-----Original Message----- From: Joe Szilagyi [mailto:szilagyi@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 03:43 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
On 5/23/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Consensus never trumps policy.
Fred, unless things have changed since I was editing... didn't consensus form policy via actions on wiki? As in, everyone does something. It becomes standard process. Standard process becomes policy. Policyizing encodes and further enforces it, until another huge consensus shift moves the policies in a different direction.
There is nothing in BLP or previous ArbCom endorsing your statements--is this a new desired policy or modification and expansion of BLP? If so, who proposed it for the community to accept or reject, and when? A small group of admins does not unilaterally decide policy, and ArbCom doesn't make policy.
I asked as well,
What other cases and articles has this happened in, before, with this
method?
You said:
I don't think it has.
In other words, you just made up this new policy change? If not, please cite where it has widespread support.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
Wikipedia:Biograpies of living persons is policy. There is no basis for modifying it or overruling it by consensus or by practice. To the extent possible it will be strictly interpreted and enforced.
Fred
On 5/23/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Wikipedia:Biograpies of living persons is policy. There is no basis for modifying it or overruling it by consensus or by practice. To the extent possible it will be strictly interpreted and enforced.
You're proposing that the ArbCom interprets BLP decisions, yet also say BLP is a content policy. I thought it was well-established that ArbCom doesn't do content.
Was this change in public tone and approach to BLP, DRV, et al discussed anywhere beyond this mailing list and on-wiki? Any other maillists, or IRC? It seems that suddenly a collection of senior people that work together are all on a unified page on something which is going to be very contententious to many individuals. If this is the New Way, would one of you be so good as to specifically modify WP:BLP with these changes, to see if the community accepts them?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 23/05/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Was this change in public tone and approach to BLP, DRV, et al discussed anywhere beyond this mailing list and on-wiki? Any other maillists, or IRC? It seems that suddenly a collection of senior people that work together are all on a unified page on something which is going to be very contententious to many individuals.
As I noted, this is what happened after the Siegenthaler fuckup. Jimbo said "we really need to fix this now" and WP:BLP was written.
If this is the New Way, would one of you be so good as to specifically modify WP:BLP with these changes, to see if the community accepts them?
WP:BLP is written this way already. What you're upset about is what already happened.
(It's much better than it could have been - it came this >< close to pushing sympathetic point of view. Instead, harsh application of the fundamentals did and does the job okay.)
- d.
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
As I noted, this is what happened after the Siegenthaler fuckup. Jimbo said "we really need to fix this now" and WP:BLP was written.
Oh, I know why/how BLP came about... I was a quiet anon editor back in those days.
WP:BLP is written this way already. What you're upset about is what
already happened.
I'm really not upset--bemused, I guess, at how rancorous this all got, and surprised by it. And I love the BLP overall, just not the idea that any one person for any reason can't be RV'd out in some level by another in good faith. Reading the commentary on the QZ and Duke stuff of, "This is over, go home, pwned" sort of attitude is what prompted me to write the first e-mail. That newer application, as Jeff phrased it, is what surprised me. The idea that anyone could be playing any sort of trump card, even well-intentioned, and anyone fully challenging it facing ArbCom or deadminning sanction as Fred said, is just troubling on it's surface. No one is infallible. ;)
There does need to be an oversight method for anything and everything on-Wiki. If DRV isn't the right place for these BLP ones, something needs to be setup for them... just in case. The more people (subjects) complain, the more everyone including subjects, admins, editors, etc., need to be playing on the same playing field.
(It's much better than it could have been - it came this >< close to
pushing sympathetic point of view. Instead, harsh application of the fundamentals did and does the job okay.)
Thank goodness it didn't go SPOV, that's all I'll say. :)
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/23/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Wikipedia:Biograpies of living persons is policy. There is no basis for modifying it or overruling it by consensus or by practice. To the extent possible it will be strictly interpreted and enforced.
I don' t think that anyone's arguing with the policy; I think we're disagreeing over how its applicability to a given situation is assessed.
I enthusiastically support the idea and written policy in WP:BLP. But I also think there are grey areas around the edges. No policy can be written to be explicit and broad enough to avoid having to interpret applicability for future situations which were unforseen or emergent. And the policy as written now has a lot of gaps in which ambiguity can be found.
On 23/05/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I enthusiastically support the idea and written policy in WP:BLP. But I also think there are grey areas around the edges. No policy can be written to be explicit and broad enough to avoid having to interpret applicability for future situations which were unforseen or emergent. And the policy as written now has a lot of gaps in which ambiguity can be found.
That's why we err on the side of zapping. Because we don't have to have Wikipedia finished by tomorrow.
This does lead to content being removed that I for example think damn well belongs (well-documented and noteworthy nasty aspects of people who happen to be alive, leaving their articles somewhat whitewashed), but I can grit my teeth and leave it for now. Because the article will wait.
- d.