Jimmy, I think this is a case where your famous divine intervention might be helpful to establish a general principle, so I'd appreciate your input.
We have Angela (Beesley) on AfD now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley_...
The fact that Angela does not want this article to exist has been cited as a reason to delete. It looks like this deletion will go through.
Two related examples are Seth Finkelstein: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Finkelstei...
He also prefers the article not to exist, but nevertheless, it was kept. Then, of course, there's Daniel Brandt.
Angela is co-founder and VP of a company that has received $4M in funding, and hosts over 1,500 wikis, including some of the largest ones besides Wikipedia. Seth is a noted anti-censorship activist. Brandt is, well, Brandt.
Whatever principle we establish here, I think fairness demands that we establish it with consistency and thoughtfulness. Special treatment would be a dangerous precedent.
Do we want to respect people's wishes if they are borderline notable to begin with?
If so, how do we define borderline notability?
If not, should Angela's article be deleted, or would that amount to special treatment?
One possible answer is: We respect your wishes if you ask nicely. Is that a fair answer, though? It is a fact that some people are, given their psychological make-up, _incapable_ of asking nicely.
I don't have any clear answers here. Certainly, given past experiences, I understand if some people prefer not to be mentioned on Wikipedia. But, given that we also want to go in the direction of changing the way Wikipedia works to increase its credibility (stable versions etc.), is it wise to establish a precedent to keep out material which could, theoretically, be well-maintained?
I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
We have Angela (Beesley) on AfD now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley_...
The fact that Angela does not want this article to exist has been cited as a reason to delete. It looks like this deletion will go through.
Two related examples are Seth Finkelstein: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Finkelstei...
These nominations confuse me, because they seem to identify a problem but then propose a solution other than the obvious one.
In both cases the primary complaint is that the articles contain (or have at times contained) untrue, misleading, or irrelevant information. The obvious way to fix that problem is to remove such information, and make the articles contain only information that is: 1) sourced; 2) presented neutrally; and 3) of sufficient relevance to be worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article.
Deleting the articles is of course one way of making sure they contain no low-quality content, but that seems less direct that simply removing the low-quality content while keeping the verifiable content. In Seth's case, for example, it's undisputed that he formed the Censorware Project, that he either coined or at least popularized the term "censorware", and so on. I see no reason that an article stating these verifiable and notable facts should be deleted. If it contains other nonsense, then that nonsense should be removed, rather than used as an excuse to delete the entire article.
-Mark
/me waves at Andrew Orlowski, confident that this post will be misrepresented in The Register tomorrow.
Delirium wrote:
Deleting the articles is of course one way of making sure they contain no low-quality content, but that seems less direct that simply removing the low-quality content while keeping the verifiable content. In Seth's case, for example, it's undisputed that he formed the Censorware Project, that he either coined or at least popularized the term "censorware", and so on. I see no reason that an article stating these verifiable and notable facts should be deleted. If it contains other nonsense, then that nonsense should be removed, rather than used as an excuse to delete the entire article.
Well, the article survived AfD, sensibly enough, even today I notice that Seth has had to revert vandalism *personally*. I just now semi-protected it.
For a few weeks, the article contained this little bit of garbage:
"Finkelstein is, however, legendary for his willingness to mount personal attacks against those who disagree with him.[citation needed]"
When I met Seth, he explained to me how this happened. The vandal used a classic trick... the double edit. The first edit was the vandalism, the second edit was innocent. So if you checked the diffs incorrectly, you would not see the attack paragraph.
Personal attack: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seth_Finkelstein&diff=42851913...
Innocent edit to cover it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seth_Finkelstein&diff=42854644...
Is this not sad? That Seth Finkelstein has to personally monitor his own entry in Wikipedia? His situation is similar to that of Xeni Jardin, for example, who has had to deal with a stalker/attackblog altering her entry unfairly and then boasting about it on the blog!
Ok, yes, that is sad. But it is not the saddest part, no.
The saddest part is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seth_Finkelstein&diff=56146142...
A Wikipedian in good standing, with thousands of edits, reads this obvious personal attack, and instead of *removing* it, chooses instead to put a {{fact}} template around it. Ouch. We need to radically improve our education of editors to understand that this is NOT THE RIGHT ANSWER.
If you read something negative about someone, and there is no source, then either find a _legitimate_ source (and make sure that WE do not make the negative claim, but rather than we merely report neutrally on what the claim is), or just remove it... and insist that anyone who wants to put it back, do so with a legitimate source!
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
If you read something negative about someone, and there is no source, then either find a _legitimate_ source (and make sure that WE do not make the negative claim, but rather than we merely report neutrally on what the claim is), or just remove it... and insist that anyone who wants to put it back, do so with a legitimate source!
Yeah, I agree with all that, I just don't see this as related to semi-notability or legitimately addressed by deletion. All these same problems arise with extremely notable people as well, especially controversial ones. With very notable people obviously we aren't going to delete the article because, say, [[George W. Bush]] keeps getting vandalized. I don't think we should do so in less-notable cases either---an article should only be deleted if there really is no reason to have an article on the topic, not because it's a vandalism magnet. Other measures, like semi-protection, having some people put it on their watchlists, or even temporary outright protection, are better ways to combat vandalism IMO. Perhaps we even need new anti-vandalism measures, but deleting articles entirely is sort of a silly way of keeping them from being vandalized.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
I don't think we should do so in less-notable cases either---an article should only be deleted if there really is no reason to have an article on the topic, not because it's a vandalism magnet.
If we find our social and technological systems are not up to the task of creating and maintaining biographies of barely notable people, particularly those who are flame-magnets, then we are better not having them at all.
Other measures, like semi-protection, having some people put it on their watchlists, or even temporary outright protection, are better ways to combat vandalism IMO. Perhaps we even need new anti-vandalism measures, but deleting articles entirely is sort of a silly way of keeping them from being vandalized.
I agree with you completely on that. What I want to wake people up to, and this is something I have been saying increasingly loudly for months, with _good results_ so far, although I think there is a long way to go: biographies of barely notable living persons present a particularly difficult challenge.
--Jimbo
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:09:22 -0500, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
When I met Seth, he explained to me how this happened. The vandal used a classic trick... the double edit. The first edit was the vandalism, the second edit was innocent. So if you checked the diffs incorrectly, you would not see the attack paragraph.
Hell yes. I see that a lot.
Guy (JzG)
[Crossposted to wikien-l and wikitech-l.]
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:09:22 -0500, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
When I met Seth, he explained to me how this happened. The vandal used a classic trick... the double edit. The first edit was the vandalism, the second edit was innocent. So if you checked the diffs incorrectly, you would not see the attack paragraph.
Hell yes. I see that a lot.
Presumably this is something that could be countered by technical fixes. Admin rollback already automatically reverts multiple consecutive edits from the same editor; the manifest usefulness of this feature would be one more argument for granting rollback privileges to non-admins. But _seeing_ the sum of the edits should definitely be made easier: I think that the diff links in the watchlist, at least, should automatically show all the combined edits made by the last editor.
It'd also be nice if the diff view showed how many edits there are between the two revisions being compared; besides being, IMO, a good thing in general, this would help make the change I proposed above less confusing.
I don't think this should be particularly hard to implement. What I'd like is comments on whether this would actually be a good idea, and suggestions on where else, besides the watchlist, it should be applied.
(At the risk of [[WP:BEANS]], I'd like to note that there is another related problem; if a vandal blanks the section of an article containing the interlanguage links, a bot will often quickly show up to restore them, as a side effect hiding the vandalism itself from the watchlist. Making the bots smarter would help, but I'm not sure what can be done to solve this problem in general, beyond hiding bot edits from the watchlist by default and making the feature actually do what it should do -- i.e. show the last non-bot edit instead.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
First of all, I believe rollbacks already revert all edits by the same user. But as I explain below, it's easy to bypass.
I'd just like to say this could be fixed by consulting the history tab. I don't like or use the (diff) link at all. But this takes more time and resources, and is unmanageable if you need to check more a lot of revisions.
Sum of diffs for one user would only partially solve the problem. The vandal would simply create two accounts, one of them vandalising and one of them innocent. With a little extra editing, the correlation could be made to be as cloudy as possible: valid editor in the wrong places at the wrong times, or vandal's assistant making good edits only? And if the vandal's assistant is indeed making /good/ edits, would there be any way to block them? (Someone's bound to make a mistake sooner or later).
I would push for the implementation of an "All Changes Since Last View" option for users. By encouraging users to check the last twenty edits, rather than just the last edit, they click the link, as usual, but instead see a comprehensive profile of changes and can selectively revert if necessary. Multiple diffs on one page would be nice too.
Selective reversion is a time-consuming process though, and would not work for RC-patrol.
This is from a social perspective. Technically speaking, I'm sure all of these features have been filed in Bugzilla, and that all of them have technical problems that make them undesirable performance wise.
On 7/12/06 3:09 PM, "Jimmy Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Well, the article survived AfD, sensibly enough, even today I notice that Seth has had to revert vandalism *personally*. I just now semi-protected it.
I'm beginning to think that any article with [[Category:Living people]] in it should be semi-protected by default.
-Travis
Travis Mason-Bushman wrote:
On 7/12/06 3:09 PM, "Jimmy Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Well, the article survived AfD, sensibly enough, even today I notice that Seth has had to revert vandalism *personally*. I just now semi-protected it.
I'm beginning to think that any article with [[Category:Living people]] in it should be semi-protected by default.
Probably not "by default" -- the vast majority of articles are not like the unusual cases. And in most cases, semi-protecting the problem ones is not going to just push the vandalism (of this type) elsewhere.
Two types of vandalism: 1. I am a general purpose idiot and I like to do stupid things on the Internet. 2. I hate person X with an irrational passion, and I am going to camp out on their article to make sure it tells the world how awful they are.
The general purpose idiots, I think we have well under control.
The specific haters, we have under control if the subject is George W. Bush or Bill Gates, because those are popular topics and lots of people watch them.
If you are a borderline notable person, though... *and* you have a stalker or are somehow a flame-magnet... then I would say that a liberal application of semi-protection and *bonking* is worthwhile.
--Jimbo
On 7/13/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
If you are a borderline notable person, though... *and* you have a stalker or are somehow a flame-magnet... then I would say that a liberal application of semi-protection and *bonking* is worthwhile.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bonking
Hmm, I must say that "a liberal application of bonking" does sound nice. I'm not sure it would help, though. ;-)
What did you really mean by that?
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 7/13/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
If you are a borderline notable person, though... *and* you have a stalker or are somehow a flame-magnet... then I would say that a liberal application of semi-protection and *bonking* is worthwhile.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bonking
Hmm, I must say that "a liberal application of bonking" does sound nice. I'm not sure it would help, though. ;-)
What did you really mean by that?
*g* Someone needs to update that site.
Here's a more reliable reference from our friends at wiktionary: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bonk
1. To strike or collide with something.
The idea I meant was a liberal application of bonking the trolls on the head with a cluestick.
--Jimbo
On 7/12/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bonking
Hmm, I must say that "a liberal application of bonking" does sound nice. I'm not sure it would help, though. ;-)
What did you really mean by that?
Clearly he meant the third definition: "having sex using a space hopper".
On 7/12/06, Travis Mason-Bushman travis@gpsports-eng.com wrote:
On 7/12/06 3:09 PM, "Jimmy Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Well, the article survived AfD, sensibly enough, even today I notice that Seth has had to revert vandalism *personally*. I just now semi-protected it.
I'm beginning to think that any article with [[Category:Living people]] in it should be semi-protected by default.
-Travis
No that would be a big step in reduceing the effetiveness of semi-protect
----- Original Message ---- From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 3:09:22 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Borderline notable bios (yes, again)
If you read something negative about someone, and there is no source, then either find a _legitimate_ source (and make sure that WE do not make the negative claim, but rather than we merely report neutrally on what the claim is), or just remove it... and insist that anyone who wants to put it back, do so with a legitimate source!
--Jimbo
Jimbo and others,
I've been struggling with what to remove and what to keep on certain Living Person biographies that are on my watchlist. Most of them are athletes and finding the line between encyclopaedic writing and fan cruft is difficult. (It's not difficult for me to see, but it causes friction when you try to remove statements like the following and the "fan" that wrote them thinks they are perfectly okay.)
From one article:
" ... he had another fine season ..." " ... bounced back with another quality season ... " " He was also one of the best players ... " " ... the season was an unqualified success ... " " The news came as a shock ... " " The trade request was harshly received by Edmontonians ... "
None of those statements is sourced in any way. And I can find at least that many similar statements in several articles on my watchlist. Can I delete all that on the spot? If it's "positive" can I mark it with [citation needed] and leave it alone?
Sue Anne
Sue Reed wrote:
None of those statements is sourced in any way. And I can find at least that many similar statements in several articles on my watchlist. Can I delete all that on the spot? If it's "positive" can I mark it with [citation needed] and leave it alone?
I think we want to be careful to avoid an accidental bias towards hagiography. Mostly what I would do with such statements is try really hard to tone them down, to remove the value judgments if they seem sketchy in any way.
Unsourced negative evaluations are a real problem in bios of living persons even when they fall short of libel or other legal problems. But certainly if anyone ever reads anything negative in wikipedia and thinks "gee, if that is false, then it is probably libel" then it should be shot on sight.
--Jimbo
On 7/13/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
In both cases the primary complaint is that the articles contain (or have at times contained) untrue, misleading, or irrelevant information. The obvious way to fix that problem is to remove such information
I can't do that without being accused of violating the autobiography policy. Subjects are not supposed to edit their own articles. I have tried detailing the errors on the talk page, but it gets ignored.
Angela.
On 7/12/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/13/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
In both cases the primary complaint is that the articles contain (or have at times contained) untrue, misleading, or irrelevant information. The obvious way to fix that problem is to remove such information
I can't do that without being accused of violating the autobiography policy. Subjects are not supposed to edit their own articles. I have tried detailing the errors on the talk page, but it gets ignored.
Part of why I think the autobiography policy is wrongheaded, although made with doubtless the best of intentions.
-Matt
On Jul 12, 2006, at 9:54 PM, Angela wrote:
On 7/13/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
In both cases the primary complaint is that the articles contain (or have at times contained) untrue, misleading, or irrelevant information. The obvious way to fix that problem is to remove such information
I can't do that without being accused of violating the autobiography policy. Subjects are not supposed to edit their own articles. I have tried detailing the errors on the talk page, but it gets ignored.
Angela.
Obviously you are beginning to understand some of the complaints people make. And facing the fact that what has been published about you is not you.
Fred
Erik Moeller wrote:
Jimmy, I think this is a case where your famous divine intervention might be helpful to establish a general principle, so I'd appreciate your input.
We have Angela (Beesley) on AfD now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley_...
The fact that Angela does not want this article to exist has been cited as a reason to delete. It looks like this deletion will go through.
Eek.
Let me think about this a bit, because the ramifications could be enormous either way. There is something to be said for existing procedures on AfD (and I say this as a full-fledged charter member of the "AfD is broken" club!).
I personally think, and would vote this way if I were voting, that factors like:
...does the borderline notable subject ask not to have a bio? (Angela) ...does a mature respect for human dignity of a borderline notable person suggest that a bio is not needed? (Brian Peppers) ...is Wikipedia horribly naval-gazing at times? (Jeremy Rosenfeld, Brian Chase)
...can and should all matter, and be taken into account by people commenting at AfD.
This is in direct opposition to a certain faction with a different read on what it means to be the 'sum' of all human knowledge, a read which comes closer to a 'data dump' of all human knowledge. :)
---------
There is a problem with two relatively tiny groups of people that should be at least mentioned here.
First, there are the Wikipedia lovers who insist that everything about Wikipedia is super duper important and who love to fill Wikipedia with Wikipedia fan cruft *and* to work really hard to look up negative information about anyone who has ever been hostile to Wikipedia. This is a very tiny group of people generally, and in some cases people fall into this trap mostly because they had a run-in with someone who hates Wikipedia because the bio about them is bad, etc.
Second, there are the Wikipedia haters who insist that every negative thing about Wikipedia should be dug up and stuck into the encyclopedia at every possible point. It is important to note that the current trouble with my bio and Angela's bio started when a banned user came in and made rather a strange mess of both articles, including original research that was flatly wrong, as well as strangely intimidating personal data (and if you do not know the whole story behind this, please trust me, I am not kidding about this).
So... bios of living persons, a perennially difficult area for us. And this spills over into deletion debates.
On 12/07/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
There is a problem with two relatively tiny groups of people that should be at least mentioned here.
First, there are the Wikipedia lovers who insist that everything about Wikipedia is super duper important and who love to fill Wikipedia with Wikipedia fan cruft *and* to work really hard to look up negative information about anyone who has ever been hostile to Wikipedia. ...
"It's true so we should have it in and who are you to say otherwise and you're just deleting information and... they *asked* for deletion? OMG CENSORSHIP"
This is a slightly hyperbolic paraphrase, but a true one. People get insanely twitchy if they think something is removed by request; they *asked* us to remove it? that means they don't want people to know it! it must be important! we must fight to keep it!
I've encountered this quite a few times. It seems to be a cultural thing - I don't think I'd be wrong to guess it's a much more common attitude among Americans than Europeans, and among a certain type of them. There's not much we can do except be tactful and occasionally wield the Big Stick Of Editorial Common Sense.
"No, the names of his four-year-old twin daughters are not notable. Yes, they're verifiable if you go and... oh, you did go and look up the county registers did you? That's nice. But it's not important. It causes the guy undue distress, and our readers don't need to know it."
I mean, trivia stuff. I've seen a few requests on OTRS from people saying things like "I guess you have an article on me, and that's fair, but can you take out the fact that I was born on September 2nd and just have it say 1958?" Or the seemingly inexhaustible list of minor porn starlets who, quite justifiably, write to us and say "your article on me has my real name! take it out! I'm scared!"... Articles are filling up with information that is, at best, borderline trivia (and at worst actively stupid), and we have a (default?) culture that seems to encourage adding it.
There are times that I think adopting the rule jp.wiki has on biographies would be a damn good idea...
Andrew Gray wrote:
This is a slightly hyperbolic paraphrase, but a true one. People get insanely twitchy if they think something is removed by request; they *asked* us to remove it? that means they don't want people to know it! it must be important! we must fight to keep it!
Exactly. I am generally reluctant to tell people exactly what the complainer has said, because there is a tiny minority who seems to think that this is some kind of censorship by me or the Wikimedia Foundation and/or a call to arms.
Usually, it is just an article that sucks, and a POV warrior grasping at straws to protect nonsense.
There are times that I think adopting the rule jp.wiki has on biographies would be a damn good idea...
AH!!!!! Please tell us! I love cross-cultural wikipedia differences.
It seems that (not to raise a completely other absurd Wikipedia issue) the Germans have taught us how to deal with idiotic userboxes... can the Japanese teach us how to deal with bios?
--Jimbo
On 12/07/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
This is a slightly hyperbolic paraphrase, but a true one. People get insanely twitchy if they think something is removed by request; they *asked* us to remove it? that means they don't want people to know it! it must be important! we must fight to keep it!
Exactly. I am generally reluctant to tell people exactly what the complainer has said, because there is a tiny minority who seems to think that this is some kind of censorship by me or the Wikimedia Foundation and/or a call to arms.
My usual policy is to say "we've had someone write to us and say this article is crap, can we do something about it" - it's perfectly true, but it's far more effective than saying "we've had the subject..."
Of course, my hacking an article down is less likely to cause a riot than you doing so!
There are times that I think adopting the rule jp.wiki has on biographies would be a damn good idea...
AH!!!!! Please tell us! I love cross-cultural wikipedia differences.
[[en:Japanese Wikipedia]]
Basically, if you're not a "public figure" (which seems to be defined quite narrowly - perhaps in a similar way to the Western defamation definition?), *you don't get named* at all, much less have an article on you. I'm not a public figure. Angela's not a public figure. Daniel Brandt's not a public figure. You probably are, and so's Xeni, but there's the cutoff, I guess.
Incidentally, we have something passably similar discouraging borderline notables. Our *example* for "Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles" is [[Ronald Gay]], and look where he appears...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_gays%2C_lesbians%2C_bisexuals%...
he's the *only* person in that screenful of text to not be linked. I think the hint may not have taken very well.
Andrew Gray wrote:
Basically, if you're not a "public figure" (which seems to be defined quite narrowly - perhaps in a similar way to the Western defamation definition?), *you don't get named* at all, much less have an article on you. I'm not a public figure. Angela's not a public figure. Daniel Brandt's not a public figure. You probably are, and so's Xeni, but there's the cutoff, I guess.
I wonder what that cutoff might be, though, and how the ja community makes the decision without internal warfare.
--Jimbo
On 7/12/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Basically, if you're not a "public figure" (which seems to be defined quite narrowly - perhaps in a similar way to the Western defamation definition?), *you don't get named* at all, much less have an article on you. I'm not a public figure. Angela's not a public figure. Daniel Brandt's not a public figure. You probably are, and so's Xeni, but there's the cutoff, I guess.
"Probably"? If you make the Time 100 anything, you're a public figure. There's no gray area.
Brandt is a public figure because, among other reasons, he's been interviewed by or featured in The New York Times about a half dozen times, and he's not only done this willingly (as opposed to being sucked into a news controversy like Brian Chase), he's courted it through press releases and other means.
I cannot see that the Japanese rule is different to ours in type, it is different in degree. I would disagree with the rule simply because we have the ability to store far more information on far more people of notability (Wikipedia is not paper). Yes, the occasional person of lesser notability will be vandalised, but this would occur wherever you draw the line.
"Notability" has been too heavily relied upon thus far, it is entirely unquantifiable and shouldn't be used as a measure of worthiness for inclusion. I say we adopt a far more liberal approach and delete only those articles which are clear vanity/defamation.
