---- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
============= On 18/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
So our "living persons" banner contains the following text: "This article is about or directly concerns one or more living people and therefore must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy. Specifically, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should not be posted to this article *or its talk page(s)*. Such material must be removed without hesitation. " (emphasis in original) I'm particularly concerned about the "or its talk page" bit. Is someone just confused, or should we actually *not* move material from the talk page like this: I have removed the following text because it sounds defamatory and probably isn't true: "John B Smith was busted twice for frequenting prostitutes in the 1970s". Anyone have a source? How can we realistically work with potentially defamatory statements - eg, requesting sources for them - if we can't even repeat them on talk pages?
Who put that in, and what do they say?
(A lot of stupid stuff in the living bio and verification policies - and in a lot of other policies - is because someone edit warred it in and no-one could be bothered arguing in a querulous fashion. And then it stays because it's POLICY rather than because it makes sense.)
- d.
David,
The arbcom uses Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons in their findings and sanctions quite a bit. If it is good enough for them, it is good enough for me.
Take care Sydney aka FloNight
On 8/19/06, Sydney aka FloNight poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
---- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
============= On 18/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
So our "living persons" banner contains the following text: "This article is about or directly concerns one or more living people and therefore must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy. Specifically, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should not be posted to this article *or its talk page(s)*. Such material must be removed without hesitation. " (emphasis in original) I'm particularly concerned about the "or its talk page" bit. Is someone just confused, or should we actually *not* move material from the talk page like this: I have removed the following text because it sounds defamatory and probably isn't true: "John B Smith was busted twice for frequenting prostitutes in the 1970s". Anyone have a source? How can we realistically work with potentially defamatory statements - eg, requesting sources for them - if we can't even repeat them on talk pages?
Who put that in, and what do they say?
(A lot of stupid stuff in the living bio and verification policies - and in a lot of other policies - is because someone edit warred it in and no-one could be bothered arguing in a querulous fashion. And then it stays because it's POLICY rather than because it makes sense.)
- d.
David,
The arbcom uses Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons in their findings and sanctions quite a bit. If it is good enough for them, it is good enough for me.
Take care Sydney aka FloNight _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Folks,
Personally, I think it would be jawdroppingly stupid (to use those terms) to remove a potentially libellous accusation from the article and put it on the talk page where people could still see it
If you put a message on the talk page to say that the article previously contained unsourced or poorly sourced negative comments about the person contrary to our policies and asking for such claims to have strong sources if they are made, most people would have enough brains to realise that that included claims about consorting with prostitutes.
It is much better to be safe than sorry in such instances.
Regards
Keith Old
On 8/18/06, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I think it would be jawdroppingly stupid (to use those terms) to remove a potentially libellous accusation from the article and put it on the talk page where people could still see it
IANAL, but to me there is a difference between stating the claim *as fact* in an *encyclopaedic article* (which most people, bless their souls, will take to *be* fact), and discussing the claim *as a dubious supposition* on a *discussion page*, where its validity is being questioned. I agree that simply repeating a claim can still be damaging, but by phrasing it in those terms "Is this true? Can anyone back this up?" might be less so?
I strongly feel that if we can't discuss the claim openly on talk pages, then our chances of getting a good source for *that specific claim* are greatly reduced.
If you put a message on the talk page to say that the article previously contained unsourced or poorly sourced negative comments about the person contrary to our policies and asking for such claims to have strong sources if they are made, most people would have enough brains to realise that that included claims about consorting with prostitutes.
"Guys, I have removed a potentially defamatory claim. Can someone find a good source for it?"
???
Steve
On 8/19/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/18/06, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I think it would be jawdroppingly stupid (to use those
terms)
to remove a potentially libellous accusation from the article and put
it on
the talk page where people could still see it
IANAL, but to me there is a difference between stating the claim *as fact* in an *encyclopaedic article* (which most people, bless their souls, will take to *be* fact), and discussing the claim *as a dubious supposition* on a *discussion page*, where its validity is being questioned. I agree that simply repeating a claim can still be damaging, but by phrasing it in those terms "Is this true? Can anyone back this up?" might be less so?
I strongly feel that if we can't discuss the claim openly on talk pages, then our chances of getting a good source for *that specific claim* are greatly reduced.
If you put a message on the talk page to say that the article previously contained unsourced or poorly sourced negative comments about the person contrary to our policies and asking for such claims to have strong
sources
if they are made, most people would have enough brains to realise that
that
included claims about consorting with prostitutes.
