2008/10/1 Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com:
At 23:10 -0400 30/9/08, Nathan wrote:
To answer your question - probably not, no. If there is a two page article about someone in the Times, and midway through page 2 it says that he inherited his brown eyes from his father, that is an example of a fact found in a reliable source that does not belong in the article. Salaciousness isn't the standard for inclusion of a detail in an encyclopedic entry.
Indeed,
It depends. For instance, details of someone's family are the sort of thing readers would expect to see in bios and are generally included and sourced. However, we've had cases where apparently-innocuous details of family and where they live are in the article unsourced and are regarded by the subject as sensitive private information, and needed urgent removal.
The point of WP:BLP is (or should be) that our fundamental content rules NPOV, NOR, V are all that's needed - but we need to apply them very harshly and we really can't be eventualist about bad info in living bios. This can result in somewhat detail-poor and washed-out articles, but we're often the top Google hit for their name, and we can wait for well-sourced info (which is where eventualism comes in).
e.g. in the rugby player case, the undue weight aspect of NPOV was lacking in the old version, and this caused real-life problems for the subject.
- d.
- d.
On 10/1/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The point of WP:BLP is (or should be) that our fundamental content rules NPOV, NOR, V are all that's needed - but we need to apply them very harshly and we really can't be eventualist about bad info in living bios.
I intend to quote you on this, please double-check it for typos and the like.
—C.W.
2008/10/1 Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com:
On 10/1/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The point of WP:BLP is (or should be) that our fundamental content rules NPOV, NOR, V are all that's needed - but we need to apply them very harshly and we really can't be eventualist about bad info in living bios.
I intend to quote you on this, please double-check it for typos and the like.
Feel free. That's what the first production version of WP:BLP said. It's also the only way to do it consistent with our content policies, as far as I can tell.
Also add "It's an encyclopedia, not investigative journalism - we have Wikinews for that."
- d.
Well, you can certainly quote David for that statement, but I for one don't agree with it at all.
Newyorkbrad
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.comwrote:
On 10/1/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The point of WP:BLP is (or should be) that our fundamental content rules NPOV, NOR, V are all that's needed - but we need to apply them very harshly and we really can't be eventualist about bad info in living bios.
I intend to quote you on this, please double-check it for typos and the like.
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/10/1 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com:
Well, you can certainly quote David for that statement, but I for one don't agree with it at all.
What parts?
- d.
For context, your statement as quoted was: "The point of WP:BLP is (or should be) that our fundamental content rules NPOV, NOR, V are all that's needed - but we need to apply them very harshly and we really can't be eventualist about bad info in living bios."
What about the advances we've made over the past two years in agreeing that the well-being of article subjects is also a legitimate consideration. In Wikipedia jargon, I could simply say that "you left Notability off your list." But it's a deeper sense of respect for our obligations, as reflected in such places as [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff]] and [[/Footnoted quotes]]. See also [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad]]; [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute#Outside view by Newyorkbrad]]; the DRV log for May 28, 2007 (Hornbeck/Ownby); and the Shawn Hornbeck thread currently on ANI.
There is plenty of accurate, neutral, fully sourceable material about living persons that still has no place in Wikipedia. Or anywhere else on the Internet, really, but we can only control our own site.
Newyorkbrad
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 5:01 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/10/1 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com:
Well, you can certainly quote David for that statement, but I for one
don't
agree with it at all.
What parts?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/10/1 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com:
For context, your statement as quoted was: "The point of WP:BLP is (or should be) that our fundamental content rules NPOV, NOR, V are all that's needed - but we need to apply them very harshly and we really can't be eventualist about bad info in living bios." What about the advances we've made over the past two years in agreeing that the well-being of article subjects is also a legitimate consideration. In Wikipedia jargon, I could simply say that "you left Notability off your list." But it's a deeper sense of respect for our obligations, as reflected in such places as [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff]] and [[/Footnoted quotes]]. See also [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad]]; [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute#Outside view by Newyorkbrad]]; the DRV log for May 28, 2007 (Hornbeck/Ownby); and the Shawn Hornbeck thread currently on ANI. There is plenty of accurate, neutral, fully sourceable material about living persons that still has no place in Wikipedia. Or anywhere else on the Internet, really, but we can only control our own site.