Of course, I don't provide a solution for protection of these lesser known articles against vandalism. Perhaps VandalBot should be provided with a watchlist of vulnerable words which tend to be used in both pro and contra vandalism, but that's for somewhere else.
On 13/07/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/12/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Basically, if you're not a "public figure" (which seems to be defined quite narrowly - perhaps in a similar way to the Western defamation definition?), *you don't get named* at all, much less have an article on you. I'm not a public figure. Angela's not a public figure. Daniel Brandt's not a public figure. You probably are, and so's Xeni, but there's the cutoff, I guess.
"Probably"? If you make the Time 100 anything, you're a public figure. There's no gray area.
Brandt is a public figure because, among other reasons, he's been interviewed by or featured in The New York Times about a half dozen times, and he's not only done this willingly (as opposed to being sucked into a news controversy like Brian Chase), he's courted it through press releases and other means. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 13/07/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/12/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Basically, if you're not a "public figure" (which seems to be defined quite narrowly - perhaps in a similar way to the Western defamation definition?), *you don't get named* at all, much less have an article on you. I'm not a public figure. Angela's not a public figure. Daniel Brandt's not a public figure. You probably are, and so's Xeni, but there's the cutoff, I guess.
"Probably"? If you make the Time 100 anything, you're a public figure. There's no gray area.
I keep forgetting Wikipedia went and got famous! He certainly is.
Brandt is a public figure because, among other reasons, he's been interviewed by or featured in The New York Times about a half dozen times, and he's not only done this willingly (as opposed to being sucked into a news controversy like Brian Chase), he's courted it through press releases and other means.
I confess I have been avoiding paying attention to this whole thing, but yes, that's the sort of thing involved.
On 7/12/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/07/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
There are times that I think adopting the rule jp.wiki has on biographies would be a damn good idea...
AH!!!!! Please tell us! I love cross-cultural wikipedia differences.
[[en:Japanese Wikipedia]]
Basically, if you're not a "public figure" (which seems to be defined quite narrowly - perhaps in a similar way to the Western defamation definition?), *you don't get named* at all, much less have an article on you. I'm not a public figure. Angela's not a public figure. Daniel Brandt's not a public figure. You probably are, and so's Xeni, but there's the cutoff, I guess.
I'd say Wikipedia definitely shouldn't have an article on a person who isn't a public figure, or at least a "limited public figure". But then again, I'd think (though IANAL) that Angela does qualify as at least a limited public figure in the context of her work on Wikimedia, a public charity. By voluntarily choosing to become a board member, Angela put herself into the public spotlight. Her resignation doesn't negate that, at least not for the story of Angela which takes place up until her resignation is effective.
Of course, maybe I just have no clue what it means to be a "public figure". I'd welcome any correction on this matter, either in the form of citations of legal decisions or in the form of expert opinions.
Anthony
Andrew Gray wrote:
[[en:Japanese Wikipedia]]
Basically, if you're not a "public figure" (which seems to be defined quite narrowly - perhaps in a similar way to the Western defamation definition?), *you don't get named* at all, much less have an article on you. I'm not a public figure. Angela's not a public figure. Daniel Brandt's not a public figure. You probably are, and so's Xeni, but there's the cutoff, I guess.
Empirically, it doesn't seem to be quite as strict as the defamation of "public figure". It seems that there are broad classes of activity that by default are considered to make you worth having an article on jp:. To pick just one example, basically every sports player ever to play in some professional league, regardless of public notability or even notability within the sport, seems to be fair game for an article, simply by virtue of the fact that they were a sports player in some professional league.
-Mark
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 11:21:21PM +0100, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 12/07/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
There is a problem with two relatively tiny groups of people that should be at least mentioned here.
First, there are the Wikipedia lovers who insist that everything about Wikipedia is super duper important and who love to fill Wikipedia with Wikipedia fan cruft *and* to work really hard to look up negative information about anyone who has ever been hostile to Wikipedia. ...
"It's true so we should have it in and who are you to say otherwise and you're just deleting information and... they *asked* for deletion? OMG CENSORSHIP"
This is a slightly hyperbolic paraphrase, but a true one. People get insanely twitchy if they think something is removed by request; they *asked* us to remove it? that means they don't want people to know it! it must be important! we must fight to keep it!
I've encountered this quite a few times. It seems to be a cultural thing - I don't think I'd be wrong to guess it's a much more common attitude among Americans than Europeans, and among a certain type of them. There's not much we can do except be tactful and occasionally wield the Big Stick Of Editorial Common Sense.
Maybe that explains why I'm puzzled by this discussion, being a Brit now in Australia. We are not trying to write an encyclopedia overnight. If someone does not want an article on them, then I think we should be inclined to delete it. The times when we do not delete should be where the person has put themselves into the public limelight and people will want to know about them. We do not therefore delete [[George W. Bush]] or any politician. However people who found businesses or are VPs of businesses are entitled to privacy. Our readers do not have to be able to find information about them on WP.
Having meet Angela at a couple of Melbourne meetups, although we have not discussed her article, I understand why she wants it to go. I'm about to move over to Afd to state my opinion.
"No, the names of his four-year-old twin daughters are not notable. Yes, they're verifiable if you go and... oh, you did go and look up the county registers did you? That's nice. But it's not important. It causes the guy undue distress, and our readers don't need to know it."
I mean, trivia stuff. I've seen a few requests on OTRS from people saying things like "I guess you have an article on me, and that's fair, but can you take out the fact that I was born on September 2nd and just have it say 1958?" Or the seemingly inexhaustible list of minor porn starlets who, quite justifiably, write to us and say "your article on me has my real name! take it out! I'm scared!"... Articles are filling up with information that is, at best, borderline trivia (and at worst actively stupid), and we have a (default?) culture that seems to encourage adding it.
There are times that I think adopting the rule jp.wiki has on biographies would be a damn good idea...
Could you tell us what this rule is or where to find it written in english?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 36, Issue 32
My response below appeared very belated as I realised after sending it that it woudl go to moderation as I had changed my e-mail address. It is of course now old news as the AfD on Angela's article has been closed as no consensus - keep.
This debate had lead me to reconsider my position. I really do not see why we should not delete articles on living persons if they request it and if they have not put themself firmly into the public domain, such as standing for office. Starting a company is not putting yourself into the public domain. It is the company that may deserve an article and the people who founded it should be mentioned. But that does not imply that we should breach their privacy by a full article on the founders. Getting elected to the Royal Society or similar is not pushing yourself into the public domain. Such a person might be mentioned on an article that explained the advance that lead to their election to the RS, but if they do not want a full bio, we should not write one. Privacy is very important.
We are not writing an encyclopedia overnight. If a person is really notable, an article can be added later, possibly after their death, if they persit in requesting that there be no article in their lifetime.
I do not think this course of action is out of line. For example, I think "Who's Who" does not force an entry on someone who does not want one. They do not argue that someone is notable and people have a right to find out about them whether the person wants this or not. I think there is a terrible arrogance about forcing a WP article on someone who does not want their privacy breached in this way.
I understand that my approach is very close to the Japan WP approach that I asked about at the end. I think it should be followed up and implemented in the en WP.
Apologies for top posting. I do not normally top post, but I am not specifically addressing the issues in the post below, just following up rather late.
Brian.
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 08:54:56AM +1000, Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 11:21:21PM +0100, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 12/07/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
There is a problem with two relatively tiny groups of people that should be at least mentioned here.
First, there are the Wikipedia lovers who insist that everything about Wikipedia is super duper important and who love to fill Wikipedia with Wikipedia fan cruft *and* to work really hard to look up negative information about anyone who has ever been hostile to Wikipedia. ...
"It's true so we should have it in and who are you to say otherwise and you're just deleting information and... they *asked* for deletion? OMG CENSORSHIP"
This is a slightly hyperbolic paraphrase, but a true one. People get insanely twitchy if they think something is removed by request; they *asked* us to remove it? that means they don't want people to know it! it must be important! we must fight to keep it!
I've encountered this quite a few times. It seems to be a cultural thing - I don't think I'd be wrong to guess it's a much more common attitude among Americans than Europeans, and among a certain type of them. There's not much we can do except be tactful and occasionally wield the Big Stick Of Editorial Common Sense.
Maybe that explains why I'm puzzled by this discussion, being a Brit now in Australia. We are not trying to write an encyclopedia overnight. If someone does not want an article on them, then I think we should be inclined to delete it. The times when we do not delete should be where the person has put themselves into the public limelight and people will want to know about them. We do not therefore delete [[George W. Bush]] or any politician. However people who found businesses or are VPs of businesses are entitled to privacy. Our readers do not have to be able to find information about them on WP.
Having meet Angela at a couple of Melbourne meetups, although we have not discussed her article, I understand why she wants it to go. I'm about to move over to Afd to state my opinion.
"No, the names of his four-year-old twin daughters are not notable. Yes, they're verifiable if you go and... oh, you did go and look up the county registers did you? That's nice. But it's not important. It causes the guy undue distress, and our readers don't need to know it."
I mean, trivia stuff. I've seen a few requests on OTRS from people saying things like "I guess you have an article on me, and that's fair, but can you take out the fact that I was born on September 2nd and just have it say 1958?" Or the seemingly inexhaustible list of minor porn starlets who, quite justifiably, write to us and say "your article on me has my real name! take it out! I'm scared!"... Articles are filling up with information that is, at best, borderline trivia (and at worst actively stupid), and we have a (default?) culture that seems to encourage adding it.
There are times that I think adopting the rule jp.wiki has on biographies would be a damn good idea...
Could you tell us what this rule is or where to find it written in english?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 36, Issue 32
-- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au [[User:Bduke]] mainly on en:Wikipedia. Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki, WikiNews, WikiBooks and Commons
On 7/12/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Articles are filling up with information that is, at best, borderline trivia (and at worst actively stupid), and we have a (default?) culture that seems to encourage adding it.
Unfortunately I've also noticed the problem with the counter-reaction to this. An article about someone doesn't just have to contain the things which establish "notability". One way that an article about someone can become a hack-job is by removing all the human detail until only the notoriety is left.
-Matt
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:54:18 -0500, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
...does the borderline notable subject ask not to have a bio? (Angela) ...does a mature respect for human dignity of a borderline notable person suggest that a bio is not needed? (Brian Peppers) ...is Wikipedia horribly naval-gazing at times? (Jeremy Rosenfeld, Brian Chase)
Jimmy, I am glad you have not forgotten Brian Peppers. Neither have the YTMNDers. They will be back; I will be there when they come. I hope you will be too.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:54:18 -0500, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
...does the borderline notable subject ask not to have a bio? (Angela) ...does a mature respect for human dignity of a borderline notable person suggest that a bio is not needed? (Brian Peppers) ...is Wikipedia horribly naval-gazing at times? (Jeremy Rosenfeld, Brian Chase)
Jimmy, I am glad you have not forgotten Brian Peppers. Neither have the YTMNDers. They will be back; I will be there when they come. I hope you will be too.
They may have sources and proof of notability by then, since some books on internet fads are currently in preparation, and I know that at least one of them will have a section on the Brian Peppers phenomenon---including mention of the debate at Wikipedia---as a case study. Will you still favor deleting it then?
-Mark
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:25:05 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
They may have sources and proof of notability by then, since some books on internet fads are currently in preparation, and I know that at least one of them will have a section on the Brian Peppers phenomenon---including mention of the debate at Wikipedia---as a case study. Will you still favor deleting it then?
It depends. I was up for allowing a very short biography saying (in strictly neutral terms) that Peppers was an apparently disabled man with a congenital deformity who was convicted of a minor technical offence and gained limited notoriety after a group of sophomoric fucktards got their rocks off laughing at his appearance in mugshots and (wrongly) screaming "child rapist!", something that would earn a serious fine if printed in a newspaper.
But in the end, no. I don't think we should have an article on somebody who is in the end "famous" solely because, well, a group of sophomoric fucktards got their rocks off laughing at his appearance.
Anybody who thinks the YTMND stuff is anything other than sick and depraved has probably never been close to someone with a serious disability. And frankly I don't care how notable the YTMNDers are in their own minds, I don't believe the bulk of the world cares, and I don't think we should help them perpetuate the supposed meme.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/13/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
But in the end, no. I don't think we should have an article on somebody who is in the end "famous" solely because, well, a group of sophomoric fucktards got their rocks off laughing at his appearance.
And in the end, I don't think we should *not* have an article on somebody simply because they have a serious disability which makes some people laugh at them. Equal rights, and everything, I say.
I also think your description of gross sexual imposition as a "minor technical offence" is terribly inaccurate. Maybe Peppers wasn't actually guilty of this offense (in which case the story is that much more important, by the way), but if Peppers was guilty of the offense I don't think it is minor.
Regardless of why Peppers is famous a lot of people want to know more about him, and in my opinion it is the job of Wikipedia to inform them about him, if for no other reason than to dispell the rumors spread by "sophomoric fucktards".
Anthony
Shortcut WP:SAP. Template: {{sidestack}}
'Nuf said. -Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
A customary part of [[military terminology]] is the usage and promotion of military terms to frame political disputes in the language of a particular POV, or else to frame indecent acts of violence in sterile and quasi-scientific language. "Liquidation" and "pacification" are probably the most canonical examples; from WWII and the Vietnam War, respectively. The Rumsfeldian usage of the term "humane" also comes to mind.
Current issues, include the inclusion of the term "Operation Just Desserts" in the [[2006 Israeli-attacks on Lebanon]] article in the lede. Likewise the article [[Operation Summer Rains]] also a military, hence POV nomenclature and hence needs renaming, though I cannot myself determine what to call it. Is it an "incursion" (ie. "a limited incursion into the country of Congress") or an "invasion", a "retaliation" or a "retribution" etc.
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 7/13/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
A customary part of [[military terminology]] is the usage and promotion of military terms to frame political disputes in the language of a particular POV, or else to frame indecent acts of violence in sterile and quasi-scientific language. "Liquidation" and "pacification" are probably the most canonical examples; from WWII and the Vietnam War, respectively. The Rumsfeldian usage of the term "humane" also comes to mind.
Current issues, include the inclusion of the term "Operation Just Desserts" in the [[2006 Israeli-attacks on Lebanon]] article in the lede. Likewise the article [[Operation Summer Rains]] also a military, hence POV nomenclature and hence needs renaming, though I cannot myself determine what to call it. Is it an "incursion" (ie. "a limited incursion into the country of Congress") or an "invasion", a "retaliation" or a "retribution" etc.
Is it your assertion that WP should not use the miliary operation names for describing events?
It's one thing to state that military terminology tends to gloss over unsightly details like shooting and killing people, which is true.
It's quite another to assert that military operation names are unencyclopedic or so POV that they should not be used in the WP. The operation names are just designators for an event, and are often both the most common and only popularly known public label for those events (Desert Storm, for example).
It is possible to take Robin Lakoff too seriously.
--- Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
If it's an official name, then that's what it's called. What's next, renaming articles on companies and products because their names were chosen to have positive associations? We could have such winners as "[[computer company named after irrelevant fruit]] is the maker of the [[Apple variety chosen because the name has a snappy abbreviation]]."
People should note that Stan's term, "official," also is POV. I shouldnt have to expand on that point.
--- George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Is it your assertion that WP should not use the miliary operation names for describing events?
Maybe. Probably. Why not? Lets start a discussion. (References which are deferential to "offical" concepts will be disregarded.)
It's one thing to state that military terminology tends to gloss over unsightly details like shooting and killing people, which is true.
Yes.
It's quite another to assert that military operation names are unencyclopedic or so POV that they should not be used in the WP. The operation names are just designators for an event, and are often both the most common and only popularly known public label for those events (Desert Storm, for example).
Again "most common", "most known" etc. are not significant points. The 2003 Invasion of Iraq article for example, according to your view, should be called "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
It is possible to take Robin Lakoff too seriously.
I dont read him/her. Its also possible to take the Pentagon too seriously too.
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 7/13/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
It's quite another to assert that military operation names are unencyclopedic or so POV that they should not be used in the WP. The operation names are just designators for an event, and are often both the most common and only popularly known public label for those events (Desert Storm, for example).
Again "most common", "most known" etc. are not significant points. The 2003 Invasion of Iraq article for example, according to your view, should be called "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Actually, no. I think it should be called the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. You're overgeneralizing my position.
If the military operation name is the most common western, english language designation for an event ("Desert Storm") then it probably should be the article name.
If the military operation name is not the most common western, english language description for the event ("2003 Invasion of Iraq") then it should not use the military operation name. The military operation name should exist as a redirect to the event article, in that case.
It's a western-english-culture-centric approach, not a pro military or anti-military terminology approach. The article should be named the way "normal people" will most likely look for the article. In some cases that is, and in some cases that is not, the military operation name.
It is possible to take Robin Lakoff too seriously.
I dont read him/her.
Robin Lakoff is the wife of UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff; both of whom have been writing widely on linguistics of military and political actions, from a left-wing viewpoint, for about 20 years now. Your argument may be of independent origin but it's precisely some of their points. See [[George Lakoff]] on en.wikipedia
Its also possible to take the Pentagon too seriously too.
Of course.
--- George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, no. I think it should be called the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. You're overgeneralizing my position.
Maybe. Is it also possible that I'm undergeneralising it?
If the military operation name is the most common western, english language designation for an event ("Desert Storm") then it probably should be the article name.
Ive never read a "probablility" clause in WP:NPOV. (Maybe I should read it again...)
If the military operation name is not the most common western, english language description for the event ("2003 Invasion of Iraq") then it should not use the military operation name. The military operation name should exist as a redirect to the event article, in that case.
It's a western-english-culture-centric approach, not a pro military or anti-military terminology approach. The article should be named the way "normal people" will most likely look for the article. In some cases that is, and in some cases that is not, the military operation name.
Thats all nice and good, but what does "western-English-culture-centric" nomenclature have to do with NPOV?
Robin Lakoff is the wife of UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff; both of whom have been writing widely on linguistics of military and political actions, from a left-wing viewpoint, for about 20 years now. Your argument may be of independent origin but it's precisely some of their points. See [[George Lakoff]] on en.wikipedia
Sound like smart people. Maybe they would agree with our NPOV policy.
Its also possible to take the Pentagon too seriously too.
Of course.
I think I will put that CIRCA poster back up.
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 7/13/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Thats all nice and good, but what does "western-English-culture-centric" nomenclature have to do with NPOV?
It doesn't. My point is that you're trying to stretch NPOV to the exclusion of other policy.
[[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]] Excerpt: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
Another way to summarize the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions:
Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. "
That policy is not NPOV. It's western-english-popular-culture-centric. It's the ruling policy here (it's specific on this topic, neutral POV is a general principle).
--- George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Thats all nice and good, but what does "western-English-culture-centric" nomenclature have to do with NPOV?
It doesn't. My point is that you're trying to stretch NPOV to the exclusion of other policy.
How is the literal application of subordinate policy "excluded" by the basic application of a superior policy? NPOV trumps even WP:Civility, IIRC, and my own editing often reflects this principled deference.
[[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]]. Excerpt:
Please do not quote a style guide in the context of a policy issue.
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 7/13/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Thats all nice and good, but what does "western-English-culture-centric" nomenclature have to do with NPOV?
It doesn't. My point is that you're trying to stretch NPOV to the exclusion of other policy.
How is the literal application of subordinate policy "excluded" by the basic application of a superior policy? NPOV trumps even WP:Civility, IIRC, and my own editing often reflects this principled deference.
I am afraid that I am going to have to ask you to agree to disagree on this point.
I do not believe that Wikipedia can survive on NPOV alone, or NPOV raised on a pillar above all other policies and common sense.
I suspect that general consensus agrees with me on this point.
[[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]]. Excerpt:
Please do not quote a style guide in the context of a policy issue.
That is not a style guide; it's an official policy.
Your desire that it not be is evident, but that's your opinion, not an accurate reflection of existing policy in my opinion.
On 7/13/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Jul 13, 2006, at 12:42 PM, George Herbert wrote:
I suspect that general consensus agrees with me on this point.
I do too, but it does not trump NPOV.
Trump implies some sort of absolutism. I'm trying to point out that absolutism for any of the policies eventually leads to mutual contradictions with other policies.
That way lies madness and flame wars...
On Jul 13, 2006, at 12:52 PM, George Herbert wrote:
On 7/13/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Jul 13, 2006, at 12:42 PM, George Herbert wrote:
I suspect that general consensus agrees with me on this point.
I do too, but it does not trump NPOV.
Trump implies some sort of absolutism. I'm trying to point out that absolutism for any of the policies eventually leads to mutual contradictions with other policies.
That way lies madness and flame wars...
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
It is like the United States, which, as we all know, opposes torture. That is the policy of the United States. No matter how much torture is done, the policy remains. So all the edit warring and voting you want to do will not abrogate NPOV.
Fred
On 7/13/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
It is like the United States, which, as we all know, opposes torture. That is the policy of the United States. No matter how much torture is done, the policy remains. So all the edit warring and voting you want to do will not abrogate NPOV.
Are you seriously equating article names with torture???
Obviously we've hit a nerve here, but ... gentlemen, please, calm down.
--- George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Are you [Fred] seriously equating article names with torture??? Obviously we've hit a nerve here, but ... gentlemen, please, calm down.
I had thought that was a bit odd as well.
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Fred wrote: It is like the United States, which, as we all know, opposes torture.
That is the policy of the United States. No matter how much torture is done, the policy remains. So all the edit warring and voting you
want to do will not abrogate NPOV.
--- George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Are you [Fred] seriously equating article names with torture??? Obviously we've hit a nerve here, but ... gentlemen, please, calm down.
-- Stevertigo wrote: I had thought that was a bit odd as well.
