-----Original Message----- From: Steve Bennett [mailto:stevagewp@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 06:15 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Getting hammered in a tv interview is not fun
On 3/29/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I hope the horse I am beating is still alive: we have to be absolutely ruthless about removing "I think I heard it somewhere" pseudo-information from Wikipedia, and especially from biographies.
This is a step up from what you have previously requested, namely that we must be ruthless about removing *harmful* unsourced information from biographies.
Which of these statements most closely matches what you want us to do:
- Remove all unsourced[1] material from all articles
- Remove all unsourced material from all biographies, and unsourced
harmful material from all articles 3) Remove all unsourced harmful or slightly dubious sounding material from biographies and other articles 4) Remove all unsourced harmful or extremely dubious sounding material from biographies, and unsourced harmful material from other articles ...etc.
If the claim made was not harmful (as I don't believe a fictitious family member normally is), and was not implausible (I wouldn't have known), then why would we have removed it? How would we have known?
Steve [1] I don't even know how we determine if a claim is sourced, short of tracking down and reading every source mentioned on the page and looking for it.
If the information does not have a specific source attached to it such as a page in a book or the equivalent, it is unsourced. You are not obligated to read whole books when no page is given. The priority needs to go to 4) Remove all unsourced harmful or extremely dubious sounding material
from biographies, and unsourced harmful material from other articles and probably extends to removing such material when that is all that is in the article, even if it is sourced.
Fred
On 3/29/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
If the information does not have a specific source attached to it such as a page in a book or the equivalent, it is unsourced. You are not obligated to read whole books when no page is given. The priority needs to go to 4) Remove all unsourced harmful or extremely dubious sounding material
from biographies, and unsourced harmful material from other articles and probably extends to removing such material when that is all that is in the article, even if it is sourced.
The problem with living bios goes beyond unsourced material. Everything in a bio could be sourced and it might still be an unfair portrait of the person. Then there's the problem of Wikpedia editors hunting down every tiny bit of published material from decades ago, thereby reviving stories that were long dead, or posting something that was published only in a local newspaper, thereby turning it into an international story.
But if you try to remove material like that from a bio, or delete a bio entirely because it's inherently unfair, a great hue and cry goes up about censorship, and a revert war begins.
Sarah
On 3/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/29/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
If the information does not have a specific source attached to it such
as a page in a book or the equivalent, it is unsourced. You are not obligated to read whole books when no page is given. The priority needs to go to 4) Remove all unsourced harmful or extremely dubious sounding material
from biographies, and unsourced harmful material from other articles
and probably extends to removing such material when that is all that is in the article, even if it is sourced.
The problem with living bios goes beyond unsourced material. Everything in a bio could be sourced and it might still be an unfair portrait of the person. Then there's the problem of Wikpedia editors hunting down every tiny bit of published material from decades ago, thereby reviving stories that were long dead, or posting something that was published only in a local newspaper, thereby turning it into an international story.
But if you try to remove material like that from a bio, or delete a bio entirely because it's inherently unfair, a great hue and cry goes up about censorship, and a revert war begins.
Sarah
In that case we should find some way to attach a different weight to material that some consider unfair. Material from international sources over national sources which in turn are more weighty than local sources. People tend to give more attention to controversy and accusations, which unless that's what a person is primarily known for, should be kept to a reasonable size within the article.
Mgm
On 3/30/07 1:24 AM, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
People tend to give more attention to controversy and accusations, which unless that's what a person is primarily known for, should be kept to a reasonable size within the article.
They should be omitted entirely unless that "controversy and accusations" can be shown to have a reasonable basis in fact or public interest, or that controversy is what the person is primarily known for. It is far too easy to create "controversy and accusations."
Example: If geology professor Jon Dough is accused of adultery in divorce papers, does that fact belong in his Wikipedia article? What does it add to our knowledge of Dr. Dough's work in geology? What does it add to our knowledge of the universe that some geologist's wife accused him of sleeping around, and thus wants Splitsville?
The answer, of course, is nothing. It's not relevant to his life and work as a geologist and there's no public interest in what his wife said in a court document in yet another divorce case.
It might be an accusation and it might be "controversial," but should we be in the business of simply repeating every single accusation ever made about every person? Is that really a "biography" or is it simply a scandal sheet?
-Travis Mason-Bushman
That was exactly my point. If someone is primarily known as a geologist, their sex life has no relevance to the article.
On 3/30/07, Travis Mason-Bushman travis@gpsports-eng.com wrote:
On 3/30/07 1:24 AM, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
People tend to give more attention to controversy and accusations, which unless that's what a person is primarily known for, should be kept to a
reasonable
size within the article.
They should be omitted entirely unless that "controversy and accusations" can be shown to have a reasonable basis in fact or public interest, or that controversy is what the person is primarily known for. It is far too easy to create "controversy and accusations."
Example: If geology professor Jon Dough is accused of adultery in divorce papers, does that fact belong in his Wikipedia article? What does it add to our knowledge of Dr. Dough's work in geology? What does it add to our knowledge of the universe that some geologist's wife accused him of sleeping around, and thus wants Splitsville?
The answer, of course, is nothing. It's not relevant to his life and work as a geologist and there's no public interest in what his wife said in a court document in yet another divorce case.
It might be an accusation and it might be "controversial," but should we be in the business of simply repeating every single accusation ever made about every person? Is that really a "biography" or is it simply a scandal sheet?
-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
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
That was exactly my point. If someone is primarily known as a geologist, their sex life has no relevance to the article.
So the FA on Isaac Newton shouldn't be saying anything about who he dated when he was young, and the FA on Charles Darwin shouldn't say anything about how he weighed the reasons to get married? On the contrary, the personal lives of famous scientists have always been interesting to historians, and they've spent many hours in parish registers and city archives to get the particulars.
Now this is an area where only using secondary sources serves us well, because that is where we get the assessment that says that A's turbulent marriage led to meeting collaborator B, while C's divorce may have been messy, but there is no observable impact on career, so we just note that it occurred, and don't bother to go further into the details.
Stan
on 3/30/07 10:21 AM, Stan Shebs at stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
On the contrary, the personal lives of famous scientists have always been interesting to historians, and they've spent many hours in parish registers and city archives to get the particulars.
Parish registers and city archives will only give you the what. The problems begin when amateur psychologists try to come up with the why.
Marc Riddell
On 3/30/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/30/07 10:21 AM, Stan Shebs at stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
On the contrary, the personal lives of famous scientists have always been interesting to historians, and they've spent many hours in parish registers and city archives to get the particulars.
Parish registers and city archives will only give you the what. The problems begin when amateur psychologists try to come up with the why.
I just hate it when amateurs get involved with things.
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 3/30/07 10:21 AM, Stan Shebs at stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
On the contrary, the personal lives of famous scientists have always been interesting to historians, and they've spent many hours in parish registers and city archives to get the particulars.
Parish registers and city archives will only give you the what. The problems begin when amateur psychologists try to come up with the why.
On the other hand, if a deceased subject was also a writer details in the registers and archives could be useful to someone trying to track down whom to ask for permission to use copyrighted material.
Ec