On 20 Apr 2007 at 20:42:24 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
{{fact}}. Put together a listing of these biographies, publicize it, and if they really are so egregiously libelous I expect editors would start swarming all over them like rabid deletionist weasels.
I've been keeping a list of the various squabbles, skirmishes, kerfluffles, etc., that have occurred when Wikipedia articles and their subjects were at cross purposes for some reason. They exhibit various degrees of reasonability and unreasonability both on the part of what was published on Wikipedia and what reaction the subject had to it.
http://dan.tobias.name/controversies/cyber/wiki.html
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 20 Apr 2007 at 20:42:24 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
{{fact}}. Put together a listing of these biographies, publicize it, and if they really are so egregiously libelous I expect editors would start swarming all over them like rabid deletionist weasels.
I've been keeping a list of the various squabbles, skirmishes, kerfluffles, etc., that have occurred when Wikipedia articles and their subjects were at cross purposes for some reason. They exhibit various degrees of reasonability and unreasonability both on the part of what was published on Wikipedia and what reaction the subject had to it.
That's a nice little collection there. It's pushing midnight so I can't do an exhaustive examination but the random ones I've sampled so far look like they've come to what I'd call good conclusions - most of them simply resulting in heavily referenced and cleaned-up articles, but including at least one so far where the subject of a biography said "I'm non-notable, delete me!" and the resulting AfD concluded "he's right you know." So it does happen sometimes. :)
On 4/20/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
I've been keeping a list of the various squabbles, skirmishes, kerfluffles, etc., that have occurred when Wikipedia articles and their subjects were at cross purposes for some reason. They exhibit various degrees of reasonability and unreasonability both on the part of what was published on Wikipedia and what reaction the subject had to it.
Interesting list. What I think is most of the time the case is that, once the Wikipedia process latches on to an article, things more often than not end up being handled pretty well.
The problem is worst when (1) nobody really watches the article in question, and thus nobody notices libellous allegations; or (2) when there are fanatical POV-pushers who are determined to keep an article in a damaging form; or finally (3) when the allegations are actually true and sourceable in reliable sources.
(any more problematic cases?)
For (1), better, perhaps more automated, procedures may help.
For (2), we perhaps need to have quicker ways of ceasing such problematic behavior.
For (3), that's a little trickier. Then we get into issues of relevance, NPOV, and undue weight. However, I believe that having undesirable truths in a Wikipedia article is MUCH less damaging than falsehood.
-Matt