daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Let's face it: BLPs pose a problem. I want to suggest a few ideas that could resolve some of the issues we face.
- BLPs should be of sufficiently notable people that they appear in at
least one external encyclopedic source, preferably print. This would include other encyclopedias, "Who's Who," or other biographical indices. 2. In the event that the person attained fame because of sudden circumstances, they must be covered in at least three distinct newspapers that can be cited.
Is #2 supposed to be an alternative to #1? In other words, would an article be justified by satisfying either one?
It sort of seems that way, but I don't know if that was intended or not. For example, to take a case that was much debated in online venues other than ours, I don't think Kathy Sierra or Chris Locke would meet #1, but by now they certainly have tripped the wire on #2. Which goes to the point of Wikipedia's oft-cited ability to respond quickly to topics of current interest.
Whether that means we should have articles about them specifically, or about the incident instead, is another issue, but I'm partial to editorial judgments to merge problematic topics into more suitable locations anyway.
--Michael Snow
On 4/20/07 10:35 PM, "Michael Snow" wikipedia@att.net wrote:
Which goes to the point of Wikipedia's oft-cited ability to respond quickly to topics of current interest.
This also has a tendency to be one of our greatest failings. By throwing up "encyclopedia articles" as quickly as possible about people and issues of which little notice has been previously taken and of which we know little beyond the "topic of current interest," we are unable to look at these issues neutrally or report on people of limited notability with any sense of encyclopedic perspective and time. They're very easily taken over by people with a clear POV (usually negative) they and end up being bias-fests.
For example, until I moved it, we had a "biography" of [[Tiffany Adler]], the entire contents of which were essentially that she was a woman from [[Pacifica, California]] who had been arrested and charged with a misdemeanor which happened to make it into a couple local newspapers. There was nothing about the rest of her life, nothing about who she was, what she's done other than that - so readers were left with an entirely-unbalanced, biased and completely-out-of-perspective "biography" which purported to say that this woman's entire life consisted of being arrested. Even as it stands, the article lacks any sense of encyclopedic perspective, and basically belongs in WikiNews, not Wikipedia. But there's a couple editors who believe that the whole world needs to forever know that this person has been accused of this crime, and that it should be the person's first hit on Google. "Objectivity" is not the first word that comes to mind.
We can no longer discount Wikipedia's status as a de-facto scandal sheet for everyday occurrences, serving as a permanent record of anything bad or remotely controversial that anyone ever did, no matter how minor in the grand scheme of things, as long as it ended up with a three-paragraph blurb in a local paper. We need to, I think, think about that effect. Is that a good thing, and where does it stop? Should a kid who gets expelled from high school for carrying a knife (an article on which ends up in the local fishwrap) then carry around a Wikipedia biography stating such for the rest of their natural life?
That "oft-cited ability to respond quickly" too often means that we respond with haste, without perspective and without objectivity.
-Travis Mason-Bushman
On 4/21/07, Travis Mason-Bushman travis@gpsports-eng.com wrote:
On 4/20/07 10:35 PM, "Michael Snow" wikipedia@att.net wrote:
Which goes to the point of Wikipedia's oft-cited ability to respond quickly to topics of current interest.
This also has a tendency to be one of our greatest failings. By throwing up "encyclopedia articles" as quickly as possible about people and issues of which little notice has been previously taken and of which we know little beyond the "topic of current interest," we are unable to look at these issues neutrally or report on people of limited notability with any sense of encyclopedic perspective and time. They're very easily taken over by people with a clear POV (usually negative) they and end up being bias-fests.
For example, until I moved it, we had a "biography" of [[Tiffany Adler]], the entire contents of which were essentially that she was a woman from [[Pacifica, California]] who had been arrested and charged with a misdemeanor which happened to make it into a couple local newspapers. There was nothing about the rest of her life, nothing about who she was, what she's done other than that - so readers were left with an entirely-unbalanced, biased and completely-out-of-perspective "biography" which purported to say that this woman's entire life consisted of being arrested. Even as it stands, the article lacks any sense of encyclopedic perspective, and basically belongs in WikiNews, not Wikipedia. But there's a couple editors who believe that the whole world needs to forever know that this person has been accused of this crime, and that it should be the person's first hit on Google. "Objectivity" is not the first word that comes to mind.
