I just blanked, and deleted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death
We had names of many famous people, stating they were responsible for someone else dying. ** Not a single reference **
I was told that I should have AFD it instead
The potential for libel was huge, afd was likely to come as no consensus or delete. Wikimedia can't take the risk of being sued for the sake of process.
So I deleted the entry to hide history, and drop a note stating should anybody readd content it must be with references.
Probably many people will complain and ask for my head, just telling you people why I did it.
-- drini
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
I just blanked, and deleted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death
We had names of many famous people, stating they were responsible for someone else dying. ** Not a single reference **
I was told that I should have AFD it instead
The potential for libel was huge, afd was likely to come as no consensus or delete. Wikimedia can't take the risk of being sued for the sake of process.
So I deleted the entry to hide history, and drop a note stating should anybody readd content it must be with references.
Probably many people will complain and ask for my head, just telling you people why I did it.
I don't particularly object, but I also don't see what would be wrong with listing it on AFD. It's been there for quite a while, so it seems very unlikely that the world would end if it got deleted a week from now instead of immediately.
-Mark
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
I just blanked, and deleted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death
We had names of many famous people, stating they were responsible for someone else dying. ** Not a single reference **
I was told that I should have AFD it instead
The potential for libel was huge, afd was likely to come as no consensus or delete. Wikimedia can't take the risk of being sued for the sake of process.
So I deleted the entry to hide history, and drop a note stating should anybody readd content it must be with references.
Probably many people will complain and ask for my head, just telling you people why I did it.
That sounds terribly unilateral. AFD would have been more prudent. Altering the title would have been more sensible, given that some were apparently only accused, and never convicted.
I don't know how long the list was but being a "list" it should be enough if there are sources on the listed pages themselves. Nobody puts sources on the index or Table of Contents of a book, because the sources would already be at more appropriate places.
The "huge" potential for libel is a product of your imagination. I'm not saying that there is none at all, but it is certainly much less than what you imagine. In any event, other ways of fixing the article would also have eliminated that problem. I don't know when the page was started but its talk page has been there four months; there was no urgency.
The chronic bad blood in the deletion process is precisely because of people who take drastic and sudden unilateral action when they could have taken the time to think of softer ways of dealing with a problem.
It would be a peaceful gesture if you restored the page, and initiated alternative solutions.
Ec
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I just blanked, and deleted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death
We had names of many famous people, stating they were responsible for someone else dying. ** Not a single reference **
I was told that I should have AFD it instead
That sounds terribly unilateral. AFD would have been more prudent. Altering the title would have been more sensible, given that some were apparently only accused, and never convicted.
Remember [[WP:BLP]]. Anything making accusations about living people without a source should be deleted immediately.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I just blanked, and deleted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death
We had names of many famous people, stating they were responsible for someone else dying. ** Not a single reference **
I was told that I should have AFD it instead
That sounds terribly unilateral. AFD would have been more prudent. Altering the title would have been more sensible, given that some were apparently only accused, and never convicted.
Remember [[WP:BLP]]. Anything making accusations about living people without a source should be deleted immediately.
Saying that someone was accused is very different from making the accusation.. In any event, did you even make an effort to separate the living from the dead?
Ec
On 21/01/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I don't know how long the list was but being a "list" it should be enough if there are sources on the listed pages themselves. Nobody puts sources on the index or Table of Contents of a book, because the sources would already be at more appropriate places.
With a book, we can reliably know that there are sources elsewhere. To keep an article like this reliable, we either need to source it on that page or else keep checking the section saying "In 1972, she was involved in a car accident which left two dead." is still there on another page...
"Sources on the other page" is fine enough, but perhaps a more practical use of this system would be to have *categories*, not a list; if the original article has the content change, they zap the cat as well, and they disappear from our "list". Plus we don't need to clutter it with sources.
(As an aside - our users tend to treat categories as a rather simplistic list, anyway, so the difference ought to be limited...)
The "huge" potential for libel is a product of your imagination. I'm not saying that there is none at all, but it is certainly much less than what you imagine. In any event, other ways of fixing the article would also have eliminated that problem. I don't know when the page was started but its talk page has been there four months; there was no urgency.
Stupid things have been going on for a long time, sure. It doesn't mean we shouldn't respond to them swiftly and cleanly when we discover them.