That's covered, I think, by the "undue weight" provisions, which were in WP:BLP since the beginning. (The example originally used was a scientist who has gone through a messy divorce. He's famous for the science, the personal life is not particularly relevant to that and probably shouldn't go into the article.)
- d.
On 10/1/08, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
In Wikipedia jargon, I could simply say that "you left Notability off your list [of NPOV, NOR, V]"
Brad, I can only compare this to [[You forgot Poland]] in terms of undue weight.
The holy hand grenade of "notability" is not a fundamental content rule, only a set of wholly subjective criteria for users to badger each other with on AFDs.
*Keep, subject is discussed in 50 sources, which is significant. *Delete, subject is discussed in *only* 50 sources, which is pathetic (i'm more notable than that). **So write an article about yourself ***No, that would be COI. ****Then I'll write it for you. *****No, that would be harassment.
Sounds about like:
*Support, user has almost 22 thousand edits. *Oppose, user has less than 22 thousand edits. **You were promoted with half that. ***That was a year ago. ****So you assume 100% inflation? *****No, I have templates to calculate it.
There is plenty of accurate, neutral, fully sourceable material about living persons that still has no place in Wikipedia.
If this is true it should be true whether or not the subject is living (or is a person). As the adages go, if I can't say it to your face I shouldn't say it behind your back. If I'm not allowed to mention it at your wedding, I won't say it at your funeral either. etc. etc. etc.
—C.W.
I happen to agree that about 90% of the user and admin time policing the fine borderlines of "Notability" to make sure that no not-quite-ready-for-prime-time local band or webcomic or semiprofessional athlete finds his way into Wikipedia, and detailing ever more finely nuanced guidelines on this issue, is generally misplaced or at least overemphasized.
On the other hand, in the realm of BLP, this guideline becomes much more important to keeping content that could damage the well-being and reputation of a living person, while serving no sufficient encyclopedic purpose to warrant doing so, does not sully our project. Wikipedia does not exist to hurt people.
Newyorkbrad
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.comwrote:
On 10/1/08, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
In Wikipedia jargon, I could simply say that "you left Notability off
your
list [of NPOV, NOR, V]"
Brad, I can only compare this to [[You forgot Poland]] in terms of undue weight.
The holy hand grenade of "notability" is not a fundamental content rule, only a set of wholly subjective criteria for users to badger each other with on AFDs.
*Keep, subject is discussed in 50 sources, which is significant. *Delete, subject is discussed in *only* 50 sources, which is pathetic (i'm more notable than that). **So write an article about yourself ***No, that would be COI. ****Then I'll write it for you. *****No, that would be harassment.
Sounds about like:
*Support, user has almost 22 thousand edits. *Oppose, user has less than 22 thousand edits. **You were promoted with half that. ***That was a year ago. ****So you assume 100% inflation? *****No, I have templates to calculate it.
There is plenty of accurate, neutral, fully sourceable material about
living
persons that still has no place in Wikipedia.
If this is true it should be true whether or not the subject is living (or is a person). As the adages go, if I can't say it to your face I shouldn't say it behind your back. If I'm not allowed to mention it at your wedding, I won't say it at your funeral either. etc. etc. etc.
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/1/08, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
In Wikipedia jargon, I could simply say that "you left Notability off your list [of NPOV, NOR, V]"
Brad, I can only compare this to [[You forgot Poland]] in terms of undue weight.
I happen to agree that about 90% of the user and admin time policing the fine borderlines of "Notability" to make sure that no not-quite-ready-for-prime-time local band or webcomic or semiprofessional athlete finds his way into Wikipedia, and detailing ever more finely nuanced guidelines on this issue, is generally misplaced or at least overemphasized.
On the other hand, in the realm of BLP, this guideline becomes much more important to keeping content that could damage the well-being and reputation of a living person, while serving no sufficient encyclopedic purpose to warrant doing so, does not sully our project. Wikipedia does not exist to hurt people.
I won't presume to claim that my views on this guideline are "well-known" per se, but they are at least "widely-circulated" :-).
In a nutshell, I don't care much for it. I have often ridiculed the way Wikipedia explains its in-house meaning of "notability". Less cheekily, I have openly questioned the underlying need for a guideline, or anything else beyond a glossary-style explanation of the wide variety of meanings that this particular N-word might be intended to convey, when used by Wikipedians, on Wikipedia (mostly on AFD).