"Guys, I have removed a potentially defamatory claim. Can someone find a good source for it?"
???
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Folks,
If the claim has a strong basis in fact, it shouldn't be hard to find a source/
If it doesn't, it shouldn't be on the article or on the talk page. We shouldn't have potentially defamatory material where it can be publicly accessed unless we can be fairly certain that it stands up to close scrutiny.
Regards
Keith Old
On 8/19/06, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
If the claim has a strong basis in fact, it shouldn't be hard to find a source/
Ok, can you explain how a person can find a source for a claim they have never seen? You seem to be suggesting that the person removing the claim from article is the one who should find a source for it. Sort of a disencentive to remove the claim, no?
Steve
On 8/19/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/19/06, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
If the claim has a strong basis in fact, it shouldn't be hard to find a source/
Ok, can you explain how a person can find a source for a claim they have never seen? You seem to be suggesting that the person removing the claim from article is the one who should find a source for it. Sort of a disencentive to remove the claim, no?
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I am suggesting no such thing. It is up to a person who is making negative claims about a person to provide reliable sources for it.
We should not leave potentially defamatory claims on Wikipedia either in the articles or on talk pages where they are still accessible without sources. End of story.
Regards
Keith Old
On 8/19/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/18/06, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
If you put a message on the talk page to say that the article previously contained unsourced or poorly sourced negative comments about the person contrary to our policies and asking for such claims to have strong sources if they are made, most people would have enough brains to realise that that included claims about consorting with prostitutes.
"Guys, I have removed a potentially defamatory claim. Can someone find a good source for it?"
???
How about linking to the edit where you removed it? When someone paranoid goes in and removes that from the history, well, then we're screwed, but at least until then someone can figure out what the hell you're talking about.
Anthony
On 8/19/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
How about linking to the edit where you removed it? When someone paranoid goes in and removes that from the history, well, then we're screwed, but at least until then someone can figure out what the hell you're talking about.
Ok, so now we've moved from "I removed the bit where it claimed that John Smith slept with Mrs Robinson" to "I removed this defamatory claim - click here to see what it said".
Materially, what's changed?
Steve
On 8/19/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/19/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
How about linking to the edit where you removed it? When someone paranoid goes in and removes that from the history, well, then we're screwed, but at least until then someone can figure out what the hell you're talking about.
Ok, so now we've moved from "I removed the bit where it claimed that John Smith slept with Mrs Robinson" to "I removed this defamatory claim - click here to see what it said".
Materially, what's changed?
I'd phrase it as "I removed a possibly defamatory claim because it was unsourced [link to diff]". What's materially changed is that the claim is a bit more hidden, and probably more importantly, that the claim won't show up in a google search (as diff pages are under the robots exclusion).
It's also just cleaner and easier (IMO). Why copy/paste the claim when you can just link to it?
Anthony
G'day Anthony,
On 8/19/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, so now we've moved from "I removed the bit where it claimed that John Smith slept with Mrs Robinson" to "I removed this defamatory claim - click here to see what it said".
Materially, what's changed?
I'd phrase it as "I removed a possibly defamatory claim because it was unsourced [link to diff]". What's materially changed is that the claim is a bit more hidden, and probably more importantly, that the claim won't show up in a google search (as diff pages are under the robots exclusion).
It's also just cleaner and easier (IMO). Why copy/paste the claim when you can just link to it?
I don't say this to you often, Anthony, but: good show. I think you've hit the nail firmly on the head there.
Why *not* just explain what you've done and link to a diff? Easier for you, safer for us, for considerate for them.
On 8/20/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
I'd phrase it as "I removed a possibly defamatory claim because it was unsourced [link to diff]". What's materially changed is that the claim is a bit more hidden, and probably more importantly, that the claim won't show up in a google search (as diff pages are under the robots exclusion).
It's also just cleaner and easier (IMO). Why copy/paste the claim when you can just link to it?
I don't say this to you often, Anthony, but: good show. I think you've hit the nail firmly on the head there.
Why *not* just explain what you've done and link to a diff? Easier for you, safer for us, for considerate for them.
*Because* it's "a bit more hidden". At the end of the day, our talk pages are there to assist *us* in having a good discussion, to achieve our goals of neutrality, informativeness etc. A diff instead of the text hinders that. What if I removed 30 claims in one edit? How would I make it clear which one was the problem? I really do strongly believe that we should be looking at ways to make talk pages a more powerful tool where free, open discussion can take place, not looking at ways to censor them from search engines.