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 21/01/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I don't know how long the list was but being a "list" it should be enough if there are sources on the listed pages themselves. Nobody puts sources on the index or Table of Contents of a book, because the sources would already be at more appropriate places.
With a book, we can reliably know that there are sources elsewhere. To keep an article like this reliable, we either need to source it on that page or else keep checking the section saying "In 1972, she was involved in a car accident which left two dead." is still there on another page...
"Involved" could mean "back seat passenger in the other car". A police report or court document is required as a source if we are to preserve NPOV and verifiability.
On 21/01/07, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
I just blanked, and deleted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death
We had names of many famous people, stating they were responsible for someone else dying. ** Not a single reference **
I was told that I should have AFD it instead
The potential for libel was huge, afd was likely to come as no consensus or delete. Wikimedia can't take the risk of being sued for the sake of process.
So I deleted the entry to hide history, and drop a note stating should anybody readd content it must be with references.
Probably many people will complain and ask for my head, just telling you people why I did it.
-- drini
Sounds a pretty sensible way to go about it.
~Mark Ryan
I just blanked, and deleted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death
We had names of many famous people, stating they were responsible for someone else dying. ** Not a single reference **
Well done. You have improved Wikipedia.
Anyone saying that article shouldn't be speedied is just wikilawyering. Try genuine lawyering, which would tell you that such an article is borderline illegal. If that's not a good reason to speedy something, then I don't know what is.
In many cases it is fine to essentially use the Wikipedia articles as the sources for the items in the list. In the case of accusing people of killing someone, it is absolutely not.
On 21/01/07, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
I just blanked, and deleted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death
We had names of many famous people, stating they were responsible for someone else dying. ** Not a single reference **
I was told that I should have AFD it instead
The potential for libel was huge, afd was likely to come as no consensus or delete. Wikimedia can't take the risk of being sued for the sake of process.
So I deleted the entry to hide history, and drop a note stating should anybody readd content it must be with references.
Probably many people will complain and ask for my head, just telling you people why I did it.
I don't think you did the *wrong* thing, but I think we should always aim to stick to process. The fact that we have processes to delete articles and to remove libelous content (OFFICE) should protect us. If the risk was that great, I'm sure someone in the office would have done something (perhaps you should have e-mailed?).
I don't think you did the *wrong* thing, but I think we should always aim to stick to process. The fact that we have processes to delete articles and to remove libelous content (OFFICE) should protect us. If the risk was that great, I'm sure someone in the office would have done something (perhaps you should have e-mailed?).
WP:OFFICE is there is fix problems after we've received complaints. We should be aiming to fix the problems before anyone complains.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I don't think you did the *wrong* thing, but I think we should always aim to stick to process. The fact that we have processes to delete articles and to remove libelous content (OFFICE) should protect us. If the risk was that great, I'm sure someone in the office would have done something (perhaps you should have e-mailed?).
WP:OFFICE is there is fix problems after we've received complaints. We should be aiming to fix the problems before anyone complains.
Of course, and OFFICE is one of the many steps between where we are and any actual lawsuit. There is plenty of time to respect the social structures that allow us to work together. If there are more than one ways to deal with a given situation common social skills should tell you to prefer the one that does the least harm, even if that is not the easiest to apply.
Ec
On 21/01/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think you did the *wrong* thing, but I think we should always aim to stick to process.
e.g. [[WP:BLP]], which says shoot this sort of rubbish on sight, then rebuild with an incredibly hardarsed attitude to references.
- d.
Oldak Quill wrote: <snip>
I don't think you did the *wrong* thing, but I think we should always aim to stick to process.
No, no, and just plain... no. "Process" is what killed Nupedia. The OP has our sincere thanks for removing another of our drive-by-stupidity magnets. Seriously. Next thing you know [[snopes.com]] or [[The Straight Dope]] will have entire sections labelled "according to Wikipedia..." where they debunk all of the unreferenced tripe that's lying around.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
<snip> > I don't think you did the *wrong* thing, but I think we should always > aim to stick to process. >
No, no, and just plain... no. "Process" is what killed Nupedia. The OP has our sincere thanks for removing another of our drive-by-stupidity magnets. Seriously. Next thing you know [[snopes.com]] or [[The Straight Dope]] will have entire sections labelled "according to Wikipedia..." where they debunk all of the unreferenced tripe that's lying around.
