G'day Steve,
In the context of WP:OFFICE, as well as more recently, Jimbo and others have written somethings about "hurt feelings," as if it was a policy ( WP:CODDLE maybe) which could circumvent even important policy ( WP:NPOV maybe). Could you explain this?
We take a generally lax view towards rumour-mongering on Wikipedia. This is partly due to the CWE[0] (witness, for instance, the users who've decided that since {{fact}}[1] exists, nothing, however idiotic, may be removed from an article as untrue); partly due to Wikipedia's perceived "anything goes" values (something to do, I believe, with "anyone can edit" and anti-elitism); and partly because Wikipedia is so damned big that a poor edit (e.g. Siegenthaler[2]) can go for some time unnoticed, if placed in the wrong spot.
The new(ish) emphasis on the biographies of living persons is there to acknowledge that, while we should strive for top-notch articles on any subject, a poor article about a person who is alive today and capable of being affected by the content of the article is particularly damaging, and cleaning up such an article should be a higher priority.
Another problem is the famous Wikipedia "Fuck You" Response, wherein a person with a complaint about the content of their article is told where to go, not because their complaints are groundless, but because We Shall Publish What We Like And To Hell With You. If certain editors need to be reminded that such a response is immature, offensive, and potentially dangerous, then I see no problem with doing so.
I agree with the idea of treating bios with care, but that does not necessarily necessitate the use of an entirely different methodology than any other wiki page - including censoring talk pages. You may as well start a biowiki that operates under entirely different rules.
BLP at its best (I'm not saying there isn't any instruction creep and CWE cruft appearing at the edges) is not about establishing a double standard. It's about making damn sure the standards we should be applying to other sections of the encyclopaedia as well are followed on the biographies of living persons.
Untrue statements should not be published in our encyclopaedia. Since the project is so big (and we have contributors who are misinformed, stupid, or just plain malicious), problems are unavoidable. By being strict about the biographies of living persons, we're trying to crack down on problems that can actually hurt people here and now. True statements which happen to raise the ire of an article's subject, however, should remain, and insisting on a reliable source for such statements simply gives us something to point to next time the article's subject comes around to complain.
For some editors, WP:BLP is the difference between "fuck you, man, you can't tell us what to do" and "I'm sorry you feel aggrieved. Our article about you is well-sourced, however, and contains no errors of fact as far as we can see. If you dispute the content of a particular statement we've made, please point to a reliable source providing an alternate theory and we'll be happy to update the article. Thank you for helping us improve Wikipedia."
The talk about being sued --- which I know you didn't mention but I thought I'd throw in here --- is really a red herring. There are people out there who will only do the Right Thing if threatened with something big and heavy. This saddens me, and I don't doubt it saddens you. It's my view that we ought to do the Right Thing because, well, it's the bloody *Right Thing*, y'know? Unfortunately, some people --- some *Wikipedians*, believe it or not --- refuse to do so unless you write it down in some policy, or (in extreme cases) press the Guilt Button by telling them they're going to get Wikipedia sued. No, really!
Of course, this tends to backfire rather often. Human beings, even the human beings who take this view of the world, have rather good brains and are capable of assessing situations for themselves. What this means is, some people will ignore stupid shit in an article if they decide that it won't end in a court action, because after all, the only reason we're trying to improve the quality of this encyclopaedia is to avoid getting sued. Then we get to the copyright issue, where people say, "Sure, it's stealing, but I've looked at it myself and I believe we're going to get plenty of warning before anyone tries to sue over it, so that makes it legal." Sometimes I suspect it would be better if the "you'll see us in court" genie had never been let out of the bottle.
[0] Chinese Whispers Effect. No, I'm not going to shut up about it.
[1] Which creates a superscript "citation needed" marker, for those unaware.
[2] Have I spelled it correctly yet?
