In a message dated 10/27/2008 9:29:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, snowspinner@gmail.com writes:
No. I want to take away the right for an editor to revert an edit for the sole reason that we can't verify the person's identity so what they say doesn't count. >>
--------------------- That isn't what occurred. What occurred was that the editor stated "I am this person and I say this" It's not whether we can verify who the editor is, it's whether we can verify that they are the subject. That's the issue. What was done in this case, is exactly what we should do, barring a way to verify the identify of a BLP subject. **************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics – check it out! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir= http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
On Oct 28, 2008, at 12:33 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
That isn't what occurred. What occurred was that the editor stated "I am this person and I say this" It's not whether we can verify who the editor is, it's whether we can verify that they are the subject.
You're still treating this as some sort of theoretical exercise as opposed to an article about a real person, and you're drawing inane technical distinctions that have little to no bearing on the real world. I would ask how "whether we can verify that they are the subject" is in any way a substantively different issue than "whether we can verify their identity," but I doubt I'd care about whatever bizarrely technical distinction you concocted.
We were informed about problems on a BLP. Instead of taking those problems seriously and looking at the article, we ignored them because we disliked how we were informed. This despite the fact that the problems were real, and that, contrary to your assertions, no sources backed up the claims. None. The film director claim was unsourced in the article, and nothing later in the article talked about the film he made. The McCluhan interpretation was unsourced and wrong.
The article sucked. We got a complaint. And because we disliked how the complaint was lodged, we ignored it. That is a case of process trumping outcome in the most toxic way imaginable, and no amount of bullshit technicalities change the basic fact that we actively chose to ignore a problem in a BLP - a problem that needed nothing more than cursory investigation from a user to identify.
-Phil
Snowspinner wrote:
I would ask how "whether we can verify that they are the subject" is in any way a substantively different issue than "whether we can verify their identity,"
But it doesn't even matter, does it? Our verifiability policies have always revolved around the verifiability (or lack thereof) of the facts we present. Since when do we care about authenticating the real-world identity of people who submit verified facts, or point out unverified facts?
We were informed about problems on a BLP. Instead of taking those problems seriously and looking at the article, we ignored them because we disliked how we were informed. This despite the fact that the problems were real, and that, contrary to your assertions, no sources backed up the claims.
So (naive question, I know) why has there been any debate here whatsoever? The de facto rule these days is that unsourced facts can and do get deleted at the drop of a hat. The de jure rule for BLP's (as I understand it) is that the impetus to remove unsourced facts is even higher. Why is anyone defending our failure to remove an unsourced false BLP fact?
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 28, 2008, at 12:33 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
You're still treating this as some sort of theoretical exercise as opposed to an article about a real person, and you're drawing inane technical distinctions that have little to no bearing on the real
[snip]
The article sucked. We got a complaint. And because we disliked how the complaint was lodged, we ignored it. That is a case of process trumping outcome in the most toxic way imaginable,
[snip]
Wikipedia is very complex to outsiders. Much of the complexity exists for good reasons or, at least, it exists where don't have obviously better solutions.
Because of the complexity, outsiders should have the benefit of an advocate when they come to Wikipedia. (Even if we don't know for sure who the person is, we could still investigate their complaints).
I think every Wikipedian should see being an advocate for the public as part of their 'job' on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it seems most see being a defender /against/ the public as a more important and mutually exclusive job.
I agree with Phil. We could have handled this better: We can't expect an outsider to know to claim "undo weight" vs "thats wrong!". We could have gotten better results if we listened and used that information to guide our search for verifiable information or if we communicated our limitations and concerns to the person complaining. Too often on Wikipedia does communication not extend beyond snarky comments in edit summaries.
Our mission in this regard is to provide accurate and neutral information. Verifiability, citations, NPOV, etc. are how we get there. Don't confuse the means with the ends.
I do think, and I hope the subject would agree, that this is a really minor case. But it's still an example where we performed poorly. The correct response it to think about how we could have done it better. Maybe we can't do it any better, but that doesn't justify denying the problem. It's still a problem even if we can't (yet) fix it.