Process merely makes things run smoother and keeps people from doing dumb things more often than not.
Meanwhile, I've already restored about 5 of those in the article, and I'll try to get to more later. a quick post somewhere saing "we know these things are true, can we find sources" and it'd be done in 5 minutes. Instead, knee-jerk reaction time, whee!!!
Maybe some people would like to pitch in? The Google cache is right here:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:FBnIbSOEGeoJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...
-Jeff
On 21/01/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Meanwhile, I've already restored about 5 of those in the article, and I'll try to get to more later. a quick post somewhere saing "we know these things are true, can we find sources" and it'd be done in 5 minutes. Instead, knee-jerk reaction time, whee!!!
That knee-jerk reaction was absolutely a right process per WP:BLP - blank the unsourced silly thing, then add back sources with hard verifiability.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 21/01/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Meanwhile, I've already restored about 5 of those in the article, and I'll try to get to more later. a quick post somewhere saing "we know these things are true, can we find sources" and it'd be done in 5 minutes. Instead, knee-jerk reaction time, whee!!!
That knee-jerk reaction was absolutely a right process per WP:BLP - blank the unsourced silly thing, then add back sources with hard verifiability.
Simply blanking without deletion means that anybody can fix it up, not just admins.
Ec
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Jeff Raymond wrote:
Meanwhile, I've already restored about 5 of those in the article, and I'll try to get to more later. a quick post somewhere saing "we know these things are true, can we find sources" and it'd be done in 5 minutes. Instead, knee-jerk reaction time, whee!!!
It isn't knee jerk reaction time, it's [[WP:BLP]] time.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Jeff Raymond wrote:
Meanwhile, I've already restored about 5 of those in the article, and I'll try to get to more later. a quick post somewhere saing "we know these things are true, can we find sources" and it'd be done in 5 minutes. Instead, knee-jerk reaction time, whee!!!
It isn't knee jerk reaction time, it's [[WP:BLP]] time.
There's a difference?
-Jeff
On 21/01/07, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
No, no, and just plain... no. "Process" is what killed Nupedia. The OP has our sincere thanks for removing another of our drive-by-stupidity magnets. Seriously. Next thing you know [[snopes.com]] or [[The Straight Dope]] will have entire sections labelled "according to Wikipedia..." where they debunk all of the unreferenced tripe that's lying around.
Just to clarify: Keeping to established processes when it comes to contentious actions (deletion process, etc.) is important to ensuring the project works day-to-day, flows well and reduces editor annoyance.
Having too much process (for example, when it is not necessary) is not good. It takes away from the ease and enjoyability of volunteering for Wikipedia. More importantly, it stops users taking spontaneous decisions which are usually beneficial to the project (I, for one, am less likely to do something if there are lots of hoops to jump through.)
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 21/01/07, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
No, no, and just plain... no. "Process" is what killed Nupedia. The OP has our sincere thanks for removing another of our drive-by-stupidity magnets. Seriously. Next thing you know [[snopes.com]] or [[The Straight Dope]] will have entire sections labelled "according to Wikipedia..." where they debunk all of the unreferenced tripe that's lying around.
Just to clarify: Keeping to established processes when it comes to contentious actions (deletion process, etc.) is important to ensuring the project works day-to-day, flows well and reduces editor annoyance.
That's the main point. Keeping the article around for another week with big warnings at the top would not have been harmful to anyone. The value of the list was dubious to start with. People really interested in this stuff would have been pushed to do some work if they wanted to keep it. Processes that keep activities transparent tend to be the good ones.
Having too much process (for example, when it is not necessary) is not good. It takes away from the ease and enjoyability of volunteering for Wikipedia. More importantly, it stops users taking spontaneous decisions which are usually beneficial to the project (I, for one, am less likely to do something if there are lots of hoops to jump through.)
Here too I agree, especially when those processes require that people sift through a lot of picky details.
Ec
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
Probably many people will complain and ask for my head, just telling you people why I did it.
Good call. You made a decision and you gave notice, allowing that decision to be reviewed. That's a good call on two counts.