First post to the mailing list... I have been happily editing for a couple of years without incident, but I had a situation this week that prompted me to get some additional feedback.
I have been working a lot on controversial biographies of living people this year, because it seems like an emerging area of policy: people like [[Daniel Brandt]] who don't want articles, people like [[Paul Barresi]] whose biography was culled down in a [[WP:OFFICE]] action, and critics of the project like [[Warren Boroson]]. I personally feel that our response in these situations needs to be clear and empathetic, and show what Wikipedia can be when at its best. Mr. Barresi, for instance, went from calling me a bitch to telling me today he owed me flowers. I consider that a victory for Wikipedia, and evidence that the office policy is not "censorship," but a stop-gap measure while an article gets back on track.
Having said that, I started editing a biography this week that led to a troubling series of events. The article in question, [[Xeni Jardin]], is about a blogger for [[Boing Boing]]. I did not know who she was when I started editing, but I saw that there was a lot of controversy about inclusion of a "Criticism" section, including a "xenisucks.com" site. I commented on the talk page that the hate site (as it had been aptly described by others) seemed neither notable nor reliable. I did not remove it, but I suggested we should discuss if it should be removed.
The owner of xenisucks.com immediately wrote two entries about me:
http://xenisucks.com/index.php?entry=entry060501-065920 http://xenisucks.com/index.php?entry=entry060501-095418
The people who added and and then voted to keep the "Criticism" section are mainly new editors with fewer than 100 edits, with most if not all edits on the Xeni Jardin article. They began linking the blog entries above on the Talk page to make sure I saw them, and eventually someone claiming to be the author of xenisucks.com opened a Wikipedia account (Mnsharp) and started commenting on the talk page.
Now, there's nothing in those entries I haven't heard, oh, about a million times, but it seems to violate the spirit of Wikipedia for this person to be having a running commentary of that tone and then coming on Wikipedia and making further comments here, referring to those links but within the letter of the law in terms of [[WP:CIVIL]]. This editor also has recruited several more new editors this week to take up the cause on the Xeni Jardin page, to the point it got protected after another longtime editor had the same issue with the Criticism section, and actually removed it, which sparked an edit war.
Had I known what I was walking into, I wouldn't have been as heavy-handed in making sure every statement had a citation, but the criticism section as it stood had a lot of weasel words about "critics comment on her appearance," or "critics say she's an irresponsible journalist." When I asked for citations, most were from xenisucks.com.
So, this brings up several interesting issues:
1. Is a "____sucks.com" blog a notable or reliable source? 2. If an editor is engaging in vicious personal attacks offsite, then coming here and demanding civility, is that a violation of the letter and/or spirit of the project? 3. Are "criticism" sections valid in general, or do they just become a repository for quibbles and an amplifier of relatively insignificant hatecruft about a person? 4. If they are valid, do blogs count as notable or reliable sources? What if they are anonymous? Are there criteria in place for determining this? 5. Should we formulate a guideline regarding living persons and this kind of criticism in their biographies?
I have worked on biographies of Nazis, conspiracy nuts, politicians, racists, porn stars, etc., and I have never run into this kind of hostility, where someone as tangentially related to the article's subject as I am gets attacked like this by a Wikipedia editor (albeit offsite). It seems to be part of the petty "gotcha" mentality of the blog subculture, which is probably why I don't read blogs. The question is, how do we keep the negative parts of that from creeping into the Wikipedia culture, especially as it pertains to biographies of living people?
Jokestress (at gmail)
"You're no one till somebody hates you." -- Snake River Conspiracy
"A" wrote
<snip>
So, this brings up several interesting issues:
- Is a "____sucks.com" blog a notable or reliable source?
The onus is on those who say a blog _is_ a reliable source, to back that up.
- If an editor is engaging in vicious personal attacks offsite, then
coming here and demanding civility, is that a violation of the letter and/or spirit of the project?
Everyone can expect civility on Wikipedia.
- Are "criticism" sections valid in general, or do they just become a
repository for quibbles and an amplifier of relatively insignificant hatecruft about a person?
They are a way of dealing with controversy, and not letting it colour the whole piece. They are subject to NPOV and sourcing policies. Also a 'de minimis', I'd say. No reason for WP to get into kicking a dog once.
- If they are valid, do blogs count as notable or reliable sources?
What if they are anonymous? Are there criteria in place for determining this?
See 1: the default is 'no'. If blogs are sourced, the sources are better taken directly.
- Should we formulate a guideline regarding living persons and this
kind of criticism in their biographies?