I agree with the idea of treating bios with care, but that does not necessarily necessitate the use of an entirely different methodology than any other wiki page - including censoring talk pages. You may as well start a biowiki that operates under entirely different rules.
BLP at its best (I'm not saying there isn't any instruction creep and CWE cruft appearing at the edges) is not about establishing a double standard. It's about making damn sure the standards we should be applying to other sections of the encyclopaedia as well are followed on the biographies of living persons.
Untrue statements should not be published in our encyclopaedia. Since the project is so big (and we have contributors who are misinformed, stupid, or just plain malicious), problems are unavoidable. By being strict about the biographies of living persons, we're trying to crack down on problems that can actually hurt people here and now. True statements which happen to raise the ire of an article's subject, however, should remain, and insisting on a reliable source for such statements simply gives us something to point to next time the article's subject comes around to complain.
I think it's important to take a grain of salt with this argument. The fact is that untrue statements pretty much anywhere in Wikipedia can actually hurt people here and now. Personally I don't really think there is much justification for having a different set of rules for biographies of living people. What I do think is that they generally need to be monitored more closely than the average article, because the subjects tend to be more controversial.
By the way, if we really do want to remove potentially defamatory statements from all of Wikipedia, and not just the articles, I'd like to nominate [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro]] for deletion. The comment made by Muriel is particularly defamatory to me.
For some editors, WP:BLP is the difference between "fuck you, man, you can't tell us what to do" and "I'm sorry you feel aggrieved. Our article about you is well-sourced, however, and contains no errors of fact as far as we can see. If you dispute the content of a particular statement we've made, please point to a reliable source providing an alternate theory and we'll be happy to update the article. Thank you for helping us improve Wikipedia."
An interesting question is what to do when the false rumors are well-sourced, but the real truth isn't. I'd think this was rare except that I've seen it happen on quite a few occassions. I'm sure Jimbo can attest to the fact that the media quite often turns complete falsehoods into what passes for a reliably sourced statement when it comes to living people. When this happens should we give the person a chance to defend themselves? How can we do this while keeping with the standards of verifiability and no original research?
Anthony
On 8/20/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
By the way, if we really do want to remove potentially defamatory statements from all of Wikipedia, and not just the articles, I'd like to nominate [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro]] for deletion. The comment made by Muriel is particularly defamatory to me.
It's largely a statement of Muriel's opinion of you, and thus not libel.
And no, we do not, I believe, intend in general to remove statements from arbitration cases, absent serious legal threat.
In fact, asking for it, whether you are serious or simply making a point, illustrates many of the issues you have had with the Wikipedia community rather well.
-Matt
On 8/20/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/20/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
By the way, if we really do want to remove potentially defamatory statements from all of Wikipedia, and not just the articles, I'd like to nominate [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro]] for deletion. The comment made by Muriel is particularly defamatory to me.
It's largely a statement of Muriel's opinion of you, and thus not libel.
I'd say calling someone who is not a public figure "disturbed" is rather likely to be libelous.
And no, we do not, I believe, intend in general to remove statements from arbitration cases, absent serious legal threat.
Maybe I should make a serious legal threat... I'll have to think about that... I tend to think that such a threat would only serve to make matters worse, though.
In fact, asking for it, whether you are serious or simply making a point, illustrates many of the issues you have had with the Wikipedia community rather well.
Asking for what? Are you saying that my politely mentioning a libelous page about me and saying that I'd like for it to be removed illustrates the issues I've had with the Wikipedia community? If so, then I guess it illustrates how much ado about nothing those issues have been.
Anthony
On 8/20/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
An interesting question is what to do when the false rumors are well-sourced, but the real truth isn't. I'd think this was rare except that I've seen it happen on quite a few occassions. I'm sure Jimbo can attest to the fact that the media quite often turns complete falsehoods into what passes for a reliably sourced statement when it comes to living people. When this happens should we give the person a chance to defend themselves? How can we do this while keeping with the standards of verifiability and no original research?
