailed. Even though I'm wonderful and charming and obviously the most noteworthy person on the planet (ha), it is still not the case that every person with whom I have had contact needs a biography in Wikipedia.
I consider this bio to be a terrible invasion of privacy for Jeremy, and an embarassment for Wikipedia.
"A-bit-stronger-than-weak Keep there exist a controversy about who presented Jimbo with idea about wiki. Therefore, this guy is controversial enough to became notable."
That's such an overwhelming non sequitur I just don't even know where to begin. Jeremy Rosenfeld is controversial? I think not. He's a nice guy who wandered into my office one day to show me a cool website. The one quote we can come up with is that Larry doesn't remember him well?
I think I'm going to have to take a serious look at AfD, because if it is this far broken, there's something seriously seriously worse about it than I thought.
-- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # #######################################################################
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Sure it can be expanded, now when Jimbo gave us another reply on the subject. ;)
--- Zzyzx11 at Wikipedia zzyzx11@hotmail.com wrote:
Ugh. I am tempted to merge that Jeremy Rosenfeld article into something else. I highly doubt it can be expanded beyond that single paragraph.
Zzyzx11 at en.wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11 zzyzx11@hotmail.com
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:27:30 -0800
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
Jimbo also deleted one of my stub articles, but
it
seems that the community overruled against his decission and for so far, decided to keep the
article.
:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeremy_Rosenfel...
This is absurd. What an idiotic article.
Let me say again now what I said when I deleted it
the first time, but
with more detailed. Even though I'm wonderful and
charming and
obviously the most noteworthy person on the planet
(ha), it is still not
the case that every person with whom I have had
contact needs a
biography in Wikipedia.
I consider this bio to be a terrible invasion of
privacy for Jeremy, and
an embarassment for Wikipedia.
"A-bit-stronger-than-weak Keep there exist a
controversy about who
presented Jimbo with idea about wiki. Therefore,
this guy is
controversial enough to became notable."
That's such an overwhelming non sequitur I just
don't even know where to
begin. Jeremy Rosenfeld is controversial? I think
not. He's a nice
guy who wandered into my office one day to show me
a cool website. The
one quote we can come up with is that Larry doesn't
remember him well?
I think I'm going to have to take a serious look at
AfD, because if it
is this far broken, there's something seriously
seriously worse about it
than I thought.
--
#######################################################################
# Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture
and Free Knowledge #
# http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a
free world #
#######################################################################
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I'm not aware of this and I don't understand the meaning of not using "primary sources". It sounds weird. A source is a source -- if it's legitimate, then why forbid the use of it? Link please.
Note: I wasn't the one to add those sources to the sub, but I think that whoever did it, did a good job.
--- John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
Sure it can be expanded, now when Jimbo gave us another reply on the subject. ;)
I could have sworn [[WP:V]] says something about not using primary sources. :p
John _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
I'm not aware of this and I don't understand the meaning of not using "primary sources". It sounds weird. A source is a source -- if it's legitimate, then why forbid the use of it? Link please.
Note: I wasn't the one to add those sources to the sub, but I think that whoever did it, did a good job.
From [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]:
* A primary source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source provides direct evidence for a certain state of affairs. This may mean that the source observes a state of affairs directly, or that they observe indirect evidence of it. In other words, a primary source is a source very close to the original state of affairs you are writing about. An example of primary-source material would be a photograph of a car accident taken by an eye witness, or a report from that eye witness. A trial transcript is also primary-source material. Wikipedia articles may rely on primary sources /so long as what they say has been published by a credible publication/. For example, a trial transcript has been published by the court. *We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication.* See Wikipedia:No original research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research.
John
--- John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
I'm not aware of this and I don't understand the meaning of not using "primary sources". It sounds weird. A source is a source -- if it's legitimate, then why forbid the use of it? Link please.
Note: I wasn't the one to add those sources to the sub, but I think that whoever did it, did a good
job.