We can no longer discount Wikipedia's status as a de-facto scandal sheet for everyday occurrences, serving as a permanent record of anything bad or remotely controversial that anyone ever did, no matter how minor in the grand scheme of things, as long as it ended up with a three-paragraph blurb in a local paper. We need to, I think, think about that effect. Is that a good thing, and where does it stop? Should a kid who gets expelled from high school for carrying a knife (an article on which ends up in the local fishwrap) then carry around a Wikipedia biography stating such for the rest of their natural life?
That "oft-cited ability to respond quickly" too often means that we respond with haste, without perspective and without objectivity.
I agree with this post.
Despite their being a huge part of Wikipedia's draw I'm not a fan of current events articles, because people get too wrapped up in what is recent without a sense of perspective. But it's nearly impossible to argue on Wikipedia that a subject of current news interest is simply not that encyclopedic, no matter how minor the interest. There are a lot more easily-accessible news sources now than there used to be, which is generally a good thing, but it also means that no matter how minor the topic many have probably covered it.
What's more, something that may only ever have been of local interest previously can reach a large audience, through this ease of access -- more people hearing of an incident making it "something everyone's heard of". And the more people hear it, the more people insist that it is newsworthy, or even worth preserving.
If there is no information available about a person other than the one minor scandal, how notable is s/he really? Going back to Travis's [[Tiffany Adler]] example, people commit crimes of similar magnitude every day. This one happens to be related to a topic that is of political interest that will draw viewers to the news, so the news reports on it.
But there's no interest in this woman for who she is and the full context of her life; the interest is only in the incident. It's a stupid and hateful incident, but it's one incident, and I don't think the harshest of us would argue that it should forever be the first hit on Google for her name, and have harmful effects on her life. And in this type of case, a biographical article is out of place. (I see it isn't one anymore; her name redirects to an article on the incident, which isn't that much better.)
If I were ruler of the universe, I would maybe give it a brief mention as an example of [[gay bashing]], putting it in the larger context of this type of occurrence, as one of many examples of the problem and how society reacts.
But an individual article? That's what Wikinews is for, giving recent happenings prominence because it is of current interest, and writing coverage in detail of those individual events. I'd love to see more people interested in current events writing for Wikinews, and then saving that research to apply to an encyclopedic article as things fall into perspective.
-Kat
Travis Mason-Bushman wrote:
On 4/20/07 10:35 PM, "Michael Snow" wikipedia@att.net wrote:
Which goes to the point of Wikipedia's oft-cited ability to respond quickly to topics of current interest.
This also has a tendency to be one of our greatest failings. By throwing up "encyclopedia articles" as quickly as possible about people and issues of which little notice has been previously taken and of which we know little beyond the "topic of current interest," we are unable to look at these issues neutrally or report on people of limited notability with any sense of encyclopedic perspective and time. They're very easily taken over by people with a clear POV (usually negative) they and end up being bias-fests.
There's an implicit presumption of controversiality in what you say. You leave the impression that virtually none of these articles about borderline notables are for doing anything worthwhile. A person who decides to write a series of articles on each member of a sports team will include very few that are notable, but little in what is written will come close to negative bias.
For example, until I moved it, we had a "biography" of [[Tiffany Adler]], the entire contents of which were essentially that she was a woman from [[Pacifica, California]] who had been arrested and charged with a misdemeanor which happened to make it into a couple local newspapers. There was nothing about the rest of her life, nothing about who she was, what she's done other than that - so readers were left with an entirely-unbalanced, biased and completely-out-of-perspective "biography" which purported to say that this woman's entire life consisted of being arrested. Even as it stands, the article lacks any sense of encyclopedic perspective, and basically belongs in WikiNews, not Wikipedia. But there's a couple editors who believe that the whole world needs to forever know that this person has been accused of this crime, and that it should be the person's first hit on Google. "Objectivity" is not the first word that comes to mind.
Judgement is also comes into play. A person charged with trespassing because she went onto the grounds of city hall to plant flowers that would make the place look better, would be different from one who went there to plant marijuana.