Methinks Fred was being multidimensionally facetious, but in a way which somehow advances human dignity. I think.
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 7/13/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Are you [Fred] seriously equating article names with torture??? Obviously we've hit a nerve here, but ... gentlemen, please, calm down.
I had thought that was a bit odd as well.
-Stevertigo
Actually I thought it was a brilliant analogy. Obviously he isn't equating editing with torture, not even using it as a metaphor for torture. Trying to read it as anything other than an analogy is just plain silly.
On Jul 13, 2006, at 1:15 PM, George Herbert wrote:
On 7/13/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
It is like the United States, which, as we all know, opposes torture. That is the policy of the United States. No matter how much torture is done, the policy remains. So all the edit warring and voting you want to do will not abrogate NPOV.
Are you seriously equating article names with torture???
Obviously we've hit a nerve here, but ... gentlemen, please, calm down.
The point is only that infractions do not abrogate a principle.
Fred
On 7/13/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The point is only that infractions do not abrogate a principle.
I am certainly not suggesting that NPOV be abrogated. NPOV is good. I like NPOV. NPOV may not be my friend, but I buy NPOV a beer when I see it at the pub.
--- George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I am afraid that I am going to have to ask you to agree to disagree on this point.
I do not believe that Wikipedia can survive on NPOV alone, or NPOV raised on a pillar above all other policies and common sense.
Then we should probably replace the clause "absolute and non-negotiable" with "catch-as-catch-can." (See [[Catch wrestling]])
I suspect that general consensus agrees with me on this point.
I suspect you are right (ironically enough).
That is not a style guide; it's an official policy.
I submit this point. I had read the lede sentence: "Naming conventions is a list of guidelines" and presumed it was of soft nature. Forgive my misuse of the term "guide."
Your desire that it not be is evident, but that's your opinion, not an accurate reflection of existing policy in my opinion.
Sure, fine, whatever.
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 7/13/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I am afraid that I am going to have to ask you to agree to disagree on this point.
I do not believe that Wikipedia can survive on NPOV alone, or NPOV raised on a pillar above all other policies and common sense.
Then we should probably replace the clause "absolute and non-negotiable" with "catch-as-catch-can." (See [[Catch wrestling]])
There is never going to be a single, universally acceptable agreed upon definition of where true neutrality is on any given issue.
The naming policy is a case in point; the most common widely used name for something often is not really all that neutral; it's whatever happened to stick in the public common mind when an event happened. It's still the right name to use for the event in Wikipedia namespace, as a general rule, for the reasons given in the naming policy.
It is not an abuse of neutality as a general guiding principle, for the naming principle to be "Whatever people commonly use to call this thing". That policy is neutral on substantiative issues, other than en.wikipedia being western cultural centric.
The individual specific instances of applying that policy then lead to cases where some may disagree with the neutrality of a given name. But they're disagreeing with Wikipedia naming something to accurately report the common cultural label. It's not a value judgement or neutrality judgement to say "This is what people call it, we call it the same thing".
How an article covers the naming and events can and should be much more neutral than the article title, which should be the common name, with redirects from common synonyms.
I am applying neutrality at the guideline level: the naming guideline should be neutral with respect to specific topic areas. The names necessarily cannot all be completely neutral in and of themelves without hopelessly diluting any utility to Wikipedia as a reference tool. The names have to fit a consistent neutral policy - and they do. But they also have to be useful for people finding things.
stevertigo wrote:
--- Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
If it's an official name, then that's what it's called. What's next, renaming articles on companies and products because their names were chosen to have positive associations? We could have such winners as "[[computer company named after irrelevant fruit]] is the maker of the [[Apple variety chosen because the name has a snappy abbreviation]]."
People should note that Stan's term, "official," also is POV. I shouldnt have to expand on that point.
We're not in the business of trying to impose our notion of NPOV on organizations whose very reason for being is to take a side. Do you think we should retitle the articles on "Department of Defense", or "Planned Parenthood", or "Operation Save America" (formerly "Operation Rescue" apparently). What about the "Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act"? I'm sure there are lots of people who consider that term to be objectionably POV. Why are we using [[People's Republic of China]] instead of "communist China" which is far more common form, and [[Republic of China]]? Even the article on ROC says "Taiwan" has become a more common form.
We're not going to do a very good job of reporting other people's POVs if we insist on inventing our own terminology to use in lieu of theirs.
It's quite another to assert that military operation names are unencyclopedic or so POV that they should not be used in the WP. The operation names are just designators for an event, and are often both the most common and only popularly known public label for those events (Desert Storm, for example).
Again "most common", "most known" etc. are not significant points. The 2003 Invasion of Iraq article for example, according to your view, should be called "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Many operation names get trumped by popular usage, which is as it should be. If there is not yet a clear popular usage, fall back to official names. Only if there are dueling official names, with no popular preference, does it make sense to invent a term. NPOV shouldn't even be a consideration, save it for the article.
Stan
--- Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
We're not in the business of trying to impose our notion of NPOV on organizations whose very reason for being is to take a side.
Ironically, your usage of "offical" does just that.
Do you think we should retitle the articles on "Department of Defense", or "Planned Parenthood", or "Operation Save America..."
This argument is disingenous, if not entirely an appeal to ridicule. The context of this discussion is military terms, which, (according the Wikipedia article at least) are POV by their very nature. (Bill names represent particular documents - not events.)
We're not going to do a very good job of reporting other people's POVs if we insist on inventing our own terminology to use in lieu of theirs.
Nor are we doing a very good job of "reporting other people's POV" by deferring to the "official" POV of those with bigger guns. Guns and fancy names do not equate to objectivity (or legitimacy for that matter).
Many operation names get trumped by popular usage, which is as it should be. If there is not yet a clear popular usage, fall back to official names. Only if there are dueling official names, with no popular preference, does it make sense to invent a term. NPOV shouldn't even be a consideration, save it for the article.
Sometimes we have to make up our own names. I refer occasionally to the [[Iraq disarmament crisis]] - something coined by me. We could also do that in these cases, following established conventions for neologisms representing events. Naming is part of POV. Either we have a culture that respects NPOV or we do not.
-Stevertigo "There is only one man who can rid the politics of this State of the evil domination of Boss Jim Gettys. "
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 7/13/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Sometimes we have to make up our own names. I refer occasionally to the [[Iraq disarmament crisis]] - something coined by me. We could also do that in these cases, following established conventions for neologisms representing events.
How is making up names anything but OR?
Naming is part of POV. Either we have a culture that respects NPOV or we do not.
NPOV is not the only Wikipedia policy and guideline.
stevertigo wrote:
Many operation names get trumped by popular usage, which is as it should be. If there is not yet a clear popular usage, fall back to official names. Only if there are dueling official names, with no popular preference, does it make sense to invent a term. NPOV shouldn't even be a consideration, save it for the article.
Sometimes we have to make up our own names. I refer occasionally to the [[Iraq disarmament crisis]] - something coined by me. We could also do that in these cases, following established conventions for neologisms representing events. Naming is part of POV. Either we have a culture that respects NPOV or we do not.
I think this is basically right, and agree that the analogy to POV-titled bills and so on isn't quite right either. A bill is a specific document, that has a name. A military operation is also a specific thing, with a name. However, our articles are usually not specifically on the military operations---they're on the conflict, giving information from both sides, outside interventions, lead-up, aftermath, etc. For example, the U.S. operation in the Gulf War was entitled Operation Desert Storm, but a lot of the contents of [[Gulf War]] are not strictly part of Operation Desert Storm. For example, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was part of the Gulf War, but not part of Operation Desert Storm. So Gulf War is a better name, and in that case also happens to be by far the most widely used name, which is nice.
More to the point, there are multiple sides to conflicts, and they may each have their own names for the conflict. I think we should only use one side's name if it's become ingrained in popular usage. For example, [[Operation Barbarossa]] (Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union) and the [[Al-Aqsa intifada]]. Those are relatively few, though; in this case the Israeli operation name is rarely used by English-language media or commentary, and in fact it was over a day before anyone source outside Wikipedia even tried translating it from Hebrew.
-Mark
stevertigo wrote:
--- Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Do you think we should retitle the articles on "Department of Defense", or "Planned Parenthood", or "Operation Save America..."
This argument is disingenous, if not entirely an appeal to ridicule. The context of this discussion is military terms, which, (according the Wikipedia article at least) are POV by their very nature. (Bill names represent particular documents - not events.)
Make up your mind - later you say "Either we have a culture that respects NPOV or we do not." If you want to make this into some kind of moral absolute that applies to all of WP, you can't then backpedal and say it's really only about military terminology. Why are you singling out the military for different treatment? If "bigger guns" matter so much, then it should apply throughout the governments that rely on them, to people and corporations that reap benefits from the government's guns, etc.
Many operation names get trumped by popular usage, which is as it should be. If there is not yet a clear popular usage, fall back to official names. Only if there are dueling official names, with no popular preference, does it make sense to invent a term. NPOV shouldn't even be a consideration, save it for the article.
Sometimes we have to make up our own names. I refer occasionally to the [[Iraq disarmament crisis]] - something coined by me.
And that's cool, if it's not original research. What's not cool is to put ourselves up as judge and jury on the terms that the rest of the world has already chosen to use.
Stan
--- George Herbert wrote:
Trump implies some sort of absolutism. I'm trying to point out that absolutism for any of the policies eventually leads to mutual contradictions with other policies. That way lies madness and flame wars...
Not to mention canker sores, mites, toe fungus, tooth decay, and jealous women...
--- Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Make up your mind - later you say "Either we have a culture that respects NPOV or we do not." If you want to make this into some kind of moral absolute that applies to all of WP, you can't then backpedal and say it's really only about military terminology.
Stanley.... The context is NPOV... as applied to POV nomenclature... of which military terms form the largest part (in my current frame of attention and relevance anyway).
This is my thread, play by my rules - they arent unfair or obfuscative.
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
stevertigo wrote:
--- Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Make up your mind - later you say "Either we have a culture that respects NPOV or we do not." If you want to make this into some kind of moral absolute that applies to all of WP, you can't then backpedal and say it's really only about military terminology.
Stanley.... The context is NPOV... as applied to POV nomenclature... of which military terms form the largest part (in my current frame of attention and relevance anyway).
This is my thread, play by my rules - they arent unfair or obfuscative.
So you want a discussion, but the it's out of bounds to point out the logical fallacies? OK, fine, I have better things to with my time.
Stan
On Jul 13, 2006, at 11:26 AM, George Herbert wrote:
The operation names are just designators for an event, and are often both the most common and only popularly known public label for those events (Desert Storm, for example).
That wouldn't be the Gulf War, would it?
Fred
stevertigo wrote:
Current issues, include the inclusion of the term "Operation Just Desserts" in the [[2006 Israeli-attacks on Lebanon]] article in the lede. Likewise the article [[Operation Summer Rains]] also a military, hence POV nomenclature and hence needs renaming, though I cannot myself determine what to call it. Is it an "incursion" (ie. "a limited incursion into the country of Congress") or an "invasion", a "retaliation" or a "retribution" etc.
If it's an official name, then that's what it's called. What's next, renaming articles on companies and products because their names were chosen to have positive associations? We could have such winners as "[[computer company named after irrelevant fruit]] is the maker of the [[Apple variety chosen because the name has a snappy abbreviation]]."
Stan
On 7/13/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Current issues, include the inclusion of the term "Operation Just
Desserts" in the
[[2006 Israeli-attacks on Lebanon]] article in the lede. Likewise the
article
[[Operation Summer Rains]] also a military, hence POV nomenclature and
hence needs
renaming, though I cannot myself determine what to call it. Is it an "incursion" (ie. "a limited incursion into the country of
Congress") or an
"invasion", a "retaliation" or a "retribution" etc.
If it's an official name, then that's what it's called. What's next, renaming articles on companies and products because their names were chosen to have positive associations? We could have such winners as "[[computer company named after irrelevant fruit]] is the maker of the [[Apple variety chosen because the name has a snappy abbreviation]]."
Stan
Well, the problem with military campaigns and wars is that they tend to be named differently by different sides. [[Great Patriotic War]] redirects to [[Eastern Front (World War II)]] and [[Operation Desert Storm]] redirects to [[Gulf War]]. Using one side's terminology is most decidedly non-neutral, because it amounts to an endorsement of one side's view of the events.
On the other hand, [[Operation Overlord]] uses the terminology correctly (IMO):
*:Operation Overlord* was the code word for the Allied operationalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_operationplan to invade Continental Europe in the summer of 1944"
Describe the POV, don't endorse it...
Ian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Stan Shebs stated for the record:
stevertigo wrote:
Current issues, include the inclusion of the term "Operation Just Desserts" in the [[2006 Israeli-attacks on Lebanon]] article in the lede. Likewise the article [[Operation Summer Rains]] also a military, hence POV nomenclature and hence needs renaming, though I cannot myself determine what to call it. Is it an "incursion" (ie. "a limited incursion into the country of Congress") or an "invasion", a "retaliation" or a "retribution" etc.
If it's an official name, then that's what it's called. What's next, renaming articles on companies and products because their names were chosen to have positive associations? We could have such winners as "[[computer company named after irrelevant fruit]] is the maker of the [[Apple variety chosen because the name has a snappy abbreviation]]."
Stan
Several months ago, I actually found myself confronting a person who didn't think Wikipedia should acknowledge that the [[LGM-118A Peacekeeper]] is called the "Peacekeeper."
- -- Sean Barrett | I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs, or sean@epoptic.com | insanity for everyone, but they've always | worked for me. --Hunter S. Thompson
--- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Several months ago, I actually found myself confronting a person who didn't think Wikipedia should acknowledge that the [[LGM-118A Peacekeeper]] is called the "Peacekeeper."
Context flag: Objects and documents are finite, and names applied to them are understood to be of arbitrary value. Events, of which we are discussing, can be classified as "operations," even if they violate every principle of man since the dawn of the human age.
-Stevertigo * Passionately about ancient history... ...kinda blase about human events.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
stevertigo wrote:
--- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Several months ago, I actually found myself confronting a person who didn't think Wikipedia should acknowledge that the [[LGM-118A Peacekeeper]] is called the "Peacekeeper."
Context flag: Objects and documents are finite, and names applied to them are understood to be of arbitrary value. Events, of which we are discussing, can be classified as "operations," even if they violate every principle of man since the dawn of the human age.
...wot?
Either what you wrote above is incoherent, or you're using jargon I'm not familiar with. Either way, I can't figure out what you're trying to say or how it's supposed to relate to the discussion. Could you please clarify?
On 16/07/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Context flag: Objects and documents are finite, and names applied to them are understood to be of arbitrary value. Events, of which we are discussing, can be classified as "operations," even if they violate every principle of man since the dawn of the human age.
...wot?
Either what you wrote above is incoherent, or you're using jargon I'm not familiar with. Either way, I can't figure out what you're trying to say or how it's supposed to relate to the discussion. Could you please clarify?
Attempted translation: Names can mean exactly jack shit. You could call a mass genocide an 'operation' if you wanted, just like you can label every living thing 'a jumble of particles that reproduces'.
--Sam
On Jul 13, 2006, at 11:14 AM, stevertigo wrote:
A customary part of [[military terminology]] is the usage and promotion of military terms to frame political disputes in the language of a particular POV, or else to frame indecent acts of violence in sterile and quasi-scientific language. "Liquidation" and "pacification" are probably the most canonical examples; from WWII and the Vietnam War, respectively. The Rumsfeldian usage of the term "humane" also comes to mind.
Current issues, include the inclusion of the term "Operation Just Desserts" in the [[2006 Israeli-attacks on Lebanon]] article in the lede. Likewise the article [[Operation Summer Rains]] also a military, hence POV nomenclature and hence needs renaming, though I cannot myself determine what to call it. Is it an "incursion" (ie. "a limited incursion into the country of Congress") or an "invasion", a "retaliation" or a "retribution" etc.
-Stevertigo
This issue is very much part of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ Añoranza where Añoranza removed several US operational codenames, "operation just cause" and"operation iraqi freedom". He probably overdid it but this question remains unanswered.
Fred
On 7/13/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
A customary part of [[military terminology]] is the usage and promotion of military terms to frame political disputes in the language of a particular POV, or else to frame indecent acts of violence in sterile and quasi-scientific language. "Liquidation" and "pacification" are probably the most canonical examples; from WWII and the Vietnam War, respectively. The Rumsfeldian usage of the term "humane" also comes to mind.
Current issues, include the inclusion of the term "Operation Just Desserts" in the [[2006 Israeli-attacks on Lebanon]] article in the lede.
Wow. Did you come up with "2006 Israeli-attacks on Lebanon" as a "neutral" name?
Jay.
--- jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Wow. Did you come up with "2006 Israeli-attacks on Lebanon" as a "neutral" name?
At least I'm trying.
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 7/13/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Wow. Did you come up with "2006 Israeli-attacks on Lebanon" as a "neutral" name?
At least I'm trying.
-Stevertigo
If you're going to argue for neutrality, it would be helpful if you made more neutral suggestions. The current article name, [[2006 Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict]], is at least neutral, although it suffers from being unwieldy and a Wikipedia invention (i.e. original research).
Jay.
Ever Article suffers from Original Research.
But Jayjg: Do you consider replacing the title of "Holocaust" with "Jewish-Aryan conflict" as neutral as well?
What are the criteria there?
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:02:00 -0400 jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/13/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Wow. Did you come up with "2006 Israeli-attacks on Lebanon" as a "neutral" name?
At least I'm trying.
-Stevertigo
If you're going to argue for neutrality, it would be helpful if you made more neutral suggestions. The current article name, [[2006 Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict]], is at least neutral, although it suffers from being unwieldy and a Wikipedia invention (i.e. original research).
Jay. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
If you're going to argue for neutrality, it would be helpful if you made more neutral suggestions. The current article name, [[2006 Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict]], is at least neutral, although it suffers from being unwieldy and a Wikipedia invention (i.e. original research).
Hey, dont hide an accusal of bias within a comment that purports to itself be neutral.
Aside from the fact that the title you give has the glaring issue of completely bypassing any notions of state sovereignty, and strangely represents a serious of hostile event as a "conflict," I think its perfectly fine.
--- Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
Do you consider replacing the title of "Holocaust" with "Jewish-Aryan conflict" as neutral as well?
I think this might be a Godwin's Law violation.
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 7/13/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
If you're going to argue for neutrality, it would be helpful if you made more neutral suggestions. The current article name, [[2006 Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict]], is at least neutral, although it suffers from being unwieldy and a Wikipedia invention (i.e. original research).
Hey, dont hide an accusal of bias within a comment that purports to itself be neutral.
Aside from the fact that the title you give has the glaring issue of completely bypassing any notions of state sovereignty, and strangely represents a serious of hostile event as a "conflict," I think its perfectly fine.
Well, I didn't come up with the title, it's just what it happens to be called now. I'm not sure what you mean by "bypassing any notions of state sovereignty". Are you suggesting that Hezbollah, which is part of the Lebanese government, bypassed any notions of state sovereignty when it entered Israel, and attacked, killed, and kidnapped Israelis?
--- Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
Do you consider replacing the title of "Holocaust" with "Jewish-Aryan conflict" as neutral as well?
I think this might be a Godwin's Law violation.
-Stevertigo
Yep. Aside from the fact that it's intentionally offensive, it's also ridiculous, as "The Holocaust" is the common English name, and we're discussing an event which does not yet have a common English name.
It's this kind of thinking and attitude that led to Dabljuh getting a permanent ban.
Jay.
On Jul 13, 2006, at 2:02 PM, jayjg wrote:
If you're going to argue for neutrality, it would be helpful if you made more neutral suggestions. The current article name, [[2006 Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict]], is at least neutral, although it suffers from being unwieldy and a Wikipedia invention (i.e. original research).
Jay.
I think this is unavoidable. We have no way to know what history books will call it.
Fred
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I think this is unavoidable. We have no way to know what history books will call it.
To the contrary - we might know before they do.
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Jul 13, 2006, at 2:44 PM, stevertigo wrote:
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I think this is unavoidable. We have no way to know what history books will call it.
To the contrary - we might know before they do.
-Stevertigo
Obviously, clever naming on our part will settle the matter.
Fred
Or, we do what's sensible and look what, for example, the NY Times calls it, instead of making (possibly) POV names up.
Let's see what we've got just on the title page
- Israel attacks (several times) - Israeli incursion (I like the sound of that)
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:46:57 -0600 Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Jul 13, 2006, at 2:44 PM, stevertigo wrote:
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I think this is unavoidable. We have no way to know what history books will call it.
To the contrary - we might know before they do.
-Stevertigo
Obviously, clever naming on our part will settle the matter.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Dabljuh wrote:
Or, we do what's sensible and look what, for example, the NY Times calls it, instead of making (possibly) POV names up.
Let's see what we've got just on the title page
- Israel attacks (several times)
- Israeli incursion (I like the sound of that)
The problem is that our article is also about the Hezbollah raid, and about Hezbollah rocket attacks into Israel, so needs some more generic name. An article at something like [[July 2006 Israeli incursion into Lebanon]] would imply that it were only about, well, the Israeli incursion into Lebanon.
-Mark
The problem is that our article is also about the Hezbollah raid, and about Hezbollah rocket attacks into Israel, so needs some more generic name. An article at something like [[July 2006 Israeli incursion into Lebanon]] would imply that it were only about, well, the Israeli incursion into Lebanon.
-Mark
Solution: Two separate articles, one about the Hezbollah kidnappings that sparked the whole thing, one about the "Israeli incursion". Makes a lot of things easier and keeps stuff tidy.
On 7/13/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
The problem is that our article is also about the Hezbollah raid, and about Hezbollah rocket attacks into Israel, so needs some more generic name. An article at something like [[July 2006 Israeli incursion into Lebanon]] would imply that it were only about, well, the Israeli incursion into Lebanon.
