Someone with an axe to grind keeps inserting POV stuff into http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Bradford and accusing anyone who makes any changes/reverts of being a 'liar'. Personally I've never even heard of Easter Bradford, but could somebody else cast an eye on this before I get drawn into an edit war about something I couldn't even care less about?
Cheers Graham
Graham Burnett grahamburnett@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:Someone with an axe to grind keeps inserting POV stuff into http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Bradford and accusing anyone who makes any changes/reverts of being a 'liar'. Personally I've never even heard of Easter Bradford, but could somebody else cast an eye on this before I get drawn into an edit war about something I couldn't even care less about?
Cheers Graham
Easter Bradford is a Wikipedia contributor, which is why I included his name in the discussion of whether Wikipedia contributors should be writing material about themselves.
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
Graham Burnett wrote:
Someone with an axe to grind keeps inserting POV stuff into http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Bradford and accusing anyone who makes any changes/reverts of being a 'liar'. Personally I've never even heard of Easter Bradford, but could somebody else cast an eye on this before I get drawn into an edit war about something I couldn't even care less about?
I would say that the bulk of that entry fails the confirmability test. It does appear that someone with an axe to grind is doubting the veracity of the information given, and without some independent sources, my feeling is that the article should be removed or at least cut back to a stub of confirmable information.
I just said the same thing on the talk page, and probably this discussion can just continue there, as there's not really a policy issue just yet. Policy nerds such as myself should take note of this as a good example for future discussions of people editing articles about themselves.
My general feeling is that it is almost always a social faux pas to write an article about yourself. It's nearly always a faux pas to even edit such an article, although if someone else wrote an entry about you (and I'm not talking about a buddy that you put up to it!) I suppose it wouldn't be horrible to step in and correct factual errors.
To me there's a certain unsavory braggadocio involved in proclaiming oneself to be worthy of an encyclopedia article.
--Jimbo
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
To me there's a certain unsavory braggadocio involved in proclaiming oneself to be worthy of an encyclopedia article.
Of course, one could argue that you're not relying on second-hand information.
Generally, though, I agree with you.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
I had thought about this in the sense that "as long as its factual - its ok" - Let everyone add anything factual, even if its about themselves, so that everyone in the world from now unto perpetuity who wants to can have an article about themselves.I dont think this fits the role of the encyclopedia, which seems to be successful, like all great works, by working within limits.
Recall Isis had her own article, in addition to her userpage -- it was excused for a while. In this case insetead of a professional resume with a nun pic it looks like a self-egratiating beginning of a bad idea. Is there a distinction being made as far as calber /rank in society, etc.. goes? It seems that there can legitimately be a rule that says you cant be both a contributor and a feature, but is this enforceable? Eugh.
-S-
--- Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
To me there's a certain unsavory braggadocio
involved in
proclaiming oneself to be worthy of an encyclopedia article.
Of course, one could argue that you're not relying on second-hand information.
Generally, though, I agree with you.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Steve Vertigo wrote:
Is there a distinction being made as far as calber /rank in society, etc.. goes?
I'm not sure what you mean here, so I'll answer 'yes' and 'no'.
"No", not in the sense that we're making any global existential comment on the value of any particular human life by including or excluding them. That's not something that Wikipedia can or should do.
But "yes" in the sense that by insisting that we stick to confirmable information, we do exclude a lot of true facts about individual people who happen to have not made a wide impact on the world. I could write a true biography of my grandmother, or a complete load of hogwash, and virtually no one could edit the article to correct factual errors, bias, etc.
So the point is that we aren't saying that making a wide impact on the world makes anyone more important or more valuable -- even if that's true, it isn't a claim for _Wikipedia_ to make. All we are saying is that we're constrained to be encyclopedic, which means, in part, that all of our information is confirmable.
It seems that there can legitimately be a rule that says you cant be both a contributor and a feature, but is this enforceable?
I think that having such a rule as a general social custom is a good idea, but in terms of having it as a formal policy, I don't think so.