However I can only assume the guideline was mostly penned by people for whom "notability" is serious business, yet with the following explicit limitation:
The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not regulate the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content.
(content policies referring V, NPOV, NOR, and a nominal coalition of the willing)
Basically you have suggested that the primary function of the "notability" guideline (border patrol: establishing a rigid yet serpentine boundary[1] between articles which should or shouldn't exist, and policing it) is over-emphasized, and... advocated the use of the same guideline for an explicitly discouraged purpose (immigrant detention: policing the content of articles firmly within the boundary, based on the same or similar criteria).
This is a truly unique perspective, and completely valid too, so I can't fault you for it — the page is, after all, just a guideline.
However a "do as we do, not as we say" approach has the potential to confuse people. Perhaps you could propose a "Notability (facts and figures)" guideline (come on, one more couldn't hurt) to seal this gap.
Now, if only there were some objective way to look at each Reliable Source and decide which of its details are too salacious to mention, and which ones are a-ok, I would support it without hesitation[2].
I am very skeptical of this, but I wish you the best of luck. Regards.
—C.W.
[1] See also [[Gerrymandering]], [[Exclave]]. [2] But only if it also applied to dead people, lower animals, corporations, fictional characters, chemical elements, numbered asteroids, state highways, and tributaries of the Danube.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
For context, your statement as quoted was: "The point of WP:BLP is (or should be) that our fundamental content rules NPOV, NOR, V are all that's needed - but we need to apply them very harshly and we really can't be eventualist about bad info in living bios."
What about the advances we've made over the past two years in agreeing that the well-being of article subjects is also a legitimate consideration. In Wikipedia jargon, I could simply say that "you left Notability off your list." But it's a deeper sense of respect for our obligations, as reflected in such places as [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff]] and [[/Footnoted quotes]]. See also [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad]]; [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute#Outside view by Newyorkbrad]]; the DRV log for May 28, 2007 (Hornbeck/Ownby); and the Shawn Hornbeck thread currently on ANI.
There is plenty of accurate, neutral, fully sourceable material about living persons that still has no place in Wikipedia. Or anywhere else on the Internet, really, but we can only control our own site.
I think the point David is making is that you don't justify removing or adding content based on BLP. It should be based entirely on our normal content policies, strictly enforced. Of course, "don't put irrelevant material into articles" is a content policy, even if it's so obvious that it doesn't need saying.
As an example, an article on London that talked exclusively about its history during the Blitz or that detailed a well-sourced but irrelevant mid-70s public health scandal would be completely unacceptable. The content rule "don't write about irrelevancies" exists elsewhere; it is simply far more important when talking about living people.
I do not agree. I think NPOV covers the fact that we should not give negative information more weight than appropriate, V covers that we shouldn't use garbage sources such as tabloids or gossip blogs, and NOR covers "no investigative journalism". If several reputable sources have chosen to mention something, it is not a BLP violation to include it. At that point, if someone believes it shouldn't be included, it's a content dispute. BLP is a very powerful policy with exceptional enforcement powers, and it needs a narrow scope, that being unsourced or poorly sourced information. It should not be morphed into an easy "HARM!" hammer for content disputes. Those should be handled through the normal consensus, discussion, and if necessary dispute resolution process when valid sourcing exists. Mainly, BLP should say "Enforce our content policies strictly and immediately when a living person is involved", not "Go beyond them".
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
For context, your statement as quoted was: "The point of WP:BLP is (or should be) that our fundamental content rules NPOV, NOR, V are all that's needed - but we need to apply them very harshly and we really can't be eventualist about bad info in living bios."
What about the advances we've made over the past two years in agreeing that the well-being of article subjects is also a legitimate consideration. In Wikipedia jargon, I could simply say that "you left Notability off your list." But it's a deeper sense of respect for our obligations, as reflected in such places as [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff]] and [[/Footnoted quotes]]. See also [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad]]; [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute#Outside view by Newyorkbrad]]; the DRV log for May 28, 2007 (Hornbeck/Ownby); and the Shawn Hornbeck thread currently on ANI.
There is plenty of accurate, neutral, fully sourceable material about living persons that still has no place in Wikipedia. Or anywhere else on the Internet, really, but we can only control our own site.
Newyorkbrad
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 5:01 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/10/1 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com:
Well, you can certainly quote David for that statement, but I for one
don't
agree with it at all.
What parts?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l