-Mark
Solution: Two separate articles, one about the Hezbollah kidnappings that sparked the whole thing, one about the "Israeli incursion". Makes a lot of things easier and keeps stuff tidy.
"Which, no doubt, is what people will next recommend; anything to divorce Israel's actions from the context in which they are taken."
No sooner said, than done.
Jay.
"Which, no doubt, is what people will next recommend; anything to divorce Israel's actions from the context in which they are taken."
No sooner said, than done.
Jay.
"The Lebanese government wanted a ceasefire calling for the two captured soldiers to be returned to Israel."
Here's my take on it:
If a bunch of stray israelis attacked Lebanon without authorization of the israeli government in retaliation of a bunch of lebanese without authorization of the lebanese government attacking Israel, one could talk of an "incident" or "crisis".
If the proper israeli army attacks lebanon territories in retaliation of Lebanese troops attacking Israeli territories, one could talk of a "conflict" or, when the whole thing takes a long time, "war".
If the proper israeli army attacks lebanon in retaliation of a bunch of lebanese without the authorization of the lebanese government, one talks of an "attack" or "incursion". (This might change to conflict or war if the lebanese would start to fight back)
As former US DoD chief McNamara said, "Always keep a sense of proportions"
On 7/13/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
"Which, no doubt, is what people will next recommend; anything to divorce Israel's actions from the context in which they are taken."
No sooner said, than done.
Jay.
If a bunch of stray israelis attacked Lebanon without authorization of the israeli government in retaliation of a bunch of lebanese without authorization of the lebanese government attacking Israel, one could talk of an "incident" or "crisis".
This was an official Hezbollah operation. Hezbollah is *part* of the Lebanese government. There are Hezbollah *ministers* in the government.
Jay.
On Jul 13, 2006, at 4:53 PM, jayjg wrote:
This was an official Hezbollah operation. Hezbollah is *part* of the Lebanese government. There are Hezbollah *ministers* in the government.
Jay.
I seriously doubt those two politicians had anything to do with a commando raid. The Lebanese government is very weak. An invasion is unlikely to resolve that problem. But to address the topic. I think we should attempt to find a neutral title for our article on the incident and I agree with you that the context needs to be part of the article; it should not simply be Israel invasion.
Fred
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:53:22 -0400 jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
This was an official Hezbollah operation. Hezbollah is *part* of the Lebanese government. There are Hezbollah *ministers* in the government.
An official Hezbollah operation? Who is Hezbollah? A political party in Lebanon that is currently in power, or any lebanese people that perform terrorist acts against Israel?
Did Hezbollah publish the announcement to capture israeli military on their website? their blog? Did the civilian government of Lebanon authorize commando actions against israel? Did they maybe make a radio speech? Did they vote on those kidnappings or what?
Or was it a small group of terrorists that acted on their own, when by now every anti-israel-lebanese calls himself "Hezbollah"?
Ever heard of Al-Quaida, this little CIA-backed group lead by the late Osama Bin Laden? Yet almost every anti-american terrorist group claims, at least to have links to Al-Quaida.
Its just [[namedropping]]. "We're angry Bob and rabid Robert and we take responsibility for these acts of terrorism, which, well, mount up to pointing a gun at a lone guy and telling him to follow us", just doesn't sound that impressive, does it?
Jayjg, come to your senses.
Israel is attacking a country whos government has condemned the very attacks that are now being held against it.
"Hezbollah" is not a homogenous group, nor do they have a strong hierarchy. Terrorists organizations especially cannot afford strong hierarchies because it would be too easy to take them out.
What you can criticise about Lebanon and its Government, is that their police do not seem to delight helping Israel getting their citicens back. But you can probably guess why that is.
Pretending that the Israeli atrocities against Lebanese civilians are the just and proportionate answer to the kidnapping of Israelis by Lebanese criminals is horribly POV and, bluntly, batshit insane.
Please reconsider your own position.
jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
This was an official Hezbollah operation. Hezbollah is *part* of the Lebanese government. There are Hezbollah *ministers* in the government.
Without actually knowing much about this hot news story, Lebanon or its history, I don know that "There are Hezbollah *ministers* in the government" is *some* kind of logical fallacy. Im not exactly sure which -probably because its so obvious its not worth thinking about.
--- Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
An official Hezbollah operation? Who is Hezbollah? A political party in Lebanon that is currently in power, or any lebanese people that perform terrorist acts against Israel?
Its obvious that you are reasonably intelligent and articulate, so I can only assume that you were "banned" (as Jay put) because you crossed the line into making personal attacks, or making points which violate Godwin's (now sacred) law banning comparisons to Nazis in internet discussion forums. That itself isnt an issue if you can make your points without sounding bigoted or incivil; the "come to your senses" and "please reconsider your own position" comments were inapproprate because our personal views are beside the point.
There is no enlightened way to take a side between competing nationalisms -- all concepts of "nationhood" are equivalent, and equally inferior to a universal concept of civility. Therefore we reserve our distinctions to those which advance civility, and discard concepts based in one particular culture or another as simply POV.
That said, I appreciate your explanation of the situation, according to your point of view. It is not a point of view which appears to be sufficiently represented (probably because people under attack -- by anything bigger than bottlerockets -- means the electricity is out and there are probably other things to worry about. Thats assuming you people can write good English in the first place.
-Stevertigo
Did Hezbollah publish the announcement to capture israeli military on their website? their blog? Did the civilian government of Lebanon authorize commando actions against israel? Did they maybe make a radio speech? Did they vote on those kidnappings or what?
Or was it a small group of terrorists that acted on their own, when by now every anti-israel-lebanese calls himself "Hezbollah"?
Ever heard of Al-Quaida, this little CIA-backed group lead by the late Osama Bin Laden? Yet almost every anti-american terrorist group claims, at least to have links to Al-Quaida.
Its just [[namedropping]]. "We're angry Bob and rabid Robert and we take responsibility for these acts of terrorism, which, well, mount up to pointing a gun at a lone guy and telling him to follow us", just doesn't sound that impressive, does it?
Jayjg, come to your senses.
Israel is attacking a country whos government has condemned the very attacks that are now being held against it.
"Hezbollah" is not a homogenous group, nor do they have a strong hierarchy. Terrorists organizations especially cannot afford strong hierarchies because it would be too easy to take them out.
What you can criticise about Lebanon and its Government, is that their police do not seem to delight helping Israel getting their citicens back. But you can probably guess why that is.
Pretending that the Israeli atrocities against Lebanese civilians are the just and proportionate answer to the kidnapping of Israelis by Lebanese criminals is horribly POV and, bluntly, batshit insane.
Please reconsider your own position.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Its obvious that you are reasonably intelligent and articulate, so I can only assume that you were "banned" (as Jay put) because you crossed the line into making personal attacks, or making points which violate Godwin's (now sacred) law banning comparisons to Nazis in internet discussion forums. That itself isnt an issue if you can make your points without sounding bigoted or incivil; the "come to your senses" and "please reconsider your own position" comments were inapproprate because our personal views are beside the point.
There is no enlightened way to take a side between competing nationalisms -- all concepts of "nationhood" are equivalent, and equally inferior to a universal concept of civility. Therefore we reserve our distinctions to those which advance civility, and discard concepts based in one particular culture or another as simply POV.
That said, I appreciate your explanation of the situation, according to your point of view. It is not a point of view which appears to be sufficiently represented (probably because people under attack -- by anything bigger than bottlerockets -- means the electricity is out and there are probably other things to worry about. Thats assuming you people can write good English in the first place. -Stevertigo
First of all, thanks for actually reading my stuffs.
Regarding my ban: I don't want to go too deeply into the details but in my understanding, I was removed from Wikipedia by POV warriors in administrative positions for not backing down when confronted with their POV. I have written a short essay to this list "Wikipedia's Administrative System: Corrupted to the core" in reaction to that. You furthermore speak of "you people" as if I was of arab descendence or had lebanese affiliation. I am not.
Our personal views are never besides the point, they are THE point. We are all influenced by our personal and badly informed opinions. We write what we believe is true into these articles of Wikipedia. But the process of coming to believe what is true and what is not is a long and complex one. And not everyone succeeds: People believe in magic, believe in ghosts, believe in deities, some believe in THE TIME CUBE, all of which has no basis in science, in my understanding.
Similiarly, one believes for example that the israeli attack on Lebanon is a righteous and just reaction to something Lebanon did. This as well is, in my personal understanding, a misjudgement, and is not covered by western humanist secular philosophy. In that particular occasion, it is not even supported by the Torah: "Eye for an Eye" exactly means that you should not bomb 60 Lebanese civilians to smitherines because some of them kidnapped 2 and killed 6 more.
So, by pretty much all objective, neutral ethical standards, the Israeli attack on Lebanon is a disproportionate injustice that will only work against Israel in the long run by rallying support for more antisemitic sentiments in the region and the entire world.
Of course you can now point out, that this is "but one POV". But unlike certain other POVs like "Israel has the right to do whatever it feels" or "Arabs are the innocent victims of Zionist supression", I believe, my POV warrants some merit by being objective without favoring one side over the other. You could call it, "neutral". Consider a judge who sentences someone for murder after his guilt has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Is that judge partial to anyone because he condemns the murderer?
The enlightened path for competing nationalism, is to reject all nationalism altogether. Behind the dehumanizing descriptions such as "Hezbollah Terrorists" or "Zionist Nazis" there are always people, that are suffering because of the stupidity of others.
But instead going ahead and justifying the israeli attacks on lebanon with small time criminals and terrorists, now that is horribly POV. I wanted to point that out, and make clear to Jay"Superturbozionistdeluxe"Jg that other people probably are more objective and neutral when it comes to judging what the title of the article should be, and that he should keep out because all he does is make Wikipedia more POV.
-- Dabljuh
On 7/14/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
No. You can't habitually break off polite discussion and make attacks.
Fred
Huh? Non sequitur. That statement is fallacious in so many ways. Please stop disrupting and go away, crazy person.
Not positive, but pretty sure you just proved his point, Dabljuh. --LV
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:15:43 -0400 "Lord Voldemort" lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
Not positive, but pretty sure you just proved his point, Dabljuh. --LV
I'm not sure either. The way I understood him, I think I have proved him wrong: We both can.
On Jul 14, 2006, at 8:12 AM, Dabljuh wrote:
No. You can't habitually break off polite discussion and make attacks.
Fred
Huh? Non sequitur. That statement is fallacious in so many ways. Please stop disrupting and go away, crazy person.
You are the one who is banned indefinitely and this sort of behavior is undoubtedly part of the reason why.
That said, your perspective is badly needed and I would be happy to see you actively editing after you clean up your act.
Fred
--- Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
First of all, thanks for actually reading my stuffs.
Sure. Ive learned over the years that community consensus can be misplaced at times.
Regarding my ban: I don't want to go too deeply into the details but in my understanding, I was removed from Wikipedia by POV warriors in administrative positions for not backing down when confronted with their POV. I have written a short essay to this list "Wikipedia's Administrative System: Corrupted to the core" in reaction to that. You furthermore speak of "you people" as if I was of arab descendence or had lebanese affiliation. I am not.
I think the point is that they percieve you as generating [[m:more heat than light]] with your comments. Accusing others of also making heat doesnt *do anything, and writing up critiques entitled "corrupted to the core", even if its somehow true, doesnt really make you look like anything but a troll. All I meant to say was that though your English is good, and people here make all sorts of assumptions based on English speaking capacity. Its a prejudice, but when you make bigoted or personal comments its easy to disregard you.
Our personal views are never besides the point, they are THE point. We are all influenced by our personal and badly informed opinions. We write what we believe is true into these articles of Wikipedia. But the process of coming to believe what is true and what is not is a long and complex one. And not everyone succeeds: People believe in magic, believe in ghosts, believe in deities, some believe in THE TIME CUBE, all of which has no basis in science, in my understanding.
No, this is where you are way off base. Its one thing to say that the reality is that people are biased. So what else is new? Show some civility and do some actual work instead of trying to be some petty revolutionary. I understand sometimes its frustrating, and people's comments can get out of line. Thats why there is WP:DR. But keep your own language clean first.
Similiarly, one believes for example that the israeli attack on Lebanon is a righteous and just reaction to something Lebanon did. This as well is, in my personal understanding, a misjudgement, and is not covered by western humanist secular philosophy. In that particular occasion, it is not even supported by the Torah: "Eye for an Eye" exactly means that you should not bomb 60 Lebanese civilians to smitherines because some of them kidnapped 2 and killed 6 more.
See, when you say "not covered by western humanist secular philosophy" it becomes apparent that you are either trolling, or otherwise just dont know what you are talking about. POV on any particular issue has nothing to do with "western humanist secular[ism]" -it has to do with POV.
So, by pretty much all objective, neutral ethical standards, the Israeli attack on Lebanon is a disproportionate injustice that will only work against Israel in the long run
I agree with that, but thats just my view.
by rallying support for more antisemitic sentiments in the region and the entire world.
No. Dislike of violence is not antisemitic. Enlightened people dislike violence regardless of who perpetrates it or what reasons are given for it.
Of course you can now point out, that this is "but one POV". But unlike certain other POVs like "Israel has the right to do whatever it feels" or "Arabs are the innocent victims of Zionist supression", I believe, my POV warrants some merit by being objective without favoring one side over the other. You could call it, "neutral". Consider a judge who sentences someone for murder after his guilt has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Is that judge partial to anyone because he condemns the murderer?
Yeah, but even if you were some fancy opinion writer from some magazine or somehting your opinion really isnt the issue. Sorry - we all have opinions, and we all like to think they are correct and neutral. Understanding this is the basis for civility. Failing to understand this is called "inflated ego" or something like that.
The enlightened path for competing nationalism, is to reject all nationalism altogether. Behind the dehumanizing descriptions such as "Hezbollah Terrorists" or "Zionist Nazis" there are always people, that are suffering because of the stupidity of others.
Sure.
But instead going ahead and justifying the israeli attacks on lebanon with small time criminals and terrorists, now that is horribly POV. I wanted to point that out, and make clear to Jay"Superturbozionistdeluxe"Jg that other people probably are more objective and neutral when it comes to judging what the title of the article should be, and that he should keep out because all he does is make Wikipedia more POV.
I agree. I also occasionally see some rationalization and whitewashing. Mostly what I see is a lack of the other side. My edits to the Qassam missile article simply quote someone who puts those in perspective with a similar kind of violence - which is far out of proportion. Providing counterbalance may occasionally get you called an "anti-semite," but thats OK - the important thing is Civility - its our formulation of the Golden Rule. Making personal attacks is not acceptible, regardless of how outnumbered you feel. Be like Ghandi; now he was a fine Hindu; he even got the British to leave.
SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
First of all, regarding "More heat than light"
You don't fix a broken system by pretending it is not broken. The biggest problem of Wikipedia as an organization is, that it is basically immune to criticism. This is never a good thing, when whoever argues for the change of the man-made system is removed from the system as a Troll.
I am also opposed to attempts to try to enforce civility by means of administrative punishment or policy. Because I consider the strategy to be ultimately counterproductive regarding the hostility of the process.
You know how Ghandi got started? He said "Lets screw the laws of the british and go pick salt at the shore" because he (and many others) thought it was the right thing to do.
Doing that on Wikipedia gets you banned in under 5 seconds.
Now back on topic
What I am trying to say (with "secular western humanist philosophy") is that we have methods, such as deductive reasoning, that allow us to achieve a sort of POV that can be acceptable to all. What I am saying is that there is a logical and time tested method in finding a neutral position on something. It is hard, it takes a lot of work, and may mean also overcoming one's own biases.
Now, in the process of coming to such a "neutral" position, mistakes are made and these should be pointed out and the chain of deductions should be adapted accordingly.
Let me make you an example on something that you said: "Enlightened people dislike violence" I love violence. There should be a lot more of it. But that's just my personal opinion. The objective and neutral thing to see, is that violence per se is a part of life, and cannot be deemed morally wrong any more than gravity or the sunlight.
What can be criticised rightfully however, is actions of people. If I just established that violence per se is nothing bad, I must make clear that actual instances of violence can very well be bad, in such that the reasons for these instances of violence are bad. So our "enlightened" fella might say, "Bad reasons for committing violence are bad".
Certainly you would not categorically forbid the use of violence to the police because you deem violence inherently bad?
But what's at the core of your argument, what you are saying, if I understand you correctly (please correct me if I am wrong) is that there is no such thing as a neutral point of view.
From that I would conclude, logically, that the policy of
WP:NPOV should be abandoned because there is apparently no method to actually achieve this NPOV. (And consensus is strictly not one of them)
There *is* a method to find a neutral position. Philosophy and logic offer the tools to arrive at it, such as the Socratic Method and the rules of argument.
I trust that you will go "Hey, that's right" and change your opinion, because confronted with convincing arguments, I would do just the same - Its one of the rules ;)
Dabljuh wrote: (snip)
You know how Ghandi got started? He said "Lets screw the laws of the british and go pick salt at the shore" because he (and many others) thought it was the right thing to do.
Doing that on Wikipedia gets you banned in under 5 seconds.
What are you comparing to salt reclamation? -KillerChihuahua
On Jul 14, 2006, at 11:17 AM, Puppy wrote:
Dabljuh wrote: (snip)
You know how Ghandi got started? He said "Lets screw the laws of the british and go pick salt at the shore" because he (and many others) thought it was the right thing to do.
Doing that on Wikipedia gets you banned in under 5 seconds.
What are you comparing to salt reclamation? -KillerChihuahua
POV editing and insults apparently.
Fred
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Puppy stated for the record:
Dabljuh wrote: (snip)
You know how Ghandi got started? He said "Lets screw the laws of the british and go pick salt at the shore" because he (and many others) thought it was the right thing to do.
Doing that on Wikipedia gets you banned in under 5 seconds.
What are you comparing to salt reclamation? -KillerChihuahua
Gosh, I didn't realize that it was against Wikipedia policy to pick salt at the shore. Can someone give me a link to the policy page?
Also, I'd like to see raw data from which you obtained your "under 5 seconds" value. I'd be very surprised if the time doesn't average over a minute.
- -- Sean Barrett | I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. sean@epoptic.com | But this wasn't it. --Groucho Marx
On 7/14/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Gosh, I didn't realize that it was against Wikipedia policy to pick salt at the shore. Can someone give me a link to the policy page?
It would be a clear violation of WP:POINT. Gandi didn't really want to pick salt himself. He lived along way from the sea and his level of education meant a career in that area was unlikely
On 7/14/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Puppy stated for the record:
Dabljuh wrote: (snip)
You know how Ghandi got started? He said "Lets screw the laws of the british and go pick salt at the shore" because he (and many others) thought it was the right thing to do.
Doing that on Wikipedia gets you banned in under 5 seconds.
What are you comparing to salt reclamation? -KillerChihuahua
Gosh, I didn't realize that it was against Wikipedia policy to pick salt at the shore. Can someone give me a link to the policy page?
Also, I'd like to see raw data from which you obtained your "under 5 seconds" value. I'd be very surprised if the time doesn't average over a minute.
I like to wait 5 minutes before banning the salt pickers; gives them a false sense of hope. ;-)
Jay.
On 7/13/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
The problem is that our article is also about the Hezbollah raid, and about Hezbollah rocket attacks into Israel, so needs some more generic name. An article at something like [[July 2006 Israeli incursion into Lebanon]] would imply that it were only about, well, the Israeli incursion into Lebanon.
Well, that's what "Prelude" sections in articles on battles and wars tend to be used for. There's nothing wrong with including the background/runup to the actual event the article is titled after in the article, particularly if it doesn't merit an article of its own. (Whether that's actually the case here, I have no idea.)
On 7/13/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Dabljuh wrote:
Or, we do what's sensible and look what, for example, the NY Times calls it, instead of making (possibly) POV names up.
Let's see what we've got just on the title page
- Israel attacks (several times)
- Israeli incursion (I like the sound of that)
The problem is that our article is also about the Hezbollah raid, and about Hezbollah rocket attacks into Israel, so needs some more generic name. An article at something like [[July 2006 Israeli incursion into Lebanon]] would imply that it were only about, well, the Israeli incursion into Lebanon.
Exactly. Which, no doubt, is what people will next recommend; anything to divorce Israeli's actions from the context in which they are taken.
Jay.
This has come up a few times. Here was what I thought the most reasonable solution was: if the operation name is obviously meant to influence your opinion about the validity/success of the operation itself, it should not be used as the article title, and instead something more neutral and descriptive should be used.
So "Operation Barbarossa" -- no problem. "Operation Crossroads" -- no problem. "Operation Just Cause" -- should be "United States invasion of Panama" (which it is). "Operation Iraqi Freedom" -- should be something more neutral (it is currently "Iraq War", which I find a little too ambiguous, personally, since there have been many Iraq Wars, but anyway, anything is better than the operation name).
This seemed to me to be commonsensical and in compliance with our NPOV policy (which trumps MOS, mind you). Most of the operation names are not, in fact, what the names of such operations are best known by in English (I ran some numbers with Operation Just Cause awhile ago and some variation on "U.S. invasion of Panama" was almost always used first, with the operation name secondarily used if used at all).
However there have been many who have objected to such an idea on some sort of ill-seated notion that the official name for something is always the best title of an article. I think that's pretty silly even if we didn't have a NPOV policy.
FF
On 7/13/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
A customary part of [[military terminology]] is the usage and promotion of military terms to frame political disputes in the language of a particular POV, or else to frame indecent acts of violence in sterile and quasi-scientific language. "Liquidation" and "pacification" are probably the most canonical examples; from WWII and the Vietnam War, respectively. The Rumsfeldian usage of the term "humane" also comes to mind.