There is a living persons biog guideline. In short it says we err on the side of understatement.
Charles
On May 5, 2006, at 11:06 PM, A wrote:
- Is a "____sucks.com" blog a notable or reliable source?
I would say it depends on its content and readership. It might be, but you have to take a look at it. In this case there seems to be substantial readership and contents could probably be used in the context. "Hostile critics, writing on ...sucks point out blah blah." In some cases sites like this may engage in serious research which can lead you to reliable verifiable material. (For example Xenu.net, an anti-Scientology site).
- If an editor is engaging in vicious personal attacks offsite, then
coming here and demanding civility, is that a violation of the letter and/or spirit of the project?
All users are entitled to the assumption of good faith and to courtesy regardless of off-site activity.
- Are "criticism" sections valid in general, or do they just become a
repository for quibbles and an amplifier of relatively insignificant hatecruft about a person?
In general they are valid, however in cases where there is political or social struggle in progress, criticism can transgress bounds of verifiability, rationality and good taste, sometimes simply being mean or spiteful, sometimes reflecting personal grievances.
- If they are valid, do blogs count as notable or reliable sources?
What if they are anonymous? Are there criteria in place for determining this?
Generally not for facts; they are a source regarding their own contents. The criteria in place is our requirement that for material to be included in Wikipedia it must have been published in a reliable source.
- Should we formulate a guideline regarding living persons and this
kind of criticism in their biographies?
We have a guideline Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which includes a section on Malicious editing and another on Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors. This guideline could be further refined. Your experience somewhat qualities you to at least begin discussions on the talk page.
I hope these responses are a start on some answers.
Fred
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
- Is a "____sucks.com" blog a notable or reliable source?
I would say it depends on its content and readership. It might be, but you have to take a look at it. In this case there seems to be substantial readership and contents could probably be used in the context. "Hostile critics, writing on ...sucks point out blah blah." In some cases sites like this may engage in serious research which can lead you to reliable verifiable material. (For example Xenu.net, an anti-Scientology site).
I assume you want to inject some "ignore all rules here", as [[WP:V]] quite clearly states:
Self-published sources
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so.
We all like [[Space opera in Scientology doctrine]], but if its only source would be xenu.net, it would have been deleted.
Regards, Peter Jacobi [[User:Pjacobi]]
On 5/6/06, A jokestress@gmail.com wrote:
- Are "criticism" sections valid in general, or do they just become a
repository for quibbles and an amplifier of relatively insignificant hatecruft about a person?
They are not only valid, in many cases they are necessary. Wikipedia is not Wikinfo, writing from a "sympathetic point of view". I hope that nobody would argue that we should have an article about [[Ann Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Uri Geller]], or [[Alexander Lukashenko]] that does not include criticism. Important public and political figures in particular may affect, through their action or inaction, an entire society. To not describe the reaction in encyclopedic terms, or worse, to only describe one side of the reaction, completely undermines the purpose of an encyclopedia.
However, a simple fact is that often, the critics are few, disgruntled individuals, and the subjects of the biography are little known outside a particular circle of people. When "criticism" becomes synonymous to "people who don't like me on MySpace", it leaves the realm of encyclopedic interest. In addition to the number and notability of the critics, we should examine the substance of their claims. Do they actually qualify as criticism under any reasonable definition? Is a reader served by having this information?
The existing guidelines strike me as sufficient to deal with the issue on a case by case basis. But trying to get everyone in Wikipedia to send us flowers (not saying you are) would be as dangerous as an "anything goes" policy.
Erik
On 5/6/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/06, A jokestress@gmail.com wrote:
- Are "criticism" sections valid in general, or do they just become a
repository for quibbles and an amplifier of relatively insignificant hatecruft about a person?
They are not only valid, in many cases they are necessary. Wikipedia is not Wikinfo, writing from a "sympathetic point of view". I hope that nobody would argue that we should have an article about [[Ann Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Uri Geller]], or [[Alexander Lukashenko]] that does not include criticism. Important public and political figures in particular may affect, through their action or inaction, an entire society. To not describe the reaction in encyclopedic terms, or worse, to only describe one side of the reaction, completely undermines the purpose of an encyclopedia.
Criticism should certainly be part of an article, but I've always found it poor writing style to put it in its own section.
Anthony
On 5/7/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Criticism should certainly be part of an article, but I've always found it poor writing style to put it in its own section.