To ask again: Any reason talk pages should be searchable?
Steve
On 8/20/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I'd phrase it as "I removed a possibly defamatory claim because it was unsourced [link to diff]". What's materially changed is that the claim is a bit more hidden, and probably more importantly, that the claim won't show up in a google search (as diff pages are under the robots exclusion).
It's also just cleaner and easier (IMO). Why copy/paste the claim when you can just link to it?
If the goal is to get stuff out of google, why don't we just nospider the talk pages? Is there any reason to have them spidered?
Steve
On 8/21/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/20/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I'd phrase it as "I removed a possibly defamatory claim because it was unsourced [link to diff]". What's materially changed is that the claim is a bit more hidden, and probably more importantly, that the claim won't show up in a google search (as diff pages are under the robots exclusion).
It's also just cleaner and easier (IMO). Why copy/paste the claim when you can just link to it?
If the goal is to get stuff out of google, why don't we just nospider the talk pages? Is there any reason to have them spidered?
Having talk pages in google has advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage is that it makes it easier to search for things on talk pages, as Wikipedia's search facilities still kind of suck.
I'd be in favor of taking talk pages out of google, but I think it'd meet from resistance by others. It could also be argued that putting parts of Wikipedia under robots.txt constitutes "technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute" and violates the GFDL.
Anthony
On 8/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I'd be in favor of taking talk pages out of google, but I think it'd meet from resistance by others. It could also be argued that putting parts of Wikipedia under robots.txt constitutes "technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute" and violates the GFDL.
The talk pages aren't part of our GFDL product are they? God I hope not.
Steve
On 8/21/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
The talk pages aren't part of our GFDL product are they? God I hope not.
Steve
At the end of every page you will find:
This page was last modified ##:##, ## month ####. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
On 8/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
This page was last modified ##:##, ## month ####. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Heh, yeah. Though come to think of it, I really doubt anyone can enforce the terms of the GFDL on the originator of the material. If you reuse someone else's GFDL material then fail to respect the terms, that would be one thing. But if you create the (entirely original, underived) material, call it GFDL, then don't carry out the terms properly, I don't see how you can be held to account - it's your material, you can do whatever the bloody hell you want with it.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
This page was last modified ##:##, ## month ####. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Heh, yeah. Though come to think of it, I really doubt anyone can enforce the terms of the GFDL on the originator of the material. If you reuse someone else's GFDL material then fail to respect the terms, that would be one thing. But if you create the (entirely original, underived) material, call it GFDL, then don't carry out the terms properly, I don't see how you can be held to account - it's your material, you can do whatever the bloody hell you want with it.
The originator (and copyright holder) here is the Wikipedian who posted the comment, though, not the Wikimedia Foundation, so the Wikimedia Foundation does still need to respect the GFDL, since that's the license under which it has permission to use the material.
-Mark
Anthony wrote:
On 8/21/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
If the goal is to get stuff out of google, why don't we just nospider the talk pages? Is there any reason to have them spidered?
Having talk pages in google has advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage is that it makes it easier to search for things on talk pages, as Wikipedia's search facilities still kind of suck.
This sounds llike a damn good reason for fixing the search facilities.
I'd be in favor of taking talk pages out of google, but I think it'd meet from resistance by others. It could also be argued that putting parts of Wikipedia under robots.txt constitutes "technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute" and violates the GFDL.
I don't believe that the talk pages should be on Google at all. Most of what is there is thoroughly unverifiable rants. raves and speculation, or it's a parking place to question that sort of thing. Even if we can purge it of outright defamation, there would still remain stuff that we could not possibly recommend to an outsider as a reference. It's about as worthless as what would find on blogs and usenet. I don't think that talk pages should ever be viewed as anything more than our own internal technique for sorting things out.
Ec
On 8/21/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 8/21/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
If the goal is to get stuff out of google, why don't we just nospider the talk pages? Is there any reason to have them spidered?
Having talk pages in google has advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage is that it makes it easier to search for things on talk pages, as Wikipedia's search facilities still kind of suck.
This sounds llike a damn good reason for fixing the search facilities.
Are you volunteering?
If not, I think there are more important things to do first. If time and/or money were unlimited, of course...
Anthony
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:46:23 -0400, Sydney aka FloNight poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
Who put that in, and what do they say?
As far as I recall the comment about removing unsourced negative material from articles and talk pages came from Jimbo. The sense of it is, as others have pointed out, obvious.
Guy (JzG)