Current issues, include the inclusion of the term "Operation Just Desserts" in the [[2006 Israeli-attacks on Lebanon]] article in the lede. Likewise the article [[Operation Summer Rains]] also a military, hence POV nomenclature and hence needs renaming, though I cannot myself determine what to call it. Is it an "incursion" (ie. "a limited incursion into the country of Congress") or an "invasion", a "retaliation" or a "retribution" etc.
-Stevertigo
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fastfission wrote:
This has come up a few times. Here was what I thought the most reasonable solution was: if the operation name is obviously meant to influence your opinion about the validity/success of the operation itself, it should not be used as the article title, and instead something more neutral and descriptive should be used.
So "Operation Barbarossa" -- no problem. "Operation Crossroads" -- no problem. "Operation Just Cause" -- should be "United States invasion of Panama" (which it is). "Operation Iraqi Freedom" -- should be something more neutral (it is currently "Iraq War", which I find a little too ambiguous, personally, since there have been many Iraq Wars, but anyway, anything is better than the operation name).
<snip>
Personally I like "Gulf War II".
They gave it a name. Lets not reinvent the wheel here.
On 7/13/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Fastfission wrote:
This has come up a few times. Here was what I thought the most reasonable solution was: if the operation name is obviously meant to influence your opinion about the validity/success of the operation itself, it should not be used as the article title, and instead something more neutral and descriptive should be used.
So "Operation Barbarossa" -- no problem. "Operation Crossroads" -- no problem. "Operation Just Cause" -- should be "United States invasion of Panama" (which it is). "Operation Iraqi Freedom" -- should be something more neutral (it is currently "Iraq War", which I find a little too ambiguous, personally, since there have been many Iraq Wars, but anyway, anything is better than the operation name).
<snip>
Personally I like "Gulf War II".
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
We're not re-inventing the wheel.
"Operation Iraqi Freedom" is both 1. not NPOV at all, and 2. most likely not actually the most common name in English for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
So it's actually not something that works with either of our policies on content titles.
It really shouldn't be too hard to come up with a neutral title here. "2003 invasion of Iraq" or some other variant is descriptive, accurate, NPOV, and more reflective of how this event is actually discussed and named in English (not including Fox News and the Bush administration).
FF
On 7/14/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
They gave it a name. Lets not reinvent the wheel here.
Fastfission wrote:
We're not re-inventing the wheel.
"Operation Iraqi Freedom" is both 1. not NPOV at all
I still don't buy the argument that the mere names of things somehow express POV in a way that matters for WP's NPOV policy. NPOV is all about reporting POVs, not picking one and claiming that it's "more neutral" than any of the others. If you deliberately choose a term that is not the most common in English, how is that not pushing your own POV against the entire body of speakers of the language?
Stan
On Jul 14, 2006, at 11:02 AM, Stan Shebs wrote:
Fastfission wrote:
We're not re-inventing the wheel.
"Operation Iraqi Freedom" is both 1. not NPOV at all
I still don't buy the argument that the mere names of things somehow express POV in a way that matters for WP's NPOV policy. NPOV is all about reporting POVs, not picking one and claiming that it's "more neutral" than any of the others. If you deliberately choose a term that is not the most common in English, how is that not pushing your own POV against the entire body of speakers of the language?
Stan
Choosing a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications is our policy. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Descriptive_names
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
On Jul 14, 2006, at 11:02 AM, Stan Shebs wrote:
Fastfission wrote:
We're not re-inventing the wheel.
"Operation Iraqi Freedom" is both 1. not NPOV at all
I still don't buy the argument that the mere names of things somehow express POV in a way that matters for WP's NPOV policy. NPOV is all about reporting POVs, not picking one and claiming that it's "more neutral" than any of the others. If you deliberately choose a term that is not the most common in English, how is that not pushing your own POV against the entire body of speakers of the language?
Stan
Choosing a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications is our policy. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Descriptive_names
Guideline, not policy, but I see the point about descriptive names. The loophole I see is that the page assumes the choice of descriptive vs proper name is obvious, but if I understand stevertigo's original point, WP-manufactured descriptive names would take precedence over proper names in many cases.
Stan
On 7/14/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote: [...]
Choosing a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications is our policy. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Descriptive_names
Guideline, not policy, but I see the point about descriptive names. The loophole I see is that the page assumes the choice of descriptive vs proper name is obvious, but if I understand stevertigo's original point, WP-manufactured descriptive names would take precedence over proper names in many cases.
I actually don't see how the policy/guidelines tell us whether a military operation name ("Proper noun") would be preferred or depreciated relative to a descriptive name. The policy gives guidelines for how to select in each of those categories, but for some events (and military operations and wars qualify) selecting between those options is the problem...
On Jul 14, 2006, at 7:39 PM, George Herbert wrote:
On 7/14/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote: [...]
Choosing a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications is our policy. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Descriptive_names
Guideline, not policy, but I see the point about descriptive names. The loophole I see is that the page assumes the choice of descriptive vs proper name is obvious, but if I understand stevertigo's original point, WP-manufactured descriptive names would take precedence over proper names in many cases.
I actually don't see how the policy/guidelines tell us whether a military operation name ("Proper noun") would be preferred or depreciated relative to a descriptive name. The policy gives guidelines for how to select in each of those categories, but for some events (and military operations and wars qualify) selecting between those options is the problem...
The difference is that one does not carry POV implications while the other does.
Fred
On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:11 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
So "Operation Barbarossa" -- no problem. "Operation Crossroads" -- no problem. "Operation Just Cause" -- should be "United States invasion of Panama" (which it is). "Operation Iraqi Freedom" -- should be something more neutral (it is currently "Iraq War", which I find a little too ambiguous, personally, since there have been many Iraq Wars, but anyway, anything is better than the operation name).
<snip>
Personally I like "Gulf War II".
Actually, it's the third Persian Gulf War, the first being the Iran- Iraq War.
Then again, there were five or six world wars before World War I, so who cares?
Oddly enough, in my browser on the [[Wikipedia:Sidestacking and pinching]] page the "Guidance on style" box and the shortcut box are sidestacked.
On 7/13/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Shortcut WP:SAP. Template: {{sidestack}}
'Nuf said. -Stevertigo
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Oddly enough, in my browser on the [[Wikipedia:Sidestacking and pinching]] page the "Guidance on style" box and the shortcut box are sidestacked.
Under WP:AGF, all irony should be regarded as intended, deliberate, and thus clever.
;) Stevertigo
On 7/13/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Shortcut WP:SAP. Template: {{sidestack}}
'Nuf said. -Stevertigo
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 7/13/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Oddly enough, in my browser on the [[Wikipedia:Sidestacking and pinching]] page the "Guidance on style" box and the shortcut box are sidestacked.
Under WP:AGF, all irony should be regarded as intended, deliberate, and thus clever.
;) Stevertigo
AGF doesn't equal assume competence in markup. :)
But I saw it for what it was and laughed...
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:09:39 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
But in the end, no. I don't think we should have an article on somebody who is in the end "famous" solely because, well, a group of sophomoric fucktards got their rocks off laughing at his appearance.
And in the end, I don't think we should *not* have an article on somebody simply because they have a serious disability which makes some people laugh at them. Equal rights, and everything, I say.
How many articles do we have on people known only for their deformities? The only one I can think of is Joseph Merrick.
I also think your description of gross sexual imposition as a "minor technical offence" is terribly inaccurate. Maybe Peppers wasn't actually guilty of this offense (in which case the story is that much more important, by the way), but if Peppers was guilty of the offense I don't think it is minor.
Ahem - that's *attempted* gross sexual imposition (which specifically excludes actual sexual contact). The man is by all accounts disabled and his address is a nursing home.
Regardless of why Peppers is famous a lot of people want to know more about him, and in my opinion it is the job of Wikipedia to inform them about him, if for no other reason than to dispell the rumors spread by "sophomoric fucktards".
Unfortunately the sophomoric fucktards don't want anyone to realise they are sophomoric fucktards, and they prevent that fact from creeping into the article.
How many articles do we have on people for whose entire life there is precisely one primary (court) and one secondary source (Snopes)? And for whom the major source is actually as unreliable as it gets (YTMND)?
Leave the guy alone.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/13/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
How many articles do we have on people known only for their deformities? The only one I can think of is Joseph Merrick.
Well, there are quite a few, actually. Many of the "tallest man" type. [[Xi Shun]], [[Robert Pershing Wadlow]], [[Leonid Stadnik]], etc. But I recall seeing some for tallest woman, etc. I know some of these are not technically "deformities", but thought I'd mention them. But you're right. Are there other sources? Is Peppers notable enough for us to legitimately discard his dignity by housing an article basically making fun of him? I'd say for now, echoing JzG, leave the guy alone. --LV
On 7/13/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
How many articles do we have on people known only for their deformities? The only one I can think of is Joseph Merrick.
articles on people famious for thier phyical abnormalities include
[[Chang and Eng Bunker]] [[General Tom Thumb]] [[Lavinia Warren]] [[Zip the Pinhead]] [[Myrtle Corbin]] [[Frank Lentini]] [[Jane Barnell]] to a degree [[Sarah Biffen]] [[The Doll Family]] [[Johnny Eck]] [[Elizabeth Green the Stork Woman]]
Etc
G'day geni,
On 7/13/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
How many articles do we have on people known only for their deformities? The only one I can think of is Joseph Merrick.
articles on people famious for thier phyical abnormalities include
[[Chang and Eng Bunker]] [[General Tom Thumb]] [[Lavinia Warren]] [[Zip the Pinhead]] [[Myrtle Corbin]] [[Frank Lentini]] [[Jane Barnell]] to a degree [[Sarah Biffen]] [[The Doll Family]] [[Johnny Eck]] [[Elizabeth Green the Stork Woman]]
In some cases --- particularly Sarah Biffen --- these people are famous in their own right. For the rest, although they were indeed famous only for their deformities, they were *so* famous that they're still well-known a hundred years later.
I'll make you a deal. If Brian Peppers is famous in 2090 (and we're all still alive and still contributing), I'll write the damn article myself.
On 7/16/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
[[Chang and Eng Bunker]] [[General Tom Thumb]] [[Lavinia Warren]] [[Zip the Pinhead]] [[Myrtle Corbin]] [[Frank Lentini]] [[Jane Barnell]] to a degree [[Sarah Biffen]] [[The Doll Family]] [[Johnny Eck]] [[Elizabeth Green the Stork Woman]]
In some cases --- particularly Sarah Biffen --- these people are famous in their own right. For the rest, although they were indeed famous only for their deformities, they were *so* famous that they're still well-known a hundred years later.
They're also all - as far as I can tell - dead. So human dignity doesn't really come into it.
Strangely, many of them don't have any useful categories beyond "sideshow attractions" that would actually tell you that they had physical deformities. I guess [[Category:Freaks]] got voted out?
Steve
On 7/13/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:09:39 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
But in the end, no. I don't think we should have an article on somebody who is in the end "famous" solely because, well, a group of sophomoric fucktards got their rocks off laughing at his appearance.
And in the end, I don't think we should *not* have an article on somebody simply because they have a serious disability which makes some people laugh at them. Equal rights, and everything, I say.
How many articles do we have on people known only for their deformities? The only one I can think of is Joseph Merrick.
I have no idea how many. I also don't think it's accurate to say that Peppers is known *only* for his deformities. There are plenty of people more deformed than Peppers, after all.
I also think your description of gross sexual imposition as a "minor technical offence" is terribly inaccurate. Maybe Peppers wasn't actually guilty of this offense (in which case the story is that much more important, by the way), but if Peppers was guilty of the offense I don't think it is minor.
Ahem - that's *attempted* gross sexual imposition (which specifically excludes actual sexual contact). The man is by all accounts disabled and his address is a nursing home.
Snopes says "registered due to a conviction for Gross Sexual Imposition in Lucas County, Ohio, in 1998". It doesn't say "attempted". Maybe Snopes is wrong. And maybe if Wikipedia had an article on Peppers it would be easier to find out if Snopes is wrong.
Regardless of why Peppers is famous a lot of people want to know more about him, and in my opinion it is the job of Wikipedia to inform them about him, if for no other reason than to dispell the rumors spread by "sophomoric fucktards".
Unfortunately the sophomoric fucktards don't want anyone to realise they are sophomoric fucktards, and they prevent that fact from creeping into the article.
So semi-protect the page and ban the fucktards. C'mon, if we deleted every article that gets vandalized we'd soon have no articles.
How many articles do we have on people for whose entire life there is precisely one primary (court) and one secondary source (Snopes)?
I don't know. I also don't know if that assertion is correct about Peppers, and I don't see the relevance.
And for whom the major source is actually as unreliable as it gets (YTMND)?
Was that "major source" the primary or secondary one you were referring to?
Leave the guy alone.
I'm not doing anything to the guy.
Anthony
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:34:47 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
How many articles do we have on people known only for their deformities? The only one I can think of is Joseph Merrick.
I have no idea how many. I also don't think it's accurate to say that Peppers is known *only* for his deformities. There are plenty of people more deformed than Peppers, after all.
Really? So what else is he famous for? Apart from people laughing at his deformities? The extent of them is not relevant to this question, obviously.
Ahem - that's *attempted* gross sexual imposition (which specifically excludes actual sexual contact). The man is by all accounts disabled and his address is a nursing home.
Snopes says "registered due to a conviction for Gross Sexual Imposition in Lucas County, Ohio, in 1998". It doesn't say "attempted". Maybe Snopes is wrong. And maybe if Wikipedia had an article on Peppers it would be easier to find out if Snopes is wrong.
The conviction record does say attempted. This illustrates quite powerfully the entire problem with an article on Peppers: there is so little to go on that without original research there is virtually nothing that can be said. We don't even have contemporaneous news reports.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/14/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:34:47 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
How many articles do we have on people known only for their deformities? The only one I can think of is Joseph Merrick.
I have no idea how many. I also don't think it's accurate to say that Peppers is known *only* for his deformities. There are plenty of people more deformed than Peppers, after all.
Really? So what else is he famous for? Apart from people laughing at his deformities? The extent of them is not relevant to this question, obviously.
I've actually never heard someone laugh at his deformities. I'm just saying if the only reason Peppers is know is because of his deformities, there would likely be a lot more people of equal fame. Show me someone else with the level of google searches as peppers. Looking at Google trends I see the number of searches for his name since 2005 are roughly equal to the number of searches for "stephen hawking". Surely his deformities alone have not been the only factor in this. If they were, then he wouldn't be the only one.
Ahem - that's *attempted* gross sexual imposition (which specifically excludes actual sexual contact). The man is by all accounts disabled and his address is a nursing home.
Snopes says "registered due to a conviction for Gross Sexual Imposition in Lucas County, Ohio, in 1998". It doesn't say "attempted". Maybe Snopes is wrong. And maybe if Wikipedia had an article on Peppers it would be easier to find out if Snopes is wrong.
The conviction record does say attempted. This illustrates quite powerfully the entire problem with an article on Peppers: there is so little to go on that without original research there is virtually nothing that can be said. We don't even have contemporaneous news reports.
First of all, looking at the info, you're right. He pled guilty to two counts of attempted gross sexual imposition. And going back to the topic which brought that up, I still don't think it's in the realm of reality to call attempted gross sexual imposition "a minor technical offence".
In any case, I'd say the fact that Snopes is wrong on this illustrates quite powerfully one of the reasons Wikipedia *should* have an article on Peppers.
Anthony
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 04:40:46 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
How many articles do we have on people known only for their deformities? The only one I can think of is Joseph Merrick.
I have no idea how many. I also don't think it's accurate to say that Peppers is known *only* for his deformities. There are plenty of people more deformed than Peppers, after all.
Really? So what else is he famous for? Apart from people laughing at his deformities? The extent of them is not relevant to this question, obviously.
I've actually never heard someone laugh at his deformities. I'm just saying if the only reason Peppers is know is because of his deformities, there would likely be a lot more people of equal fame. Show me someone else with the level of google searches as peppers. Looking at Google trends I see the number of searches for his name since 2005 are roughly equal to the number of searches for "stephen hawking". Surely his deformities alone have not been the only factor in this. If they were, then he wouldn't be the only one.
He's not known for his deformities, he's known because people laughed at them.
First of all, looking at the info, you're right. He pled guilty to two counts of attempted gross sexual imposition. And going back to the topic which brought that up, I still don't think it's in the realm of reality to call attempted gross sexual imposition "a minor technical offence".
You think not? There was a discussion of it at the time. It barely qualifies as a sexual offence at all.
In any case, I'd say the fact that Snopes is wrong on this illustrates quite powerfully one of the reasons Wikipedia *should* have an article on Peppers.
Actually it illustrates the fact that there is virtually nothing that can be said about him without straying into conjecture.
Guy (JzG)
While working on something completely different, I came across the page for [[Eric_the_Midget]].
My first inclination is to stub it and nominate it for AfD.
Sue Annesreed1234@yahoo.com
On 7/13/06, Sue Reed sreed1234@yahoo.com wrote:
While working on something completely different, I came across the page for [[Eric_the_Midget]].
My first inclination is to stub it and nominate it for AfD.
Sue Annesreed1234@yahoo.com
That reminds me of [[Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf]]. I'm sure the list goes on and on.
Anthony
On 7/14/06, Sue Reed sreed1234@yahoo.com wrote:
While working on something completely different, I came across the page for [[Eric_the_Midget]].
You could call this "Sterncruft" (SCNR). There's a lot of it on WP. Of course, the crucial difference to Peppers is that Peppers did not choose to become the object of ridicule and humiliation. Some Internet idiots chose to make him theirs.
That being said, if Peppers did indeed become notable (and the book Anthony pointed to might be one example of increasing notability), then we should try our best to write an NPOV article about him. I think Jimmy made a reasonable general proposal earlier in this thread:
I personally think, and would vote this way if I were voting, that factors like:
...does the borderline notable subject ask not to have a bio? (Angela) ...does a mature respect for human dignity of a borderline notable person suggest that a bio is not needed? (Brian Peppers) ...is Wikipedia horribly naval-gazing at times? (Jeremy Rosenfeld, Brian Chase) ...can and should all matter, and be taken into account by people commenting at AfD.
When a person stops being borderline and becomes obviously notable, these principles no longer apply. Whether it is or isn't a borderline case is for us to figure out on a case by case basis -- perhaps we can eventually come up with some reasonable general principles (e.g. "only known on the Internet", "only known by a clearly identifiable group of people", etc.).
Erik
On 7/13/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/06, Sue Reed sreed1234@yahoo.com wrote:
While working on something completely different, I came across the page for [[Eric_the_Midget]].
You could call this "Sterncruft" (SCNR). There's a lot of it on WP. Of course, the crucial difference to Peppers is that Peppers did not choose to become the object of ridicule and humiliation.
The other crucial difference is that Peppers is convicted of a felony (and not a victimless felony either, but one involving force or threat of force). Unless the Ohio government seriously screwed up, Peppers is not an innocent victim.
Anthony
On 14/07/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/13/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/06, Sue Reed sreed1234@yahoo.com wrote:
While working on something completely different, I came across the page for [[Eric_the_Midget]].
You could call this "Sterncruft" (SCNR). There's a lot of it on WP. Of course, the crucial difference to Peppers is that Peppers did not choose to become the object of ridicule and humiliation.
The other crucial difference is that Peppers is convicted of a felony (and not a victimless felony either, but one involving force or threat of force). Unless the Ohio government seriously screwed up, Peppers is not an innocent victim.
It is, of course, possible to be guilty of one thing and not guilty of another. I know a chap who was convicted for a particularly farcical robbery attempt; he's guilty, no doubt, and it wasn't a victimless crime. But if I wandered around this evening and kicked him in the face, he'd be pretty justified in considering himself an innocent victim of my mindless assault.
I don't see how Peppers being convicted of something means we should help people kick *him* in the face because they feel like it.
On 7/13/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/07/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/13/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/06, Sue Reed sreed1234@yahoo.com wrote:
While working on something completely different, I came across the page for [[Eric_the_Midget]].
You could call this "Sterncruft" (SCNR). There's a lot of it on WP. Of course, the crucial difference to Peppers is that Peppers did not choose to become the object of ridicule and humiliation.
The other crucial difference is that Peppers is convicted of a felony (and not a victimless felony either, but one involving force or threat of force). Unless the Ohio government seriously screwed up, Peppers is not an innocent victim.
It is, of course, possible to be guilty of one thing and not guilty of another. I know a chap who was convicted for a particularly farcical robbery attempt; he's guilty, no doubt, and it wasn't a victimless crime. But if I wandered around this evening and kicked him in the face, he'd be pretty justified in considering himself an innocent victim of my mindless assault.
I don't see how Peppers being convicted of something means we should help people kick *him* in the face because they feel like it.
I'm not advocating that we kick Peppers in the face, I'm advocating that we provide information about him in Wikipedia.
Peppers either tried to force himself onto a child or lied under oath about doing so. Either way I think we have *more* of a right to provide information about him on Wikipedia than we do information about Eric the Midget.
Anthony
On 7/14/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Peppers either tried to force himself onto a child or lied under oath about doing so.
No. The charge suggests that the victem was an adult. This was in the article.
On 7/13/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Peppers either tried to force himself onto a child or lied under oath about doing so.
No. The charge suggests that the victem was an adult. This was in the article.
Then why does the offender details page (http://www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us/Secured/p23.aspx?oid=13753) say "Victim(s): Child Female"? This should also be in the article.
Either way, whether it was a child or an adult, my points are still valid.
Anthony
On 7/14/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/13/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Peppers either tried to force himself onto a child or lied under oath about doing so.
No. The charge suggests that the victem was an adult. This was in the article.