I think it depends on the subject of the article. When talking about borderline dictators, for example, I find it works quite well in its own section. You describe the person's life, achievements, invasions etc, building a fairly positive image of the person. Then the criticism section might go "However, Bloggs has frequently been criticised, especially in the United States, where he is seen as a dictator...." As a reader, I find this style much more palatable - you're not caught up with the "yes he is, no he's not" all the way through, where every sentence has been hacked together by supporters and detractors.
On the other hand, a genuinely controversial character like Michael Moore, doesn't need this treatment. His controversy is his career. Pretty much everything he has done had an immediate critical response, which he was aware of and probably responded to, so it makes more sense to put those criticisms in the body of the article.
Do I have any supporters on this? :)
Steve
On 5/7/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/7/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Criticism should certainly be part of an article, but I've always found it poor writing style to put it in its own section.
I think it depends on the subject of the article. When talking about borderline dictators, for example, I find it works quite well in its own section. You describe the person's life, achievements, invasions etc, building a fairly positive image of the person. Then the criticism section might go "However, Bloggs has frequently been criticised, especially in the United States, where he is seen as a dictator...." As a reader, I find this style much more palatable - you're not caught up with the "yes he is, no he's not" all the way through, where every sentence has been hacked together by supporters and detractors.
You know, when you put it that way, I'm not sure the criticism itself is even useful. Shouldn't it be enough to state the facts, and let someone decide for themselves whether or not the person is a dictator? "X has been frequently criticised" is a statement I think we should avoid. Quoting prominent figures is fine, mentioning rallys and other organized protests is OK. But just taking a general sentiment and applying it to a country, for instance, is not appropriate in my book (unless you can cite a poll I'd even say it amounts to non-verifiable/original research).
On the other hand, a genuinely controversial character like Michael Moore, doesn't need this treatment. His controversy is his career. Pretty much everything he has done had an immediate critical response, which he was aware of and probably responded to, so it makes more sense to put those criticisms in the body of the article.
Do I have any supporters on this? :)
Steve
On 5/7/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
You know, when you put it that way, I'm not sure the criticism itself is even useful. Shouldn't it be enough to state the facts, and let someone decide for themselves whether or not the person is a dictator? "X has been frequently criticised" is a statement I think we should avoid. Quoting prominent figures is fine, mentioning rallys and other organized protests is OK. But just taking a general sentiment and applying it to a country, for instance, is not appropriate in my book (unless you can cite a poll I'd even say it amounts to non-verifiable/original research).
Agree. I was thinking in terms of quotes from the US Secretary of State or something. Not just "Lots of Americans hate X" :)
Steve
On May 7, 2006, at 1:14 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/7/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Criticism should certainly be part of an article, but I've always found it poor writing style to put it in its own section.
I think it depends on the subject of the article. When talking about borderline dictators, for example, I find it works quite well in its own section. You describe the person's life, achievements, invasions etc, building a fairly positive image of the person. Then the criticism section might go "However, Bloggs has frequently been criticised, especially in the United States, where he is seen as a dictator...." As a reader, I find this style much more palatable - you're not caught up with the "yes he is, no he's not" all the way through, where every sentence has been hacked together by supporters and detractors.
On the other hand, a genuinely controversial character like Michael Moore, doesn't need this treatment. His controversy is his career. Pretty much everything he has done had an immediate critical response, which he was aware of and probably responded to, so it makes more sense to put those criticisms in the body of the article.
Do I have any supporters on this? :)
Indeed. Very insightful analysis.
On 5/6/06, A jokestress@gmail.com wrote:
Having said that, I started editing a biography this week that led to a troubling series of events. The article in question, [[Xeni Jardin]], is about a blogger for [[Boing Boing]]. I did not know who she was when I started editing, but I saw that there was a lot of controversy about inclusion of a "Criticism" section, including a "xenisucks.com" site.
Hi Jokestress, that blog is not a reliable source within the terms of the policies. Blogs may only be used as primary sources about the author of the blog. To be used as third-party sources about any other topic, the blogger has to be a widely known and acknowledged expert in the area he's commenting on. For this kind of anonymous or quasi-anonymous gossip, a blog is never acceptable. We err on the side of caution when writing living biographies.
Sarah
I agree with SM.
In reading the article, I see that the featured critics are (a) not notable, (b) not significant, and (b) they are just people that don't particularly like this person's journalistic style. Had the criticism been reported in mainstream media, or other third reputable third party, that would have been a different situation. Blogs and personal homepages are not reliable sources as primary sources as per [[WP:RS]] .