We can no longer discount Wikipedia's status as a de-facto scandal sheet for everyday occurrences, serving as a permanent record of anything bad or remotely controversial that anyone ever did, no matter how minor in the grand scheme of things, as long as it ended up with a three-paragraph blurb in a local paper. We need to, I think, think about that effect. Is that a good thing, and where does it stop? Should a kid who gets expelled from high school for carrying a knife (an article on which ends up in the local fishwrap) then carry around a Wikipedia biography stating such for the rest of their natural life?
Most papers are prevented from publishing the names of juvenile offenders. What would be your source for that information.
That "oft-cited ability to respond quickly" too often means that we respond with haste, without perspective and without objectivity.
That's jumping to conclusions. What proportion of articles are you talking about. While single edits may fit into what you describe, such articles will undergo considerable change as they evolve through the first 24 hours.
Ec
On 4/22/07 12:31 PM, "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net wrote:
There's an implicit presumption of controversiality in what you say.
Well, of course there's an implicit presumption of controversiality. The controversial articles are the problem ones.
[[Jane Roe]], winner of the 2006 Mist County Citizen of the Year Award, might not deserve a biography on Wikipedia solely for that issue, but it's not going to harm her or us to have it there - unless it gets vandalized, but that's a whole 'nother issue. [[John Doe]], who gets written up in Wikipedia for being expelled from high school, and now gets to have this incident become his entire life story as reported by Google for the remainder of his life, is being significantly harmed by this unbalanced, biased and unnecessary "biography."
-Travis Mason-Bushman
Regarding Tiffany,
Articles like that severely lack content about stuff not related to the arrest. How about disallowing: 1. Negative articles which severely lacks biographical details. 2. Articles entirely about one or more negative events related to a person.
Not perfect, but it would leave in tact balanced articles.
On 4/21/07, Travis Mason-Bushman travis@gpsports-eng.com wrote:
On 4/20/07 10:35 PM, "Michael Snow" wikipedia@att.net wrote:
Which goes to the point of Wikipedia's oft-cited ability to respond quickly to topics of current interest.
This also has a tendency to be one of our greatest failings. By throwing up "encyclopedia articles" as quickly as possible about people and issues of which little notice has been previously taken and of which we know little beyond the "topic of current interest," we are unable to look at these issues neutrally or report on people of limited notability with any sense of encyclopedic perspective and time. They're very easily taken over by people with a clear POV (usually negative) they and end up being bias-fests.
For example, until I moved it, we had a "biography" of [[Tiffany Adler]], the entire contents of which were essentially that she was a woman from [[Pacifica, California]] who had been arrested and charged with a misdemeanor which happened to make it into a couple local newspapers. There was nothing about the rest of her life, nothing about who she was, what she's done other than that - so readers were left with an entirely-unbalanced, biased and completely-out-of-perspective "biography" which purported to say that this woman's entire life consisted of being arrested. Even as it stands, the article lacks any sense of encyclopedic perspective, and basically belongs in WikiNews, not Wikipedia. But there's a couple editors who believe that the whole world needs to forever know that this person has been accused of this crime, and that it should be the person's first hit on Google. "Objectivity" is not the first word that comes to mind.
We can no longer discount Wikipedia's status as a de-facto scandal sheet for everyday occurrences, serving as a permanent record of anything bad or remotely controversial that anyone ever did, no matter how minor in the grand scheme of things, as long as it ended up with a three-paragraph blurb in a local paper. We need to, I think, think about that effect. Is that a good thing, and where does it stop? Should a kid who gets expelled from high school for carrying a knife (an article on which ends up in the local fishwrap) then carry around a Wikipedia biography stating such for the rest of their natural life?
That "oft-cited ability to respond quickly" too often means that we respond with haste, without perspective and without objectivity.
-Travis Mason-Bushman
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 22/04/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding Tiffany,
Articles like that severely lack content about stuff not related to the arrest. How about disallowing:
- Negative articles which severely lacks biographical details.
- Articles entirely about one or more negative events related to a person.
Natural corollaries of NPOV, I would have thought.
On 4/22/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/04/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding Tiffany,
Articles like that severely lack content about stuff not related to the arrest. How about disallowing:
- Negative articles which severely lacks biographical details.
- Articles entirely about one or more negative events related to a
person.
Natural corollaries of NPOV, I would have thought.
My thoughts exactly. Unless someone can convince people it can be fixed, I doubt it would survive AFD.
Mgm