Then why does the offender details page (http://www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us/Secured/p23.aspx?oid=13753) say "Victim(s): Child Female"? This should also be in the article.
because I made a mistake and that page appears to conflict with:
http://commissioners.co.lucas.oh.us/ClerkDockets/Docket.asp?selCaseType=CR&a...
Btw has any noticed how much the snopes article has grown?
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:10:34 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Then why does the offender details page (http://www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us/Secured/p23.aspx?oid=13753) say "Victim(s): Child Female"? This should also be in the article.
Hard to say, but it is not listed as a child in the docket http://commissioners.co.lucas.oh.us/ClerkDockets/Docket.asp?selCaseType=CR&a... or on Snopes or on the sex offenders list http://www.co.lucas.oh.us/sheriff/sexoffenderlist.pdf
Again, we have so little data that we don't know. Where are the reliable secondary sources?
Guy (JzG)
(sorry for duplicate, Anthony)
On 14/07/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
It is, of course, possible to be guilty of one thing and not guilty of another. I know a chap who was convicted for a particularly farcical robbery attempt; he's guilty, no doubt, and it wasn't a victimless crime. But if I wandered around this evening and kicked him in the face, he'd be pretty justified in considering himself an innocent victim of my mindless assault.
I don't see how Peppers being convicted of something means we should help people kick *him* in the face because they feel like it.
I'm not advocating that we kick Peppers in the face, I'm advocating that we provide information about him in Wikipedia.
...why? Wikipedia is not a registry of sex offenders. We're an *encyclopedia*. Being convicted of a crime was not, last I checked, even remotely near any sensible threshold for inclusion...
Yes, we have "more of a right" to provide information about him than about some other people... but that doesn't mean we need to, or that anyone would be well-served by us doing so.
On 7/13/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
(sorry for duplicate, Anthony)
On 14/07/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
It is, of course, possible to be guilty of one thing and not guilty of another. I know a chap who was convicted for a particularly farcical robbery attempt; he's guilty, no doubt, and it wasn't a victimless crime. But if I wandered around this evening and kicked him in the face, he'd be pretty justified in considering himself an innocent victim of my mindless assault.
I don't see how Peppers being convicted of something means we should help people kick *him* in the face because they feel like it.
I'm not advocating that we kick Peppers in the face, I'm advocating that we provide information about him in Wikipedia.
...why? Wikipedia is not a registry of sex offenders. We're an *encyclopedia*. Being convicted of a crime was not, last I checked, even remotely near any sensible threshold for inclusion...
Yes, we have "more of a right" to provide information about him than about some other people... but that doesn't mean we need to, or that anyone would be well-served by us doing so.
The simplest answer to why is that there are a lot of people who want to know about him. Also, there is a lot of misinformation going around.
Frankly, I thought the answer to "why" was obvious, which is why my message above focussed on why I think it's OK.
Anthony
On 7/14/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/13/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
(sorry for duplicate, Anthony)
On 14/07/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
It is, of course, possible to be guilty of one thing and not guilty
of
another. I know a chap who was convicted for a particularly farcical robbery attempt; he's guilty, no doubt, and it wasn't a victimless crime. But if I wandered around this evening and kicked him in the face, he'd be pretty justified in considering himself an innocent victim of my mindless assault.
I don't see how Peppers being convicted of something means we should help people kick *him* in the face because they feel like it.
I'm not advocating that we kick Peppers in the face, I'm advocating that we provide information about him in Wikipedia.
...why? Wikipedia is not a registry of sex offenders. We're an *encyclopedia*. Being convicted of a crime was not, last I checked, even remotely near any sensible threshold for inclusion...
Yes, we have "more of a right" to provide information about him than about some other people... but that doesn't mean we need to, or that anyone would be well-served by us doing so.
The simplest answer to why is that there are a lot of people who want to know about him. Also, there is a lot of misinformation going around.
Frankly, I thought the answer to "why" was obvious, which is why my message above focussed on why I think it's OK.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Where is the evidence that a lot of people want to know about him?
How many reliable sources do we have on him?
Some people on a website have decided to mock him. I don't think that we should have an article on every person who has ever committed an offence especially when there are so few reliable sources of information about him.
Regards
*Keith Old*
Keith Old
Wikipedia isn't populist. We don't have articles because "a lot of people want to know about [the subject]".
On 14/07/06, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/13/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
(sorry for duplicate, Anthony)
On 14/07/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
It is, of course, possible to be guilty of one thing and not guilty
of
another. I know a chap who was convicted for a particularly farcical robbery attempt; he's guilty, no doubt, and it wasn't a victimless crime. But if I wandered around this evening and kicked him in the face, he'd be pretty justified in considering himself an innocent victim of my mindless assault.
I don't see how Peppers being convicted of something means we should help people kick *him* in the face because they feel like it.
I'm not advocating that we kick Peppers in the face, I'm advocating that we provide information about him in Wikipedia.
...why? Wikipedia is not a registry of sex offenders. We're an *encyclopedia*. Being convicted of a crime was not, last I checked, even remotely near any sensible threshold for inclusion...
Yes, we have "more of a right" to provide information about him than about some other people... but that doesn't mean we need to, or that anyone would be well-served by us doing so.
The simplest answer to why is that there are a lot of people who want to know about him. Also, there is a lot of misinformation going around.
Frankly, I thought the answer to "why" was obvious, which is why my message above focussed on why I think it's OK.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Where is the evidence that a lot of people want to know about him?
How many reliable sources do we have on him?
Some people on a website have decided to mock him. I don't think that we should have an article on every person who has ever committed an offence especially when there are so few reliable sources of information about him.
Regards
*Keith Old*
Keith Old _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/13/06, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
Where is the evidence that a lot of people want to know about him?
Do you dispute this? I think it's pretty clear by looking at the google hits and the Snopes page.
How many reliable sources do we have on him?
A very quick search gives me 4. I'm sure there are more than that, though.
Some people on a website have decided to mock him
That can be said about a large number of people on whom Wikipedia has articles.
I don't think that we should have an article on every person who has ever committed an offence especially when there are so few reliable sources of information about him.
I think 4 sources is plenty for a short article.
Anthony
On 7/13/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/13/06, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
Where is the evidence that a lot of people want to know about him?
Do you dispute this? I think it's pretty clear by looking at the google hits and the Snopes page.
Ah, here's some good evidence: http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22brian+peppers%22%2C%22john+merrick%22%2C%2...
Anthony
Keith Old wrote:
On 7/14/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
The simplest answer to why is that there are a lot of people who want to know about him. Also, there is a lot of misinformation going around.
Where is the evidence that a lot of people want to know about him?
http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22brian+peppers%22
For some comparisons:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22brian+peppers%22%2C%22linus+torvalds%22 http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22brian+peppers%22%2C%22ghyslain+raza%22 http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22brian+peppers%22%2C%22jimmy+wales%22%2C%22...
As it happens, we do have a fairly reasonable entry on Peppers in [[List of Internet phenomena]]; it says:
"Brian Peppers — An Ohio sex offender with a facial malformity whose photo in the Ohio eSORN (Electronic Sex Offender Registration and Notification) database became widespread. Snopes has since confirmed the photograph to be real [8]"
I think much of the perpetual debate surrounding the issue could be alleviated simply by replacing the "this page is deleted" notice currently at [[Brian Peppers]] with a redirect to [[List of Internet phenomena]]. That way, we wouldn't be telling every single person who googles for the name that "HEY, LOOK, WIKIPEDIA USED TO HAVE AN ARTICLE ABOUT THIS GUY BUT IT WAS DELETED BECAUSE JIMBO SAID SO! SEE!"
Of course, the other alternative would be to fix MediaWiki so that we can _actually_ protect a deleted page, rather than having to fake it with a template saying, in effect, "This page is intentionally blank." This would be a desirable feature in general, and I hope to see it implemented some day in any case, whether by me or by someone else. It's not even particularly complicated, it just happens to require some significant changes to the database schema.
(I'm cc'ing this directly to Jimbo, since I'd like to hear his personal opinion on this. Of course, I could just be bold and make the page a redirect myself, but in my experience this is one of the situations where such a change, if done unilaterally, would be likely to be quickly reverted with the summary "no, Jimbo decreed this" regardless of its actual merit or lack thereof.)
On 7/17/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Keith Old wrote:
On 7/14/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
The simplest answer to why is that there are a lot of people who want to know about him. Also, there is a lot of misinformation going around.
Where is the evidence that a lot of people want to know about him?
http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22brian+peppers%22
For some comparisons:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22brian+peppers%22%2C%22linus+torvalds%22 http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22brian+peppers%22%2C%22ghyslain+raza%22
http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22brian+peppers%22%2C%22jimmy+wales%22%2C%22...
As it happens, we do have a fairly reasonable entry on Peppers in [[List of Internet phenomena]]; it says:
"Brian Peppers — An Ohio sex offender with a facial malformity whose photo in the Ohio eSORN (Electronic Sex Offender Registration and Notification) database became widespread. Snopes has since confirmed the photograph to be real [8]"
I think much of the perpetual debate surrounding the issue could be alleviated simply by replacing the "this page is deleted" notice currently at [[Brian Peppers]] with a redirect to [[List of Internet phenomena]]. That way, we wouldn't be telling every single person who googles for the name that "HEY, LOOK, WIKIPEDIA USED TO HAVE AN ARTICLE ABOUT THIS GUY BUT IT WAS DELETED BECAUSE JIMBO SAID SO! SEE!"
Of course, the other alternative would be to fix MediaWiki so that we can _actually_ protect a deleted page, rather than having to fake it with a template saying, in effect, "This page is intentionally blank." This would be a desirable feature in general, and I hope to see it implemented some day in any case, whether by me or by someone else. It's not even particularly complicated, it just happens to require some significant changes to the database schema.
(I'm cc'ing this directly to Jimbo, since I'd like to hear his personal opinion on this. Of course, I could just be bold and make the page a redirect myself, but in my experience this is one of the situations where such a change, if done unilaterally, would be likely to be quickly reverted with the summary "no, Jimbo decreed this" regardless of its actual merit or lack thereof.)
-- Ilmari Karonen _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ilmari,
Thanks for alerting me to the List of Internet Phenomena.
I will be removing Brian Peppers name from that list as well. My personal view is that he is not nearly significant enough to be on that list and we should not further attack him by adding him to the list.
I have no doubt that it will be reverted and I won't enter into an edit war over it. My view is that the decision was taken by Jimbo to remove mention of Brian Peppers for at least a year. My assumption is that this included reference to him in other articles.
Regards
Keith Old Keith Old
On 7/17/06, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/17/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Keith Old wrote:
On 7/14/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
The simplest answer to why is that there are a lot of people who want to know about him. Also, there is a lot of misinformation going around.
Where is the evidence that a lot of people want to know about him?
http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22brian+peppers%22
For some comparisons:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22brian+peppers%22%2C%22linus+torvalds%22 http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22brian+peppers%22%2C%22ghyslain+raza%22 http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22brian+peppers%22%2C%22jimmy+wales%22%2C%22...
As it happens, we do have a fairly reasonable entry on Peppers in [[List of Internet phenomena]]; it says:
"Brian Peppers — An Ohio sex offender with a facial malformity whose photo in the Ohio eSORN (Electronic Sex Offender Registration and Notification) database became widespread. Snopes has since confirmed the photograph to be real [8]"
I think much of the perpetual debate surrounding the issue could be alleviated simply by replacing the "this page is deleted" notice currently at [[Brian Peppers]] with a redirect to [[List of Internet phenomena]]. That way, we wouldn't be telling every single person who googles for the name that "HEY, LOOK, WIKIPEDIA USED TO HAVE AN ARTICLE ABOUT THIS GUY BUT IT WAS DELETED BECAUSE JIMBO SAID SO! SEE!"
Of course, the other alternative would be to fix MediaWiki so that we can _actually_ protect a deleted page, rather than having to fake it with a template saying, in effect, "This page is intentionally blank." This would be a desirable feature in general, and I hope to see it implemented some day in any case, whether by me or by someone else. It's not even particularly complicated, it just happens to require some significant changes to the database schema.
(I'm cc'ing this directly to Jimbo, since I'd like to hear his personal opinion on this. Of course, I could just be bold and make the page a redirect myself, but in my experience this is one of the situations where such a change, if done unilaterally, would be likely to be quickly reverted with the summary "no, Jimbo decreed this" regardless of its actual merit or lack thereof.)
-- Ilmari Karonen _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ilmari,
Thanks for alerting me to the List of Internet Phenomena.
I will be removing Brian Peppers name from that list as well. My personal view is that he is not nearly significant enough to be on that list and we should not further attack him by adding him to the list.
I have no doubt that it will be reverted and I won't enter into an edit war over it. My view is that the decision was taken by Jimbo to remove mention of Brian Peppers for at least a year. My assumption is that this included reference to him in other articles.
Regards
Keith Old Keith Old
Folks,
I have removed Brian Peppers name from the list although I have no doubt that the removal will be temporary.
In my view, this article should be under serious consideration for deletion. It is a grabbag of unrelated people who are claimed to be Internet phenomena including Zinedine Zidane, Chuck Norris, Howard Dean and Kim Jong Il who are allegedly Internet phenomena.
The non-celebrities section should be gone through with a red pen. This is the section featuring Mr Peppers and there are other entries in there which are highly problematic in my view.
I am usually a supporter of lists as I consider that they serve a useful purpose. I fail to see what useful purpose this list serves.
Regards
Keith Old
User:Capitalistroadster
On 7/16/06, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
I have removed Brian Peppers name from the list although I have no doubt that the removal will be temporary.
Just to stir the pot a little, what exactly was wrong with the paragraph we had on the guy? No one's saying he was the next Crazy Frog, but a single, neutral and well-written paragraph about him - minus photo - seems totally appropriate. Especially given that people are apparently still searching the web for information on him, two years after his major memeship.
[In other words, I can understand and support the reason not to create an article with photo about him, in order not to add to the poor guy's woes. But a quick sentence summarising his existence as a meme?]
Steve
On 7/16/06, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
Ilmari,
Thanks for alerting me to the List of Internet Phenomena.
I will be removing Brian Peppers name from that list as well. My personal view is that he is not nearly significant enough to be on that list and we should not further attack him by adding him to the list.
I have no doubt that it will be reverted and I won't enter into an edit war over it. My view is that the decision was taken by Jimbo to remove mention of Brian Peppers for at least a year. My assumption is that this included reference to him in other articles.
Regards
Keith Old
Jimbo's responce to the italian article suggests otherwise.
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:40:06 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
The other crucial difference is that Peppers is convicted of a felony (and not a victimless felony either, but one involving force or threat of force). Unless the Ohio government seriously screwed up, Peppers is not an innocent victim.
All the indications are that this was a technical offence. It has been suggested that he touched his nurse inappropriately while trying to gain her attention. We don't know, because there is virtually no source material to work on, and that is why we should not have an article.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/14/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:40:06 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
The other crucial difference is that Peppers is convicted of a felony (and not a victimless felony either, but one involving force or threat of force). Unless the Ohio government seriously screwed up, Peppers is not an innocent victim.
All the indications are that this was a technical offence. It has been suggested that he touched his nurse inappropriately while trying to gain her attention. We don't know, because there is virtually no source material to work on, and that is why we should not have an article.
What indication is there, other than your unsourced "suggestion" which contradicts all the other evidence, that this was a technical offence? If Peppers accidently "touched his nurse inappropriately while trying to gain her attention", then he is not guilty of the offense, and this story is even more important.
Yes, right now we can't find any source material to definitively determine exactly what happened. The same could be said of a large number of articles. But unlike your suggestion, there is plenty of source material to create a short article on what we *do* know.
Anthony
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 05:03:52 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
All the indications are that this was a technical offence. It has been suggested that he touched his nurse inappropriately while trying to gain her attention. We don't know, because there is virtually no source material to work on, and that is why we should not have an article.
What indication is there, other than your unsourced "suggestion" which contradicts all the other evidence, that this was a technical offence? If Peppers accidently "touched his nurse inappropriately while trying to gain her attention", then he is not guilty of the offense, and this story is even more important.
Original research. we don't know (either way) because there are no reliable sources.
Yes, right now we can't find any source material to definitively determine exactly what happened. The same could be said of a large number of articles. But unlike your suggestion, there is plenty of source material to create a short article on what we *do* know.
The point is, this has so little neutral coverage that we almost certainly won't know. If we ever get a contemporaneous news report which details what happened and to whom then we might arguably have enough to go on, but honestly there is nothing here on which to base a biography.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/14/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
The point is, this has so little neutral coverage that we almost certainly won't know. If we ever get a contemporaneous news report which details what happened and to whom then we might arguably have enough to go on, but honestly there is nothing here on which to base a biography.
Seriously... why doesn't someone with access to LexisNexis run a search and see if there are some real sources out there for Peppers? Doubt you'll find much. --LV
On 7/14/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously... why doesn't someone with access to LexisNexis run a search and see if there are some real sources out there for Peppers? Doubt you'll find much. --LV
Nada. Ran a general search and then one on Ohio papers specifically. Also ran a search in NewsBank's America's Newspaper's database, which I find more useful than Lexis/Nexis for searching smaller regional newspapers. Nothing there either.
On 7/14/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Nada. Ran a general search and then one on Ohio papers specifically. Also ran a search in NewsBank's America's Newspaper's database, which I find more useful than Lexis/Nexis for searching smaller regional newspapers. Nothing there either.
Kind of what I was figuring. There have been plenty of mentions of other memes in the traditional media, yet none on Peppers. Seems odd. How are we expexted to write an article on a subject that doesn't have corroboration in something other than internet sources? I mean, I know the name Gary Brolsma from offline sources. I know I have seen stuff on the Star Wars Kid and that German yelling kid offline as well. It's hard to believe something "this famous" would have no mention in newspapers, etc. I don't know. The WP:WEB guideline and WP:MEME (proposed) don't really give much help either. --LV
Lord Voldemort wrote:
On 7/14/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Nada. Ran a general search and then one on Ohio papers specifically. Also ran a search in NewsBank's America's Newspaper's database, which I find more useful than Lexis/Nexis for searching smaller regional newspapers. Nothing there either.
Kind of what I was figuring. There have been plenty of mentions of other memes in the traditional media, yet none on Peppers. Seems odd. How are we expexted to write an article on a subject that doesn't have corroboration in something other than internet sources? I mean, I know the name Gary Brolsma from offline sources. I know I have seen stuff on the Star Wars Kid and that German yelling kid offline as well. It's hard to believe something "this famous" would have no mention in newspapers, etc. I don't know. The WP:WEB guideline and WP:MEME (proposed) don't really give much help either. --LV
So, since there's no source that isn't "and I read it on the internets", we can't have an article on him, because it's not verifiable.
On 7/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Lord Voldemort wrote:
On 7/14/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Nada. Ran a general search and then one on Ohio papers specifically. Also ran a search in NewsBank's America's Newspaper's database, which I find more useful than Lexis/Nexis for searching smaller regional newspapers. Nothing there either.
Kind of what I was figuring. There have been plenty of mentions of other memes in the traditional media, yet none on Peppers. Seems odd.
Actually, that's untrue. There was at least one story in a Toledo paper.
How are we expexted to write an article on a subject that doesn't have corroboration in something other than internet sources? I mean, I know the name Gary Brolsma from offline sources. I know I have seen stuff on the Star Wars Kid and that German yelling kid offline as well. It's hard to believe something "this famous" would have no mention in newspapers, etc. I don't know. The WP:WEB guideline and WP:MEME (proposed) don't really give much help either. --LV
So, since there's no source that isn't "and I read it on the internets", we can't have an article on him, because it's not verifiable.
There are plenty of good verifiable sources for Brian Peppers. The article listed many of them, before it was deleted.
An online source is not necessarily a bad source.
Anthony
On 7/14/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Actually, that's untrue. There was at least one story in a Toledo paper.
Which paper? Nothing appears in the archive of the Toledo Blade (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=ARCHIVES) and the Toledo City Paper and Toledo Free Press do not appear to have searchable archives online.
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:27:15 -0400, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously... why doesn't someone with access to LexisNexis run a search and see if there are some real sources out there for Peppers? Doubt you'll find much. --LV
Nada. Ran a general search and then one on Ohio papers specifically. Also ran a search in NewsBank's America's Newspaper's database, which I find more useful than Lexis/Nexis for searching smaller regional newspapers. Nothing there either.
I couldn't make a more powerful argument for not having an article.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/14/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 05:03:52 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
All the indications are that this was a technical offence. It has been suggested that he touched his nurse inappropriately while trying to gain her attention. We don't know, because there is virtually no source material to work on, and that is why we should not have an article.
What indication is there, other than your unsourced "suggestion" which contradicts all the other evidence, that this was a technical offence? If Peppers accidently "touched his nurse inappropriately while trying to gain her attention", then he is not guilty of the offense, and this story is even more important.
Original research. we don't know (either way) because there are no reliable sources.
Actually, the person who claimed to be the guy's brother and started that rumor about the nurse admitted it was a hoax. I sent you the link earlier today.
Yes, right now we can't find any source material to definitively determine exactly what happened. The same could be said of a large number of articles. But unlike your suggestion, there is plenty of source material to create a short article on what we *do* know.
The point is, this has so little neutral coverage that we almost certainly won't know. If we ever get a contemporaneous news report which details what happened and to whom then we might arguably have enough to go on, but honestly there is nothing here on which to base a biography.
As I've said, I disagree. I think there are enough neutral sources to have a short article, maybe two paragraphs long, which would be far better than having nothing.
Anthony
On 7/15/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/14/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 05:03:52 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
All the indications are that this was a technical offence. It has been suggested that he touched his nurse inappropriately while trying to gain her attention. We don't know, because there is virtually no source material to work on, and that is why we should not have an article.