-- Jossi
On May 6, 2006, at 6:07 PM, slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/06, A jokestress@gmail.com wrote:
Having said that, I started editing a biography this week that led to a troubling series of events. The article in question, [[Xeni Jardin]], is about a blogger for [[Boing Boing]]. I did not know who she was when I started editing, but I saw that there was a lot of controversy about inclusion of a "Criticism" section, including a "xenisucks.com" site.
Hi Jokestress, that blog is not a reliable source within the terms of the policies. Blogs may only be used as primary sources about the author of the blog. To be used as third-party sources about any other topic, the blogger has to be a widely known and acknowledged expert in the area he's commenting on. For this kind of anonymous or quasi-anonymous gossip, a blog is never acceptable. We err on the side of caution when writing living biographies.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
See a pertinent discussion about an extension to [[WP:NPA]] now under a poll for consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Poll:_Off-wiki_Personal_Attacks
The new extension is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPA#Off- wiki_personal_attacks
-- Jossi
On May 5, 2006, at 10:06 PM, A wrote:
- If an editor is engaging in vicious personal attacks offsite, then
coming here and demanding civility, is that a violation of the letter and/or spirit of the project?
A wrote:
- Is a "____sucks.com" blog a notable or reliable source?
Usually not. In a case like this, some mention would seem to be in order since the site was mentioned in the New York Times, but the actual reference in this case is the New York Times itself, not the blog. Merely being mentioned in the New York Times does not license them to insert whatever random lunacy they may choose to print in their blog, into wikipedia as "critics say..."
- If an editor is engaging in vicious personal attacks offsite, then
coming here and demanding civility, is that a violation of the letter and/or spirit of the project?
Absolutely. The distinction between on-wiki and off-wiki (or on-project and off-project) behavior is one we should be careful about, but in general, the standard is not some rationalistic nonsense but rather simple good judgment about when someone is behaving badly and disrupting our work or not.
- Are "criticism" sections valid in general, or do they just become a
repository for quibbles and an amplifier of relatively insignificant hatecruft about a person?
Often they are necessary and important, I think. But they are also a magnet for trolls.
- If they are valid, do blogs count as notable or reliable sources?
What if they are anonymous? Are there criteria in place for determining this?
Tough call, but editorial judgment of good editors should prevail. What I mean is: just because some troll tries to reinsert hate speech over and over again, citing some blog as an excuse, well, not good enough.
- Should we formulate a guideline regarding living persons and this
kind of criticism in their biographies?
WP:LIVING is a decent start, although it needs some attention I think so that we can bring it up to the standard of a full policy.
On May 7, 2006, at 12:44 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
WP:LIVING is a decent start, although it needs some attention I think so that we can bring it up to the standard of a full policy.
This is an excellent idea, Jimmmy. I will get started in drawing the attention of the community to this, and start the process of reviewing and eventually bringing [[WP:LIVING]] to policy status.
-- Jossi [[User:Jossi]]
On 5/8/06, jf_wikipedia@mac.com jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
On May 7, 2006, at 12:44 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
WP:LIVING is a decent start, although it needs some attention I think so that we can bring it up to the standard of a full policy.
This is an excellent idea, Jimmmy. I will get started in drawing the attention of the community to this, and start the process of reviewing and eventually bringing [[WP:LIVING]] to policy status.
-- Jossi [[User:Jossi]]
Very little of WP:LIVING is sutiple policy and most of the stuff that is is already covered by exting policies.
-- geni
A-11 wrote:
- Are "criticism" sections valid in general, or do they just become a
repository for quibbles and an amplifier of relatively insignificant hatecruft about a person?
Our article should reflect reality: the principle of "least astonishment" applies. So if a reader discovers references to some person in a wildly critical blog, they should be able to come to Wikipedia and discover that, yes, this person is subject to such criticism, but that the source is such-an-such a blog and as such not necessarily reliable.
Arriving at our article and failing to discover any such mention might prompt them to wonder whether the article is strictly accurate (with good reason); if they are sufficiently paranoid they might suspect that the "truth" is being suppressed and we all know that such suspicions lead to sweaty palms and hot-headed edit wars.
4. If they are valid, do blogs count as notable or reliable sources?
What if they are anonymous? Are there criteria in place for determining this?
Our usual take on blogs is that they are reliable sources as to their own existence and subject matter and very little else.
There are notable exceptions: there is a chap on LiveJournal for example who posts extremely knowledgeable and insightful commentaries on Legal Decisions in the US Court System; he is widely regarded as one of the best such commentators available and the fact that he uses the excellent facilities provided by LJ should not detract from that.
HTH HAND