-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 09:46 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study
On 28/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
He's notable for his academic work. His personal life should be briefly mentioned if at all. "He divorced his wife in a messy court battle" (or however you say that neutrally). The details are not important to an article about him.
If it's something a reader would reasonably expect to be mentioned in an article, because it was a famous incident (even if it's rubbish), then it'll need to be mentioned in the article, because otherwise it'll be readded and readded and readded.
- d.
This is realistic, but accepts the premise that Wikipedia will always be second-rate, since "anyone can edit". And the premise that we cannot make and enforce policy with respect to regular editors.
Fred
On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:11 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
This is realistic, but accepts the premise that Wikipedia will always be second-rate, since "anyone can edit". And the premise that we cannot make and enforce policy with respect to regular editors.
I think you misunderstand the argument David is making here, which is along the lines of "if a reasonable person with knowledge of the topic of the article would be surprised to see something not mentioned, we should mention it."
-Phil
On 3/28/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:11 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
This is realistic, but accepts the premise that Wikipedia will always be second-rate, since "anyone can edit". And the premise that we cannot make and enforce policy with respect to regular editors.
I think you misunderstand the argument David is making here, which is along the lines of "if a reasonable person with knowledge of the topic of the article would be surprised to see something not mentioned, we should mention it."
-Phil
Ah the reasonable person. Can the man on the Clapham omnibus be far behind?
While as an aproach it has been shown to be kinda workable under some conditions on wikipedia rather lose things like that tend to just end up resulting in massively long arguments (see the Darwin-Lincon birthday issue).
On 28/03/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com]
On 28/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
He's notable for his academic work. His personal life should be briefly mentioned if at all. "He divorced his wife in a messy court battle" (or however you say that neutrally). The details are not important to an article about him.
If it's something a reader would reasonably expect to be mentioned in an article, because it was a famous incident (even if it's rubbish), then it'll need to be mentioned in the article, because otherwise it'll be readded and readded and readded.
This is realistic, but accepts the premise that Wikipedia will always be second-rate, since "anyone can edit". And the premise that we cannot make and enforce policy with respect to regular editors.
I'm somewhat conflating what should be in the article and practical management of the article. WP:BLP deals (or dealt) with an example like this - the messy stuff is noted only if it's notable in itself. If it is notable, it's notable, even if it's rubbish. This is problematic in cases like [[Peter Hollingworth]], of course. And the blind idiot worship of print sources in [[WP:RS]] doesn't help make us a better encyclopedia.
- d.
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:54:24 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
the blind idiot worship of print sources in [[WP:RS]] doesn't help make us a better encyclopedia.
That really helps move the debate along...
Actually I think the main thing which makes a reliable source reliable is having some kind of editorial review process and a bar to publication. That is to define a reliable source in the sense that a newspaper is a source - which is a valid definition as far as secondary sources go. we should draw, in the main, on secondary sources, because that is what an encyclopaedia, in the main, does.
Sometimes we also draw on primary sources. The benchmark here is not, in my view, reliability, but authority. If Joe Bloggs is an *authority* on mediaeval history, then it is valid to cite JoeBloggs.com in support of arcana in articles on mediaeval history. Probably. The problem is it might be [[Eric Lerner]], not Joe Bloggs - as non-experts it is very hard for us to tell the difference. So we fall back to requiring that most things be filtered through the editorial processes of dependable secondary sources, and that should work well enough.
This does not prevent us using non-traditional secondary sources, where they have processes in place which make them trustworthy. The BBC website has some excellent material, for example.
Do remember, though, that when we use primary sources we substitute our own judgment for editorial or peer review. That's fine as long as it's me making the call, because in the main I trust my own judgment, but what if it's that notorious POV-pusher David Gerard, who is well-known for trying to slipstream support for his seditious view that an open Wiki can provide a reliable and accurate distillation of human knowledge? This is nonsense, as any fule kno and surely we cannot allow such crypto-communist propaganda to infect the project. Or the reverse, depending on who's adding the content. "This is good because I said it's good and I know these things" is a dangerous argument on Wikipedia.
Guy (JzG)
On 28/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:54:24 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
the blind idiot worship of print sources in [[WP:RS]] doesn't help make us a better encyclopedia.
That really helps move the debate along...
I find it hard to describe it otherwise. Look at this thread. Tell me how anyone who's ever actually been written about could regard the press as the infallible source of reliability it's being painted as.