Yes, this comes up fairly frequently; the press often gets things wildly wrong, especially when a story is just too juicy to fully fact-check, or through sheer laziness. (this is why a 'reliable sources' policy is more shaky than people like to admit)
What I've personally considered is that under certain circumstances, while original research cannot remain in an article, original research can IMO justify leaving something OUT of an article. In other words, I think that if someone can prove, or show to a good level of certainty, that something is NOT true, no matter how well sourced, it should be left out - even if that proof is done with non-published sources.
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
What I've personally considered is that under certain circumstances, while original research cannot remain in an article, original research can IMO justify leaving something OUT of an article. In other words, I think that if someone can prove, or show to a good level of certainty, that something is NOT true, no matter how well sourced, it should be left out - even if that proof is done with non-published sources.
This is precisely the sort of thing our original research policy is meant to prohibit. We're here to summarize what has been reported, not to mount independent investigations to determine "the truth" on our own. In physics, for example, we report what is widely written in physics books and journals, and also significant minority views. If in your own unpublished research you've determined that some of this is incorrect, that's great, but doesn't justify leaving the information out of a Wikipedia article unless and until you publish your new findings in a physics journal, at which point we can then cite your view as a contrary one.
In other words, you should be making your attempts to "prove, or show to a good level of certainty, that something is NOT true" somewhere other than Wikipedia, and then we can cite them.
-Mark
On 8/20/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
What I've personally considered is that under certain circumstances, while original research cannot remain in an article, original research can IMO justify leaving something OUT of an article. In other words, I think that if someone can prove, or show to a good level of certainty, that something is NOT true, no matter how well sourced, it should be left out - even if that proof is done with non-published sources.
This is precisely the sort of thing our original research policy is meant to prohibit.
I thought the original research policy was meant to prohibit physics cranks.
We're here to summarize what has been reported, not to mount independent investigations to determine "the truth" on our own. In physics, for example, we report what is widely written in physics books and journals, and also significant minority views. If in your own unpublished research you've determined that some of this is incorrect, that's great, but doesn't justify leaving the information out of a Wikipedia article unless and until you publish your new findings in a physics journal, at which point we can then cite your view as a contrary one.
In other words, you should be making your attempts to "prove, or show to a good level of certainty, that something is NOT true" somewhere other than Wikipedia, and then we can cite them.
-Mark
When the rules put us in a situation where we are forced to keep blatantly false information in an article, I'd say it's time to invoke the "break all rules" rule. At the very least it's time to bend the rules as to what counts as an acceptable reliable source.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
On 8/20/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
What I've personally considered is that under certain circumstances, while original research cannot remain in an article, original research can IMO justify leaving something OUT of an article. In other words, I think that if someone can prove, or show to a good level of certainty, that something is NOT true, no matter how well sourced, it should be left out - even if that proof is done with non-published sources.
This is precisely the sort of thing our original research policy is meant to prohibit.
I thought the original research policy was meant to prohibit physics cranks.
[...] When the rules put us in a situation where we are forced to keep blatantly false information in an article, I'd say it's time to invoke the "break all rules" rule. At the very least it's time to bend the rules as to what counts as an acceptable reliable source.
And how precisely do you propose to simultaneously take care of both of these things? Wikipedia is not in a position to determine truth, only to report on what others have said. It's possible that some parts of physics may be incorrect, and you may be absolutely sure of it, but Wikipedia isn't the place to publish that research. I don't think it's the place to publish novel historical, biographical, mathematical, or any other research either, regardless of how sure you are that you have "the truth" that every published source is missing.
-Mark
On 8/20/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Anthony wrote:
This is precisely the sort of thing our original research policy is meant to prohibit.
I thought the original research policy was meant to prohibit physics cranks.
[...] When the rules put us in a situation where we are forced to keep blatantly false information in an article, I'd say it's time to invoke the "break all rules" rule. At the very least it's time to bend the rules as to what counts as an acceptable reliable source.