What indication is there, other than your unsourced "suggestion" which contradicts all the other evidence, that this was a technical offence? If Peppers accidently "touched his nurse inappropriately while trying to gain her attention", then he is not guilty of the offense, and this story is even more important.
Original research. we don't know (either way) because there are no reliable sources.
Actually, the person who claimed to be the guy's brother and started that rumor about the nurse admitted it was a hoax. I sent you the link earlier today.
Yes, right now we can't find any source material to definitively determine exactly what happened. The same could be said of a large number of articles. But unlike your suggestion, there is plenty of source material to create a short article on what we *do* know.
The point is, this has so little neutral coverage that we almost certainly won't know. If we ever get a contemporaneous news report which details what happened and to whom then we might arguably have enough to go on, but honestly there is nothing here on which to base a biography.
As I've said, I disagree. I think there are enough neutral sources to have a short article, maybe two paragraphs long, which would be far better than having nothing.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
We will have to agree to disagree. I think, at this stage, it has better to have nothing than have a couple of paragraphs of text on a person in this situation.
Regards
Keith Old
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:36:34 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Original research. we don't know (either way) because there are no reliable sources.
Actually, the person who claimed to be the guy's brother and started that rumor about the nurse admitted it was a hoax. I sent you the link earlier today.
You're missing the point. We don't know either way, there are no reliable sources. we don't have a court transcript, a report from the paper, a statement, nothing.
The point is, this has so little neutral coverage that we almost certainly won't know. If we ever get a contemporaneous news report which details what happened and to whom then we might arguably have enough to go on, but honestly there is nothing here on which to base a biography.
As I've said, I disagree. I think there are enough neutral sources to have a short article, maybe two paragraphs long, which would be far better than having nothing.
We disagree here in two fundamental respects.
First, I don't think that there are any sources neutral enough, given that virtually every source we do have is related to the "who's a pepper?" thing. There are no reports unrelated to that, other than the primary sources (eSORN etc.) and they are monumentally uninformative.
Second, I think that having a short article ''is'' worse than having no article, because we have no idea what else the guy has done with his life. Maybe he spent his entire childhood rescuing drowning kittens. We oimply have no idea. All we know about him is he pleaded guilty to an attempted felony, and he looks "kinda weird". We can reasonably infer that he is disabled, but even that is probably original research. We really know next to nothing about the guy, so we have no way of presenting a neutral biography.
If someone writing a book on memes goes out and researches properly and comes back with some actual substance maybe I'd change my mind, but right now I think that these two facts - conviction and appearance - do not, between them, constitute sufficient material for a WP:BLP.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/14/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:36:34 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Original research. we don't know (either way) because there are no reliable sources.
Actually, the person who claimed to be the guy's brother and started that rumor about the nurse admitted it was a hoax. I sent you the link earlier today.
You're missing the point. We don't know either way, there are no reliable sources. we don't have a court transcript, a report from the paper, a statement, nothing.
So you think the guy's brother was telling the truth, and then he retracted it for some reason? Or you think some random guy made up a hoax story which just coincidentally happened to be the truth?
I think it's pretty clear that the story about the nurse was a hoax. Maybe not clear enough to put in the article, but certainly clear enough that one shouldn't call this a minor technical offense.
The point is, this has so little neutral coverage that we almost certainly won't know. If we ever get a contemporaneous news report which details what happened and to whom then we might arguably have enough to go on, but honestly there is nothing here on which to base a biography.
As I've said, I disagree. I think there are enough neutral sources to have a short article, maybe two paragraphs long, which would be far better than having nothing.
We disagree here in two fundamental respects.
First, I don't think that there are any sources neutral enough, given that virtually every source we do have is related to the "who's a pepper?" thing. There are no reports unrelated to that, other than the primary sources (eSORN etc.) and they are monumentally uninformative.
There are primary sources, there is at least one newspaper article, there was at least one television news report, and there is snopes.
Second, I think that having a short article ''is'' worse than having no article, because we have no idea what else the guy has done with his life. Maybe he spent his entire childhood rescuing drowning kittens. We oimply have no idea. All we know about him is he pleaded guilty to an attempted felony, and he looks "kinda weird". We can reasonably infer that he is disabled, but even that is probably original research. We really know next to nothing about the guy, so we have no way of presenting a neutral biography.
Frankly, I think an article which said that we know nothing about the guy would be better than no article at all. At least then someone interested in knowing about this Brian Peppers guy would know there probably isn't that much more to know. So this, I suppose, is a fundamental disagreement.
That said, we do have several pictures of him, we know that he pled guilty to two counts of attempted gross sexual imposition, a fourth-degree felony, we know his victim was a child female over the age of 13, we know he spent 30 days in jail, we know his birth date, we know where he spent time in prison, we know that he served his probation without violation, we know he lived in a nursing home, and that he still lives in a (different) nursing home, we know his approximate height and weight, we know he was in a wheel chair, we know the name of his prosecutor and his defender. Maybe that isn't all interesting enough for the article, and maybe some of it would have to be attributed, but for one of the hundreds of thousands of people who does a google search for "Brian Peppers", if they happen to click on the second link for that search, I think they'll be more satisfied than receiving a notice that "this page has been deleted by Jimbo Wales, and should not be re-created until 21 February 2007 at the earliest."
But, again, I suppose that's a fundamental disagreement between the two of us. I think a little bit of information is better than nothing.
If someone writing a book on memes goes out and researches properly and comes back with some actual substance maybe I'd change my mind, but right now I think that these two facts - conviction and appearance
- do not, between them, constitute sufficient material for a WP:BLP.
Guy (JzG)
Anthony
On 7/14/06 2:24 PM, "Anthony" wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I think it's pretty clear that the story about the nurse was a hoax. Maybe not clear enough to put in the article, but certainly clear enough that one shouldn't call this a minor technical offense.
Which again goes to prove that we don't know enough to write a article. We, quite honestly, don't know what kind of offense this is at all, other than the very broad and general legal definition of attempting "gross sexual imposition." We don't know who his victim was, we don't know what he tried to do, we don't know the context of the crime - we don't even know where the crime occurred!
Quite simply, there is not enough verifiable information available to write a biographical article on this subject.
-Travis
I am curious to know whether very many people agree with me that "human dignity" is a valid reason for a "delete" vote in a case like this.
Here is another example, and I will probably regret mentioning it: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/ap_on_fe_st/911_love
This woman (please do not name her in the email archives, eh?) had a policeman come to her home for a noise complaint. She thought he was very attractive. So, a few weeks later, she called 911 to inquire about him, to ask for his name. She indicated in the phone call that she did not know how else to contact him, and gave her phone number and ask them to have the officer call her or drop by.
Now, if she had stopped for a moment to think about why calling 911 about this was a bad idea, I am sure she could have called the non-emergency phone number. (For non-US readers: '911' is what you call everywhere in the US in case you have an emergency, and they will send the police, fire department, or ambulance as necessary.)
Instead, she was arrested for abuse of the 911 system. As far as I can tell from the story, she did not have malicious intent, it was not even a prank, it was just a mistaken call to the wrong number, and a "cute" story.
The AP, in what I must say I personally find to be a lack of journalistic ethics, chose to publish her full name and distribute the story to millions of people worldwide. Our understanding of the story is not enhanced by knowing her full name. It is just a funny little story about someone being stupid.
Fortunately, most AP stories vanish from the net pretty quickly. This one will. The Yahoo link will die in a few months. But imagine if someone were to write a Wikipedia article using precisely the (daft, if you ask me) arguments that Anthony DiPierro has been using. It is a confirmable story, we do know a number of fairly trivial facts about her, and... we might imagine... this *could* become an idiotic short lived meme among the immature segment of the under-17 crowd on the Internet, as did Brian Peppers.
Should we therefore have an article? Let's assume that we can verify the story easily enough. (Maybe one newspaper keeps its archives online for free... maybe a dozen blogs pick up the story.)
I would vote "delete, nn - human dignity". A full explanation would be: For goodness sake, leave the poor woman alone.
--Jimbo
On 7/15/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I am curious to know whether very many people agree with me that "human dignity" is a valid reason for a "delete" vote in a case like this.
Jimbo,
It very much is. There's nothing enyclopedic to write about in these cases. A certain respect and concern for privacy should be beyond the aims of Wikipedia. In all seriousness: there's plenty to do in Wikipedia. Adding articles of such dubious and possibly destructive nature does not belong to that list.
sebmol
On 7/15/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I would vote "delete, nn - human dignity". A full explanation would be: For goodness sake, leave the poor woman alone.
It's a combination of factors, I think: - Did she actively seek out this publicity, or was it forced on her? - Is there an identifiable "cult" surrounding her persona that goes beyond narrowly limited demographic or subcultural subsets? - Have other publications using reliable processes (not necessarily print) picked up the story for some reason other than reprinting it? Has it ever transcended the "Offbeat News" section?
Human dignity is one argument among many that can be applicable in certain situations. It's not a catch-all.
What I find most important is that our decisions are consistent. The fact that controversial decisions are closed by a single admin tends to work against that, because all our admins have very different standards. A controversial AfD is a game of dice right now.
I'm inclined to believe that a general principle "the more controversial a decision is, the more people should be involved in determining its final outcome" would make sense. A quorum among a small number of admins in controversial cases, and a policy that such cases need to be documented as precedents, would be one way to achieve that.
Erik
On 7/14/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/15/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I would vote "delete, nn - human dignity". A full explanation would be: For goodness sake, leave the poor woman alone.
It's a combination of factors, I think:
- Did she actively seek out this publicity, or was it forced on her?
- Is there an identifiable "cult" surrounding her persona that goes
beyond narrowly limited demographic or subcultural subsets?
- Have other publications using reliable processes (not necessarily
print) picked up the story for some reason other than reprinting it? Has it ever transcended the "Offbeat News" section?
Along these lines: Will anyone care in a year? two years? ten years? one hundred years?
Wikipedia is forever. It is a waste of the project's time when someone writes an article on something which will be forgotten before the article matures.
Our behavior should be guided both by ethics and by a practical dedication to the goals of our project (*Free Content*, *Encyclopedia*). Articles which represent a breach of ethics should be deleted just the same as topics which are unencyclopedic.
Jimbos example rests somewhere inbetween... and a decision which weighs the harms and merits of the coverage should be considered by the community.
People are arrested all the time for doing stupid stuff. This may be interesting, it may be an abuse of police power, but that's all it is. We could find plenty worse if we looked.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 7/14/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/15/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I would vote "delete, nn - human dignity". A full explanation would be: For goodness sake, leave the poor woman alone.
It's a combination of factors, I think:
- Did she actively seek out this publicity, or was it forced on her?
- Is there an identifiable "cult" surrounding her persona that goes
beyond narrowly limited demographic or subcultural subsets?
- Have other publications using reliable processes (not necessarily
print) picked up the story for some reason other than reprinting it? Has it ever transcended the "Offbeat News" section?
Along these lines: Will anyone care in a year? two years? ten years? one hundred years?
Wikipedia is forever. It is a waste of the project's time when someone writes an article on something which will be forgotten before the article matures.
This is clearly a wrong criterion. It should not be our role to judge what will or won't be forgotten, or what should or shouldn't be forgotten. It may be safe to say that many people whose names were included in the earlier editions Britannica were edited out in subsequent editions. We can at least argue that Wiki is not paper. Politicians are always doing and saying things that they hope will be forgotten, and persons with vested interests are often happy with that state of things.
There is no waste of the project's time here, though the individual editor may have been wasting his own time. There is a need to avoid this tendency to view Wikipedia as something more than what it is. We are not professionals, so why should we be pretending that we are producing a professional product? Let's quit basing policy simply on what the neighbours think.
Human dignity is an entirely different criterion that could be viewed as a derivative of Wikilove.
Our behavior should be guided both by ethics and by a practical dedication to the goals of our project (*Free Content*, *Encyclopedia*). Articles which represent a breach of ethics should be deleted just the same as topics which are unencyclopedic.
The ethical principle is much more sound but let's not confuse it with "unencyclopedic". Sometimes who is involved is far less important than the incident itself, and in this case that may be adequate reason for omitting the name of the person. For those who really feel that it is something important to know they have ample opportunity to track down the source.
Laying down a set of rules and calling them ethics is not what ethics are all about, although rules can still be derived from ethical principles. I would not think it appropriate for our principles of human dignity to be guided and defined by what happened with this one woman. That would be too shallow. The real issue is deeper than that. It could be too that this is an even more important issue for Wikinews.
Some have criticized AP for spreading this story. They have done it this way forever. Of course habit is not a justification. They mention names because by failing to do say they risk perpetrating urban myth. Incidents of this sort can easily grow into such proportions. Urban myth can best be controlled by having all the facts available, verifiable and open. Newspapers could print the names; radio and TV stations could report them, and those names would soon be forgotten. When we review old newspapers or other publications it is often with the active intent of developing some particular story as opposed to the more passive intent of repeating whatever random information we happen to find. Will people actively search for these oddball incidents in the wiki database ten years from now when it will be so much bigger? Or will they be pleased to just discover it as a random article?
Ec
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 7/15/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I would vote "delete, nn - human dignity". A full explanation would be: For goodness sake, leave the poor woman alone.
It's a combination of factors, I think
I totally agree with that, to be sure. What I am asking is whether or not there is general agreement that *one* legitimate factor to consider is human dignity, personal privacy, and so on. I think so, and I think that most people think so, but I also think that there is a faction who disagrees, who thinks that we should barrel forward in all cases with information, so long as we can verify it.
- Did she actively seek out this publicity, or was it forced on her?
- Is there an identifiable "cult" surrounding her persona that goes
beyond narrowly limited demographic or subcultural subsets?
- Have other publications using reliable processes (not necessarily
print) picked up the story for some reason other than reprinting it? Has it ever transcended the "Offbeat News" section?
Yes. These are all valid questions, and this sort of question is what I think saves us from "slippery slope" absurdities like "what George Bush says he wants personal privacy?"
Human dignity is one argument among many that can be applicable in certain situations. It's not a catch-all.
That's how I see it, too. It is one factor among many.
--Jimbo
On 7/15/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
, and... we might imagine... this *could* become an idiotic short lived meme among the immature segment of the under-17 crowd on the Internet, as did Brian Peppers.
The Brian Peppers thing appears to have started as an email meme which probably means adults. The google trends result suggests it has been going for a bit over a year which is quite a long time for the internet. It is however less popular than "all your base"
I would vote
oops
On Jul 14, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
imagine if someone were to write a Wikipedia article using precisely the (daft, if you ask me) arguments that Anthony DiPierro has been using. It is a confirmable story, we do know a number of fairly trivial facts about her, and... we might imagine... this *could* become an idiotic short lived meme
The worst aspect of this is that there is no way to flesh out the woman's humanity. It is doubtful any other published information exists.
Fred
On 7/15/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Jul 14, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
imagine if someone were to write a Wikipedia article using precisely the (daft, if you ask me) arguments that Anthony DiPierro has been using. It is a confirmable story, we do know a number of fairly trivial facts about her, and... we might imagine... this *could* become an idiotic short lived meme
The worst aspect of this is that there is no way to flesh out the woman's humanity. It is doubtful any other published information exists.
Fred _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
My comment as a regular Articles for Deletion participant was that the article doesn't meet WP:BIO. The only possible grounds under WP:BIO are "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events."
My definition of a newsworthy event is something that is reported over a number of days or page one news on the day it happened such as the Mumbai bombings. Being reported in an AP or Reuters Oddly Enough story just doesn't cut it for mine. Those stories are usually used as filler on Page 9.
Further, we have one source the AP story. We don't have enough information to write a reasonable article or stub about her. In my opinion, the same applies to Brian Peppers.
We should consider human dignity. We are the leading biographical resource available on the Internet. If an employer is Googling a possible employee, a Wikipedia entry will almost inevitably come up on the first page of results. We should consider human dignity.
Please see our biography guidelines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIO
Regards
Keith Old
User:Capitalistroadster
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I would vote "delete, nn - human dignity". A full explanation would be: For goodness sake, leave the poor woman alone.
I would support deleting an article about the incident you describe purely on the basis that it falls below even my rather inclusive "notability" standards, rendering your question moot.
Assuming for purposes of argument that there was reason that this incident _was_ notable, however, I wouldn't accept an argument for deletion solely on the basis of "human dignity." Our other policies and guidelines will ensure that the article ultimately only contains information that is commonly available anyway. Removing her article from Wikipedia would do nothing to help "leave her alone" and it would harm Wikipedia's coverage of a notable event, so IMO it'd be a solid net negative.
I don't even see what's so undignified about this particular incident that anyone would argue it on that basis in the first place. Everyone does boneheaded things from time to time.
I agree with Bryan, but I am happy that Jimbo has made explicit an issue with which we've frequently dealt tangentially (see, e.g., in the [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] and [[WP:NOT EVIL]] discussions). Plainly, to my mind, human dignity is an altogether unencyclopedic concern, and, pace Jimbo, I think that, inasmuch as we ought to edit with complete disinterest vis-Ã -vis the external consequences of our editing, we ought never to comport our encyclopedic work with, as journalists, a [[Journalistic ethics#Harm limitation principle|harm limitation principle]].
There are, I think, two issues here: (a) whether the community believe there to be anything morally wrong with our creating and maintaining articles apropos of living persons where the notability of those persons is avolitional and where those persons are demonstrably harmed by our having such articles (even where they've not complained to us about that harm) and (b) whether, assuming arguendo that the community does thence appreciate a moral wrong, otherwise encyclopedic concerns militate sufficiently in favor of inclusion that, notwithstanding a moral wrong, we ought to have such articles.
Even as I recognize that some editors would find there to be something untoward or immoral in our having an article, for example, about [[Brian Peppers]], I think it is far from clear that the majority of frequent contributors think there to be something immoral with our writing articles that certainly harm their subjects where their subjects are arguably non-notable and in any event avolitionally public; I certainly can't comprehend why anyone would think such writing to be immoral, but that's likely because I am an amoral objectivist.
Were there to be a consensus for the idea that we ought to act to limit harm in view of the nebulous "human dignity", I'd suspect that there'd nevertheless be no abiding consensus toward the proposition that the "human dignity" argument ought always to be dispositive; there are, after all, other encyclopedic concerns to which "human dignity" ought not to be superior.
As [[WP:POLICY]] makes well clear, the nature of the wiki is such that nothing is immutable; were most frequent contributors, for example, to determine that we should no longer require [[WP:V|verifiability]], it's likely that Wikipedia would (d)evolve in a fashion consistent with community consensus (surely Jimbo would consider whether to jump in at this point, but I think even he would concede that his capabilities to act unilaterally contrary to an evident consensus are somewhat limited and that, in any case, the community would look with strong disfavor on such unilateral action), and so, encyclopedic concerns aside, the community might decide to confer guideline status on the ol' "human dignity" bit. I seriously doubt that the community would so act, though, and I certainly don't think that a discussion on the mailing list ought to be understood as involving the whole of the community.
There seems to be, relative to [[WP:OFFICE]] and [[WP:BLP]], an acquiescence to the idea that there are circumstances under which, even where legal and [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]], and [[WP:NPOV]] issues do not entail, we ought to act to avoid offending subjects, which accession I find wholly ridiculous. If such accession commands the support of the community, though, it should be codified, but only after a Wiki-wide discussion.
Cordially,
Joe Hiegel [[User:Jahiegel]]
ournalistic_ethics#Harm_limitation_principle
Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote: Jimmy Wales wrote:
I would vote "delete, nn - human dignity". A full explanation would be: For goodness sake, leave the poor woman alone.
I would support deleting an article about the incident you describe purely on the basis that it falls below even my rather inclusive "notability" standards, rendering your question moot.
Assuming for purposes of argument that there was reason that this incident _was_ notable, however, I wouldn't accept an argument for deletion solely on the basis of "human dignity." Our other policies and guidelines will ensure that the article ultimately only contains information that is commonly available anyway. Removing her article from Wikipedia would do nothing to help "leave her alone" and it would harm Wikipedia's coverage of a notable event, so IMO it'd be a solid net negative.
I don't even see what's so undignified about this particular incident that anyone would argue it on that basis in the first place. Everyone does boneheaded things from time to time.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jul 14, 2006, at 9:10 PM, Joseph Hiegel wrote:
I agree with Bryan, but I am happy that Jimbo has made explicit an issue with which we've frequently dealt tangentially (see, e.g., in the [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] and [[WP:NOT EVIL]] discussions). Plainly, to my mind, human dignity is an altogether unencyclopedic concern, and, pace Jimbo, I think that, inasmuch as we ought to edit with complete disinterest vis-Ã -vis the external consequences of our editing, we ought never to comport our encyclopedic work with, as journalists, a [[Journalistic ethics#Harm limitation principle|harm limitation principle]].
There are, I think, two issues here: (a) whether the community believe there to be anything morally wrong with our creating and maintaining articles apropos of living persons where the notability of those persons is avolitional and where those persons are demonstrably harmed by our having such articles (even where they've not complained to us about that harm) and (b) whether, assuming arguendo that the community does thence appreciate a moral wrong, otherwise encyclopedic concerns militate sufficiently in favor of inclusion that, notwithstanding a moral wrong, we ought to have such articles.
Even as I recognize that some editors would find there to be something untoward or immoral in our having an article, for example, about [[Brian Peppers]], I think it is far from clear that the majority of frequent contributors think there to be something immoral with our writing articles that certainly harm their subjects where their subjects are arguably non-notable and in any event avolitionally public; I certainly can't comprehend why anyone would think such writing to be immoral, but that's likely because I am an amoral objectivist.