From [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]:
* A primary source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source provides direct evidence for a certain state of affairs. This may mean that the source observes a state of affairs directly, or that they observe indirect evidence of it. In other words, a primary source is a source very close to the original state of affairs you are writing about. An example of primary-source material would be a photograph of a car accident taken by an eye witness, or a report from that eye witness. A trial transcript is also primary-source material. Wikipedia articles may rely on primary sources /so long as what they say has been published by a credible publication/. For example, a trial transcript has been published by the court. *We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication.* See Wikipedia:No original research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research.
John
That sounds tricky. Well, for starters, this wasn't original research, because I didn't ask Jimbo for anything -- thus I made no direct attempt to find out anything from him. Secondly, the way I interpret it, a third-party could use this discussion as a source (as they have already done in the past) and add it to the article. However, I also read this:
"Wikipedia articles may rely on primary sources /so long as what they say has been published by a credible publication."
I would dare to say that Jimbo writing on this mailing list is credible enough. :p It's obvious that this rule was applied so that editors don't adopt sources that are not credible enough, or may violate the law of privacy, or whatever. Since we're not covering anything of private nature, this shouldn't be a problem. I could be wrong, tho.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Jimbo, you hurt my feelings. I've contributed with quite a few articles, and no-one ever called them idiotic. Either way, I don't see why you're saying that it's an invasion on Jeremy's privacy. Firstly, because there are probably many people with his name and he wouldn't be recognized by anyone; and secondly, because it isn't really something he ought to be ashamed of. It doesn't involve his private life.
Chill out, Jimbo. You're a lucky guy -- you've got everything: a wife, a Ferrari, and a cool site. Your eyes should only spark with love.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anittas#Regarding_the_picture_dispute
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
Jimbo also deleted one of my stub articles, but it seems that the community overruled against his decission and for so far, decided to keep the
article.
:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeremy_Rosenfel...
This is absurd. What an idiotic article.
Let me say again now what I said when I deleted it the first time, but with more detailed. Even though I'm wonderful and charming and obviously the most noteworthy person on the planet (ha), it is still not the case that every person with whom I have had contact needs a biography in Wikipedia.
I consider this bio to be a terrible invasion of privacy for Jeremy, and an embarassment for Wikipedia.
"A-bit-stronger-than-weak Keep there exist a controversy about who presented Jimbo with idea about wiki. Therefore, this guy is controversial enough to became notable."
That's such an overwhelming non sequitur I just don't even know where to begin. Jeremy Rosenfeld is controversial? I think not. He's a nice guy who wandered into my office one day to show me a cool website. The one quote we can come up with is that Larry doesn't remember him well?
I think I'm going to have to take a serious look at AfD, because if it is this far broken, there's something seriously seriously worse about it than I thought.
--
#######################################################################
# Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world #
#######################################################################
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Joshua Griisser stated for the record:
I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five days*.
As I feared, userboxes have proven to be the canary in the coal mine. Now it's articlespace that is being jerked around.
Wikipedia ultimately must decide whether it wants to be Jimbo's personal fiefdom, or be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The two are clearly mutually exclusive at this point.
+------------------------------------------------+ | This user believes that there exist people who | | want to damage Wikipedia, and opposes allowing | | it to become something "that anyone can edit." | +------------------------------------------------+
- -- Sean Barrett | If you believe in telepathy, think about honking. sean@epoptic.org |
Joshua Griisser wrote:
I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]]
It wasn't unilateral. It was an in-process deletion of recreated AfD'd content. Read FCYTravis' history of the article on the talk page.
- not to mention his locking
(via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five days*.
5 whole days? Wow.
Wikipedia ultimately must decide whether it wants to be Jimbo's personal fiefdom, or be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The two are clearly mutually exclusive at this point.
Where do we go to vote on that? I vote very strongly against Wikipedia being my personal fiefdom. I also vote very strongly against alarmism. :)
--Jimbo