Sometimes we also draw on primary sources. The benchmark here is not, in my view, reliability, but authority. If Joe Bloggs is an *authority* on mediaeval history, then it is valid to cite JoeBloggs.com in support of arcana in articles on mediaeval history. Probably. The problem is it might be [[Eric Lerner]], not Joe Bloggs
- as non-experts it is very hard for us to tell the difference. So we
fall back to requiring that most things be filtered through the editorial processes of dependable secondary sources, and that should work well enough.
Yes. You can't legislate clue. But assuming all print sources are good and all blogs are bad is blind idiot worship of WP:RS.
Do remember, though, that when we use primary sources we substitute our own judgment for editorial or peer review. That's fine as long as it's me making the call, because in the main I trust my own judgment, but what if it's that notorious POV-pusher David Gerard, who is well-known for trying to slipstream support for his seditious view that an open Wiki can provide a reliable and accurate distillation of human knowledge? This is nonsense, as any fule kno and surely we cannot allow such crypto-communist propaganda to infect the project. Or the reverse, depending on who's adding the content. "This is good because I said it's good and I know these things" is a dangerous argument on Wikipedia.
Well, yeah. The trouble is there's no way to write a policy that legislates clue without running into edge cases that make you look stupid, e.g. [[Peter Hollingworth]].
- d.
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:10:16 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I find it hard to describe it otherwise. Look at this thread. Tell me how anyone who's ever actually been written about could regard the press as the infallible source of reliability it's being painted as.
The press? A bunch of dunces. They print all kinds of crap. But - if they print *bad* crap they have to pay Actual Money so they tend to be at least marginally careful. That is not the same as "print sources". Print sources also comprises books and scholarly journals. I hold some brief for scholarly journals, although these too are more than capable of showing chronic bias. The really bad ones, though, go bust.
Sometimes we also draw on primary sources. The benchmark here is not, in my view, reliability, but authority. If Joe Bloggs is an *authority* on mediaeval history, then it is valid to cite JoeBloggs.com in support of arcana in articles on mediaeval history. Probably. The problem is it might be [[Eric Lerner]], not Joe Bloggs
- as non-experts it is very hard for us to tell the difference. So we
fall back to requiring that most things be filtered through the editorial processes of dependable secondary sources, and that should work well enough.
Yes. You can't legislate clue. But assuming all print sources are good and all blogs are bad is blind idiot worship of WP:RS.
This is true. But let's not confuse the general and the specific. In general, print sources, tabloid newspapers aside, are more dependable than blogs. Once one gets to specifics, some blogs amount to authoritative primary sources, but are still primary sources. In some cases a blog can reflect the views of a single expert on a number of competing claims, and that can be attributed to that expert with some confidence, but we still have the question of how expert the expert is, and whether his personal biases are skewing his assessment.
Do remember, though, that when we use primary sources we substitute our own judgment for editorial or peer review. That's fine as long as it's me making the call, because in the main I trust my own judgment, but what if it's that notorious POV-pusher David Gerard, who is well-known for trying to slipstream support for his seditious view that an open Wiki can provide a reliable and accurate distillation of human knowledge? This is nonsense, as any fule kno and surely we cannot allow such crypto-communist propaganda to infect the project. Or the reverse, depending on who's adding the content. "This is good because I said it's good and I know these things" is a dangerous argument on Wikipedia.
Well, yeah. The trouble is there's no way to write a policy that legislates clue without running into edge cases that make you look stupid, e.g. [[Peter Hollingworth]].
Yup. So in the absence of the ability to legislate Clue, we keep the policy base to a minimum and exercise intelligence and judgment. In the absence of intelligence and judgment, we carefully and selectively engage those who are known to have Clue. This is called "running to Jimbo" :o)
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:10:16 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I find it hard to describe it otherwise. Look at this thread. Tell me how anyone who's ever actually been written about could regard the press as the infallible source of reliability it's being painted as.
The press? A bunch of dunces. They print all kinds of crap. But - if they print *bad* crap they have to pay Actual Money so they tend to be at least marginally careful.
Bloggers can also be sued for Actual Money. In the case of the Bauer lawsuit aren't the sources we're citing in the article also being targeted directly as well?
On 29/03/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:10:16 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I find it hard to describe it otherwise. Look at this thread. Tell me how anyone who's ever actually been written about could regard the press as the infallible source of reliability it's being painted as.
The press? A bunch of dunces. They print all kinds of crap. But - if they print *bad* crap they have to pay Actual Money so they tend to be at least marginally careful.
Bloggers can also be sued for Actual Money. In the case of the Bauer lawsuit aren't the sources we're citing in the article also being targeted directly as well?