And how precisely do you propose to simultaneously take care of both of these things? Wikipedia is not in a position to determine truth, only to report on what others have said. It's possible that some parts of physics may be incorrect, and you may be absolutely sure of it, but Wikipedia isn't the place to publish that research. I don't think it's the place to publish novel historical, biographical, mathematical, or any other research either, regardless of how sure you are that you have "the truth" that every published source is missing.
-Mark
I think I'm capable of determining the difference between a complicated new physics theory that I've just come up with, and which hasn't been peer reviewed, and a blatant falsity propagated by a misquote or other misinformation in a newspaper which can be trivially misproven by the subject of the article. At the very least I think an encyclopedia article should note the fact that the subject disputes the claim. Perhaps I could interview the person and stick the interview in Wikinews, would that qualify as a published source outside of Wikipedia? Alternatively, the claim shouldn't be there in the first place. If neither of those two are legitimate under the rules, then I'd say it's time to break the rules.
If you don't think you can tell the difference between these two situations, feel free to always follow the rules.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
And how precisely do you propose to simultaneously take care of both of these things? Wikipedia is not in a position to determine truth, only to report on what others have said. It's possible that some parts of physics may be incorrect, and you may be absolutely sure of it, but Wikipedia isn't the place to publish that research. I don't think it's the place to publish novel historical, biographical, mathematical, or any other research either, regardless of how sure you are that you have "the truth" that every published source is missing.
I think I'm capable of determining the difference between a complicated new physics theory that I've just come up with, and which hasn't been peer reviewed, and a blatant falsity propagated by a misquote or other misinformation in a newspaper which can be trivially misproven by the subject of the article. At the very least I think an encyclopedia article should note the fact that the subject disputes the claim. Perhaps I could interview the person and stick the interview in Wikinews, would that qualify as a published source outside of Wikipedia? Alternatively, the claim shouldn't be there in the first place. If neither of those two are legitimate under the rules, then I'd say it's time to break the rules.
I don't recall having said anything about a "complicated" theory. Even if your change to physics is simple, and you think it's blatantly obvious that it's true, Wikipedia isn't the place to publish it.
I do think people are reliable sources for their own views, but editors personally interviewing them is problematic because it's not well documented. A Wikinews article or a reference to their own personal website or something like that would be fine with me, though.
-Mark
On 8/21/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I don't recall having said anything about a "complicated" theory. Even if your change to physics is simple, and you think it's blatantly obvious that it's true, Wikipedia isn't the place to publish it.
I think that's such a far-fetched hypothetical that it's impossible to talk about. If our article on a physics subject is blatantly false, and the reasoning is simple enough to explain to just about anyone, and pretty much anyone would agree that the reasoning is correct, then yes, I think *at the very least* the blatantly false item should be removed.
I do think people are reliable sources for their own views, but editors personally interviewing them is problematic because it's not well documented. A Wikinews article or a reference to their own personal website or something like that would be fine with me, though.
If a Wikinews article or blog posting or something similar is acceptable, then I suppose that's an adequate solution.
But that wouldn't be acceptable solution for someone's new physics theory, would it?
Anthony
Mark Gallagher wrote:
Then we get to the copyright issue, where people say, "Sure, it's stealing, but I've looked at it myself and I believe we're going to get plenty of warning before anyone tries to sue over it, so that makes it legal." Sometimes I suspect it would be better if the "you'll see us in court" genie had never been let out of the bottle.
The copyright issue isn't as simple as that. When I am willing to push that button I would certainly not agree that it's stealing. Before I use the "plenty of warning" argument I will have made damn sure that I have at least a glimmer of a legal argument. Determining that something is copyright or that we should know it's copyright can be very difficult in many cases, and I prefer to take the benefit of reasonable doubt.
[2] Have I spelled it correctly yet?
No. It's "Sei-" rather than the more intuitive "Sie-"
Ec