One reason is that I can easily imagine that lots of people who do or might work on Wikipedia are worthy of a biographical entry. Anyone who has published a book could ostensibly be worthy of a biographical entry based on that fact alone.
Some current good friends of Wikipedia *are* famous people, worthy of articles... For example, suppose Richard Stallman drops by to clarify a page on the gnu project or the free software foundation? Suppose Larry Lessig wants to work on an article about the history of copyright law? We should welcome that, and not decide to delete the encyclopedia articles about them on that basis alone.
In the year in the future when I win both the Nobel Peace Prize and the Grammy for my a capella lipsynched rendition of old Milli Vanilli classics, I will permit an article about me.
--Jimbo
"Benevolent dictator" Jimbo wrote: In the year in the future when I win both the Nobel Peace Prize and the Grammy for my a capella lipsynched rendition of old Milli Vanilli classics, I will permit an article about me.
--Jimbo
We all eagerly await the day.
;) -S-
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Steve Vertigo wrote:
"Benevolent dictator" Jimbo wrote: In the year in the future when I win both the Nobel Peace Prize and the Grammy for my a capella lipsynched rendition of old Milli Vanilli classics, I will permit an article about me.
--Jimbo
We all eagerly await the day.
;)
A video of the lipsynched rendition will need to be appended to the article. :-)
Ec
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
In the year in the future when I win both the Nobel Peace Prize and the Grammy for my a capella lipsynched rendition of old Milli Vanilli classics, I will permit an article about me.
--Jimbo
Even if you were just CEO of Bomis and Wikipedia was started by someone else, you'd still deserve an article. But as head of a giant free encyclopedia project, the biggest and most useful wiki in existance, you definately deserve one. There are already stubs about you in other langauages, such as polish. Why can't these accomplishments be enough? -LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
At 09:41 AM 8/10/2003, you wrote:
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
In the year in the future when I win both the Nobel Peace Prize and the Grammy for my a capella lipsynched rendition of old Milli Vanilli classics, I will permit an article about me.
--Jimbo
Even if you were just CEO of Bomis and Wikipedia was started by someone else, you'd still deserve an article. But as head of a giant free encyclopedia project, the biggest and most useful wiki in existance, you definately deserve one. There are already stubs about you in other langauages, such as polish. Why can't these accomplishments be enough? -LittleDan
The irony here is that Jimbo can't really /prevent/ us from creating an article about him without using a bit of heavy-handed dictatorial power (which he usually seems loath to do).
So, it would seem, that if enough of us think there ought to be an article about him, his "permission" would be hardly necessary. :)
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
Well I oly know that I wouldnt like it if people talked about me in the third person on an open list -- especially if the comments were embarrasingly complimentary.
:) -S-
--- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com wrote:
At 09:41 AM 8/10/2003, you wrote:
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
In the year in the future when I win both the
Nobel
Peace Prize and the Grammy for my a capella lipsynched rendition
of
old Milli Vanilli classics, I will permit an article about me.
--Jimbo
Even if you were just CEO of Bomis and Wikipedia
was
started by someone else, you'd still deserve an article. But as head of a giant free encyclopedia project, the biggest and most useful wiki in existance, you definately deserve one. There are already stubs about you in other langauages, such
as
polish. Why can't these accomplishments be enough? -LittleDan
The irony here is that Jimbo can't really /prevent/ us from creating an article about him without using a bit of heavy-handed dictatorial power (which he usually seems loath to do).
So, it would seem, that if enough of us think there ought to be an article about him, his "permission" would be hardly necessary. :)
Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Even if you were just CEO of Bomis and Wikipedia was started by someone else, you'd still deserve an article. But as head of a giant free encyclopedia project, the biggest and most useful wiki in existance, you definately deserve one. There are already stubs about you in other langauages, such as polish. Why can't these accomplishments be enough?
I'm not comfortable saying whether or not an article about me would, under other circumstances, be appropriate. I got my picture in the New York Times, so I guess so.
But I'd like to set what I think is a good example of modesty about such things.
--Jimbo