Especially considering the blog in question is written by an Actual Editor of considerable experience.
Answering "this blog is not crap" with "lots of blogs are crap" is unconvincing as an argument.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Especially considering the blog in question is written by an Actual Editor of considerable experience.
Answering "this blog is not crap" with "lots of blogs are crap" is unconvincing as an argument.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Why did my case study get hijacked by another blog thread? The Smallville Gazette was not a blog.
on 3/28/07 8:19 PM, doc at doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Why did my case study get hijacked by another blog thread? The Smallville Gazette was not a blog.
VERY good question. Also, the very basic issue itself of including personal data in Articles.
Marc
On 3/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/03/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:10:16 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I find it hard to describe it otherwise. Look at this thread. Tell me how anyone who's ever actually been written about could regard the press as the infallible source of reliability it's being painted as.
The press? A bunch of dunces. They print all kinds of crap. But - if they print *bad* crap they have to pay Actual Money so they tend to be at least marginally careful.
Bloggers can also be sued for Actual Money. In the case of the Bauer lawsuit aren't the sources we're citing in the article also being targeted directly as well?
Especially considering the blog in question is written by an Actual Editor of considerable experience.
Answering "this blog is not crap" with "lots of blogs are crap" is unconvincing as an argument.
The problem is it might be [[Eric Lerner]], not Joe Bloggs
- as non-experts it is very hard for us to tell the difference. So we
fall back to requiring that most things be filtered through the editorial processes of dependable secondary sources, and that should work well enough.
In this case it's obvious the authors are experts on the subject and there's no doubt they are who they say they are. (The blog is directly linked to a website that is an authoritive source on the subject) Whatever these blog authors write is kept in check by the organization they work for. That to me sounds like editorial control.
Mgm
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:49:07 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Answering "this blog is not crap" with "lots of blogs are crap" is unconvincing as an argument.
Just as well I didn't, then.
It is, however, a primary source. Which secondary sources have picked this up?
Guy (JzG)
On 29/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:49:07 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Answering "this blog is not crap" with "lots of blogs are crap" is unconvincing as an argument.
Just as well I didn't, then.
No, though several people have.
It is, however, a primary source. Which secondary sources have picked this up?
Ya got a point there. I must note of course that not having an article on [[Barbara Bauer]] just yet is not a great loss to Wikipedia - being as it's an encyclopedia, not a newswire. (Perhaps someone could write it up for Wikinews ...) The example of [[Brian Peppers]] is instructive - after a year not existing, people realised "oh yeah ... this is a pretty crappy article on a really not very notable subject."
- d.
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:19:39 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Ya got a point there. I must note of course that not having an article on [[Barbara Bauer]] just yet is not a great loss to Wikipedia - being as it's an encyclopedia, not a newswire. (Perhaps someone could write it up for Wikinews ...) The example of [[Brian Peppers]] is instructive - after a year not existing, people realised "oh yeah ... this is a pretty crappy article on a really not very notable subject."
Just so. For values of "people" that may exclude a fair number of editors, some of whom are simply trolling but some of whom do have a real commitment to the project (Jeff Raymond for example). Now, I disagree with Jeff on pretty every deletion debate, but I can't deny that he is an asset to the project and not in any way evil or a troll.
Hence the problem. In both cases there is a small but significant group in whose judgment these subjects *are* notable, in the sense that they are the subject of significant external discussion among the "chattering classes". In some cases they view the removal of these articles as an indicator that either the notability guideline is wrong, or the sourcing guideline is wrong: in their view the subjects are self-evidently notable, so we should have guidelines which allow their inclusion.
Of course, this would be less of a problem if we could gain consensus for a more clueful living biographies policy, which specifically excludes those whose notability is founded solely on "noise and fury signifying nothing". However, this would open the doors to another war, on subjects such as [[Emmalina]] (which I would cheerfully delete and think the encyclopaedia better as a result, but that's another discussion).
So: how to resolve the tension between wanting to exclude biographies which serve no real purpose other than to propagate internet nonsense, and those which exist to *document* people for whom the internet nonsense has resulted in actual fame. I would turn that back to reliable secondary sources. If there are thoughtful profiles in journals (not just bits of flim-flam in the editorial or showbiz pages) then I would say we have a notable subject. If there are not, then we probably don't. And those journals can be published in paper or on the web, I have no opinion on that, as long as the commentary comes from people who are respected in their field, and has passed through a filter of basic fact-checking, however flawed, and editorial control or peer review.
Guy (JzG)