Were there to be a consensus for the idea that we ought to act to limit harm in view of the nebulous "human dignity", I'd suspect that there'd nevertheless be no abiding consensus toward the proposition that the "human dignity" argument ought always to be dispositive; there are, after all, other encyclopedic concerns to which "human dignity" ought not to be superior.
As [[WP:POLICY]] makes well clear, the nature of the wiki is such that nothing is immutable; were most frequent contributors, for example, to determine that we should no longer require [[WP:V| verifiability]], it's likely that Wikipedia would (d)evolve in a fashion consistent with community consensus (surely Jimbo would consider whether to jump in at this point, but I think even he would concede that his capabilities to act unilaterally contrary to an evident consensus are somewhat limited and that, in any case, the community would look with strong disfavor on such unilateral action), and so, encyclopedic concerns aside, the community might decide to confer guideline status on the ol' "human dignity" bit. I seriously doubt that the community would so act, though, and I certainly don't think that a discussion on the mailing list ought to be understood as involving the whole of the community.
There seems to be, relative to [[WP:OFFICE]] and [[WP:BLP]], an acquiescence to the idea that there are circumstances under which, even where legal and [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]], and [[WP:NPOV]] issues do not entail, we ought to act to avoid offending subjects, which accession I find wholly ridiculous. If such accession commands the support of the community, though, it should be codified, but only after a Wiki-wide discussion.
Cordially,
Joe Hiegel [[User:Jahiegel]]
Our freedom from litigation is partially due to being responsive to people who are hurt or offended by articles about them. Seems like a sound policy compared to the likely consequences of an amoral policy.
Fred
ournalistic_ethics#Harm_limitation_principle
Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote: Jimmy Wales wrote:
I would vote "delete, nn - human dignity". A full explanation would be: For goodness sake, leave the poor woman alone.
I would support deleting an article about the incident you describe purely on the basis that it falls below even my rather inclusive "notability" standards, rendering your question moot.
Assuming for purposes of argument that there was reason that this incident _was_ notable, however, I wouldn't accept an argument for deletion solely on the basis of "human dignity." Our other policies and guidelines will ensure that the article ultimately only contains information that is commonly available anyway. Removing her article from Wikipedia would do nothing to help "leave her alone" and it would harm Wikipedia's coverage of a notable event, so IMO it'd be a solid net negative.
I don't even see what's so undignified about this particular incident that anyone would argue it on that basis in the first place. Everyone does boneheaded things from time to time.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/14/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Our freedom from litigation is partially due to being responsive to people who are hurt or offended by articles about them. Seems like a sound policy compared to the likely consequences of an amoral policy.
Very true, and well said.
Joseph Hiegel wrote:
Were there to be a consensus for the idea that we ought to act to limit harm in view of the nebulous "human dignity", I'd suspect that there'd nevertheless be no abiding consensus toward the proposition that the "human dignity" argument ought always to be dispositive; there are, after all, other encyclopedic concerns to which "human dignity" ought not to be superior.
Indeed. I doubt very much whether anyone would say that such concerns ought always be dispositive. Rather, what I wanted to lay on the table more explicitly is my own view, as an editor, and not something that I expect to be universally shared, that it is indeed a perfectly valid factor to consider, among many others.
As [[WP:POLICY]] makes well clear, the nature of the wiki is such that nothing is immutable; were most frequent contributors, for example, to determine that we should no longer require [[WP:V|verifiability]], it's likely that Wikipedia would (d)evolve in a fashion consistent with community consensus (surely Jimbo would consider whether to jump in at this point, but I think even he would concede that his capabilities to act unilaterally contrary to an evident consensus are somewhat limited and that, in any case, the community would look with strong disfavor on such unilateral action),
Actually, I consider WP:V to be so central to Wikipedia that if there were ever a significant majority of contributors who wanted to do away with it, we would have an internal war on our hands that would make the userbox wars look simple by comparison. The important thing to remember here is that merely existing and typing in a web form does not make one a Wikipedian. The community is defined by the goal of the community, and people... no matter how numerous or vocal... who do not accept that goal are not a part of the Wikipedia community.
But on finer grained issues of editorial judgments, another core principle of Wikipedia is a strong embrace of a diversity of opinion. Some editors may consider human dignity to be an entirely pointless factor, while other may give it a fairly high weight. We can live in harmony with such differences of opinion, and we can have a healthy give and take and rational discussion about specific cases.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Joseph Hiegel wrote:
As [[WP:POLICY]] makes well clear, the nature of the wiki is such that nothing is immutable; were most frequent contributors, for example, to determine that we should no longer require [[WP:V|verifiability]], it's likely that Wikipedia would (d)evolve in a fashion consistent with community consensus (surely Jimbo would consider whether to jump in at this point, but I think even he would concede that his capabilities to act unilaterally contrary to an evident consensus are somewhat limited and that, in any case, the community would look with strong disfavor on such unilateral action),
Actually, I consider WP:V to be so central to Wikipedia that if there were ever a significant majority of contributors who wanted to do away with it, we would have an internal war on our hands that would make the userbox wars look simple by comparison.
There can be no serious argument against the concept of verifiability, but verifiability standards can vary according to the subject matter. To be sure the standards must be highest when we are dealing with the biography of a living person. For the walk through of a video game or the plot outline of a movie the game or the movie itself should be adequate verification.
The important thing to remember here is that merely existing and typing in a web form does not make one a Wikipedian. The community is defined by the goal of the community, and people... no matter how numerous or vocal... who do not accept that goal are not a part of the Wikipedia community.
But on finer grained issues of editorial judgments, another core principle of Wikipedia is a strong embrace of a diversity of opinion. Some editors may consider human dignity to be an entirely pointless factor, while other may give it a fairly high weight. We can live in harmony with such differences of opinion, and we can have a healthy give and take and rational discussion about specific cases.
Superficially "human dignity" is a fine standard, but like notability it is a subjective standard. This makes it difficult to narrow the scope of its application.
Ec
On 7/18/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
There can be no serious argument against the concept of verifiability, but verifiability standards can vary according to the subject matter. To be sure the standards must be highest when we are dealing with the biography of a living person. For the walk through of a video game or the plot outline of a movie the game or the movie itself should be adequate verification.
I think we've been through this one a few times. Movie yes, video game no, IMHO.
Superficially "human dignity" is a fine standard, but like notability it is a subjective standard. This makes it difficult to narrow the scope of its application.
We could try. We haven't tried very hard with notability. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability - it basically says "after 5 years of Wikipedia, we still have no consensus whatever on what should be in or out, or even, whether a policy on what should be in or out should exist". That's a pretty major failing.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/18/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Superficially "human dignity" is a fine standard, but like notability it is a subjective standard. This makes it difficult to narrow the scope of its application.
We could try. We haven't tried very hard with notability. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability - it basically says "after 5 years of Wikipedia, we still have no consensus whatever on what should be in or out, or even, whether a policy on what should be in or out should exist". That's a pretty major failing.
In many ways yes. There was a tendency at one time to consider notability and verifiability as closely associated, but I still view them as distinct. Notability can often depend on context and local interest. Even if the information is meaningless to most people on the other side of the world it can be interesting to the residents of a town and to that town's expatriates who may otherwise have difficulty finding information about their home town.
The discussion about whether we should have Angela's biography is curious. Being a director of an organization that runs a top-100 website alone makes her notable. Of course, the same standards for accuracy should apply as for any other living person.
Ec
On 7/15/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I don't even see what's so undignified about this particular incident that anyone would argue it on that basis in the first place. Everyone does boneheaded things from time to time.
This particular incident may only be embarrassing; what is undignified is AP's reportage using a full name. What would likewise be undignified would be the immortalisation of this in a biography, forever linking this person's name with this event and this event alone (there is no other biographical information available), as if that was the sum total of their life.
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 7/15/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I don't even see what's so undignified about this particular incident that anyone would argue it on that basis in the first place. Everyone does boneheaded things from time to time.
This particular incident may only be embarrassing; what is undignified is AP's reportage using a full name.
It's standard journalistic practice to report names unless there's some reason to believe that doing so would cause the person imminent harm (e.g. Mafia witnesses). The main reason is so that news can be verifiable by outside sources. There is also sometimes an exception for sources who have agreed to talk to a journalist on condition of anonymity, but that is increasingly discouraged for the same reason---articles based on "a source who asked not to be named" could be, and sometimes have been, entirely made up.
-Mark
On 7/15/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/15/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I don't even see what's so undignified about this particular incident that anyone would argue it on that basis in the first place. Everyone does boneheaded things from time to time.
This particular incident may only be embarrassing; what is undignified is AP's reportage using a full name. What would likewise be undignified would be the immortalisation of this in a biography, forever linking this person's name with this event and this event alone (there is no other biographical information available), as if that was the sum total of their life.
I think that's in part due to the details of the incident, though. Otherwise, we should probably delete [[John Couey]] and a whole host of other articles on criminals.
Calling 911 to get a date is boneheaded. Trying to force yourself sexually onto a child is more than just boneheaded.
Anthony
G'day Anthony,
Calling 911 to get a date is boneheaded. Trying to force yourself sexually onto a child is more than just boneheaded.
Writing an article to punish its subject is pretty boneheaded in itself. That the subject is "boneheaded" (or worse) is no reason to write a bad article on someone, even people you think are attempted rapists.
We attempt to have neutral, unbiased articles about the utter dregs of humanity, the worst scum the human race has produced. We don't say (sorry) "Mr Hitler was a bad man, so we don't need to follow NPOV" --- we say "Let's write a good article about that Hitler chap, and be watchful, because he was such a bad man that other people will no doubt come along and try to POV-push there." If we can do that for history's greatest criminals, why are we even *thinking* of saying "Mr Peppers is a bad man, so basic human dignity doesn't apply here"?
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Anthony,
Calling 911 to get a date is boneheaded. Trying to force yourself sexually onto a child is more than just boneheaded.
Writing an article to punish its subject is pretty boneheaded in itself. That the subject is "boneheaded" (or worse) is no reason to write a bad article on someone, even people you think are attempted rapists.
We attempt to have neutral, unbiased articles about the utter dregs of humanity, the worst scum the human race has produced. We don't say (sorry) "Mr Hitler was a bad man, so we don't need to follow NPOV" --- we say "Let's write a good article about that Hitler chap, and be watchful, because he was such a bad man that other people will no doubt come along and try to POV-push there." If we can do that for history's greatest criminals, why are we even *thinking* of saying "Mr Peppers is a bad man, so basic human dignity doesn't apply here"?
Whatever happened to [[WP:HOLE]]? If the guy is completely unremarkable, why should we have an article on him?
On 7/15/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Anthony,
Calling 911 to get a date is boneheaded. Trying to force yourself sexually onto a child is more than just boneheaded.
Writing an article to punish its subject is pretty boneheaded in itself. That the subject is "boneheaded" (or worse) is no reason to write a bad article on someone, even people you think are attempted rapists.
I never suggested that the reason to write an article was to punish its subject. The reason to write an article on [[Brian Peppers]] is that there are an enormous number of people looking for information on him.
And I never suggested writing a bad article on anyone.
We attempt to have neutral, unbiased articles about the utter dregs of humanity, the worst scum the human race has produced. We don't say (sorry) "Mr Hitler was a bad man, so we don't need to follow NPOV" --- we say "Let's write a good article about that Hitler chap, and be watchful, because he was such a bad man that other people will no doubt come along and try to POV-push there." If we can do that for history's greatest criminals, why are we even *thinking* of saying "Mr Peppers is a bad man, so basic human dignity doesn't apply here"?
I don't think this is a matter of basic human dignity. I think it's a matter of personal privacy, which I fully agree with Jimbo is one legitimate factor to consider. But I don't think anyone is suggesting that we don't have any articles on living people, so the question is where do we draw the line.
When is an article about a living person acceptable? I think one situation is where they have convicted of the felony attempted gross sexual imposition. You might disagree with me, but please stop mischaracterising my point of view.
Anthony
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:53:44 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
The reason to write an article on [[Brian Peppers]] is that there are an enormous number of people looking for information on him.
Really? How many? Within ten percent or so.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/16/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:53:44 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
The reason to write an article on [[Brian Peppers]] is that there are an enormous number of people looking for information on him.
Really? How many? Within ten percent or so.
Guy (JzG)
About the same as Gandi:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=brian+peppers%2C+gandi&ctab=0&geo=all...
On 7/16/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
About the same as Gandi:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=brian+peppers%2C+gandi&ctab=0&geo=all...
Try http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22Brian+Peppers%22%2C+gandhi&ctab=0&...
Better example: http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22Brian+Peppers%22%2C+%22Jimmy+Wales%22&...
The search volume does seem genuine, given that it's highly concentrated in Ohio, Peppers' place of residence.
Of course, if we go by that criterion, there's a bunch of porn sites we really need articles for.
Erik
On 7/16/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/16/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
About the same as Gandi:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=brian+peppers%2C+gandi&ctab=0&geo=all...
Try http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22Brian+Peppers%22%2C+gandhi&ctab=0&...
Better example: http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22Brian+Peppers%22%2C+%22Jimmy+Wales%22&...
The search volume does seem genuine, given that it's highly concentrated in Ohio, Peppers' place of residence.
A better one would "Brian Peppers", "Tom Thumb", "Zip the Pinhead"
Of course, if we go by that criterion, there's a bunch of porn sites we really need articles for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex.com
On 7/16/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, if we go by that criterion, there's a bunch of porn sites we really need articles for.
Or indeed most of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Erotica_websites
geni wrote:
On 7/16/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Better example: http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22Brian+Peppers%22%2C+%22Jimmy+Wales%22&...
The search volume does seem genuine, given that it's highly concentrated in Ohio, Peppers' place of residence.
A better one would "Brian Peppers", "Tom Thumb", "Zip the Pinhead"
I'd expect most of the searches for "Tom Thumb" are for the folklore character or for the grocery store chain.
Anyway, I doubt Google Trends is much use in gauging the relative notability of "people with congenital deformations". For comparing "internet memes", however, it is probably a fairly good estimate.
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:01:34 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Really? How many? Within ten percent or so.
About the same as Gandi: http://www.google.com/trends?q=brian+peppers%2C+gandi&ctab=0&geo=all...
Trend seems downward. Let's see where that is in a year...
Guy (JzG)
On 7/17/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:01:34 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Really? How many? Within ten percent or so.
About the same as Gandi: http://www.google.com/trends?q=brian+peppers%2C+gandi&ctab=0&geo=all...
Trend seems downward. Let's see where that is in a year...
The curve looks like it will bottom out at almost zero by the end of the year. So we'll really be able to state empirically that noone cares about it on 21 February 2007.
In message f80608430607161001u4cef7ebdxeeca6b89c42442a1@mail.gmail.com, geni geniice-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org writes
On 7/16/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman-0XdUWXLQalXR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:53:44 -0400, Anthony wikilegal-d6AYu9+njizYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org wrote:
The reason to write an article on [[Brian Peppers]] is that there are an enormous number of people looking for information on him.
Really? How many? Within ten percent or so.
Guy (JzG)
About the same as Gandi:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=brian+peppers%2C+gandi&ctab=0&geo=all...
But far fewer than are looking on information for Gandhi. It does help to spell the person's name correctly.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=brian+peppers%2C+gandhi&ctab=0&geo=al... e=all
On 7/16/06, Arwel Parry arwel@cartref.demon.co.uk wrote:
But far fewer than are looking on information for Gandhi. It does help to spell the person's name correctly.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=brian+peppers%2C+gandhi&ctab=0&geo=al... e=all
The list of news items is about Sonia and Rahul Gandhi. It's a pretty common surname.
Steve
Hi Geni, All,
geni wrote:
On 7/16/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Really? How many? Within ten percent or so.
About the same as Gandi:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=brian+peppers%2C+gandi&ctab=0&geo=all...
Ahem. (not to be cofused with ''Amen'')
IMHO we aren't in the business if writing a backup copy of the Internet. Last time I've checked, our primary mission was the creation of a free encyclopedia.
So, how many people opened the encyclopedia of their choice and were astonished and disappointed, that there's no "Brian Peppers" lemma?
[[User:Pjacobi]]
G'day Anthony,
On 7/15/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Anthony,
Calling 911 to get a date is boneheaded. Trying to force yourself sexually onto a child is more than just boneheaded.
Writing an article to punish its subject is pretty boneheaded in itself. That the subject is "boneheaded" (or worse) is no reason to write a bad article on someone, even people you think are attempted rapists.
I never suggested that the reason to write an article was to punish its subject. The reason to write an article on [[Brian Peppers]] is that there are an enormous number of people looking for information on him.
Okay, I've clearly misunderstood your comments in this thread. Just to make things ultra crystal clear, then: you agree that Mr Peppers' criminal conviction actually has no relevance whatsoever in the argument over whether or not an article about the fellow violates some ideal of human dignity, and therefore should never have been mentioned?
If you do agree, then I must have completely misread the thrust of your arguments, and I apologise.
And I never suggested writing a bad article on anyone.
Well, that's good to hear.
<snip/>
On 7/16/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Anthony,
On 7/15/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Anthony,
Calling 911 to get a date is boneheaded. Trying to force yourself sexually onto a child is more than just boneheaded.
Writing an article to punish its subject is pretty boneheaded in itself. That the subject is "boneheaded" (or worse) is no reason to write a bad article on someone, even people you think are attempted rapists.
I never suggested that the reason to write an article was to punish its subject. The reason to write an article on [[Brian Peppers]] is that there are an enormous number of people looking for information on him.
Okay, I've clearly misunderstood your comments in this thread. Just to make things ultra crystal clear, then: you agree that Mr Peppers' criminal conviction actually has no relevance whatsoever in the argument over whether or not an article about the fellow violates some ideal of human dignity, and therefore should never have been mentioned?
I don't actually understand what the Peppers case has to do with human dignity *at all*. Perhaps this is at least in part because I don't assign a good or bad value to his appearance.
That said, I do think there is a personal privacy consideration. I don't think Wikipedia should have articles about just anyone. In the case of Peppers I think the privacy argument is overcome because he voluntarily committed an act which put himself into the public spotlight.
Could the same be said of 911 woman? I guess. But her crime (for which I don't believe she has yet been convicted) is one which I see as much more minor, and she is a whole lot less popular (especially her name, which I don't even remember). Personally I have no opinion either way as to whether or not to keep an article about 911 woman. If it came out that she personally asked us not to have an article, then I'd support deletion of any such article which popped up, out of respect for her personal privacy. Otherwise, I'd neither support nor oppose deletion, though maybe I'd take a different position 6 months or a year later if the sources and interest either grow or go away.
If you do agree, then I must have completely misread the thrust of your arguments, and I apologise.
My argument, in terms of the Peppers article, is that it is "notable" due to the huge interest in him, and it is justifiable in terms of privacy rights due to his particular conviction. I see these as two separate issues for the most part, because the privacy issue is a hurdle that has to be overcome regardless of how much interest there is in a person.
Jimbo has suggested that the privacy issue is similar to what he's referring to as "human dignity". I don't really see much connection, but I could just be confusing the term.
Anthony
On 7/17/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
That said, I do think there is a personal privacy consideration. I don't think Wikipedia should have articles about just anyone. In the case of Peppers I think the privacy argument is overcome because he voluntarily committed an act which put himself into the public spotlight.
Casting all criminals as "people who voluntarily commited acts which put themselves into the public spotlight" is not the way we want to be going. We should primarily care about what makes the encyclopaedia better, but in doing as little harm as possible in the process.
OT: I was irked today when I went to look up OMFGWTFBBQ in Wikipedia, only to find a redirect to [[Internet slang]], which didn't actually mention it. Nor did [[List of internet slang]]. In fact there *was* a useful definition once upon a time, but it got deleted by someone zealously enforcing WP:NOT. What can I say - the encyclopaedia let me down on this one.
Steve
On 7/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/17/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
That said, I do think there is a personal privacy consideration. I don't think Wikipedia should have articles about just anyone. In the case of Peppers I think the privacy argument is overcome because he voluntarily committed an act which put himself into the public spotlight.
Casting all criminals as "people who voluntarily commited acts which put themselves into the public spotlight" is not the way we want to be going.
And it's not the way that I went. I don't think any crime is sufficient to overcome one's right to privacy, at least to some extent. I do think the crime Peppers is convicted of is sufficient, though.
We should primarily care about what makes the encyclopaedia better, but in doing as little harm as possible in the process.
Sure, and I think providing information about Brian Peppers does make the encyclopedia better. But at the same time I think we have to consider personal privacy issues. Both have to be present. Articles have to make the encyclopedia better, but they also have to refrain from violating the privacy rights of the subject.
Anthony
On 7/17/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
And it's not the way that I went. I don't think any crime is sufficient to overcome one's right to privacy, at least to some extent. I do think the crime Peppers is convicted of is sufficient, though.
Huh? Didn't he grope a nurse at his nursing home or something? Talk to someone at works at these places, that's an everyday occurrence. Even if he was a rapist or child molester, I don't see why his right to privacy should necessarily be diminished - unless the Wikipedia community takes it upon itself to decide that additional punishment needs to be meted out to such people.
Sure, and I think providing information about Brian Peppers does make the encyclopedia better. But at the same time I think we have to consider personal privacy issues. Both have to be present. Articles have to make the encyclopedia better, but they also have to refrain from violating the privacy rights of the subject.
I don't think that writing "Brian Peppers was an internet meme due to his oversized head" is violating his privacy. Naming the nursing home where he lives or providing details on the offence he committed could be.
Steve
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:39:00 +0200, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Huh? Didn't he grope a nurse at his nursing home or something?
We have no idea, there are no reliable sources.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/17/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
And it's not the way that I went. I don't think any crime is sufficient to overcome one's right to privacy, at least to some extent. I do think the crime Peppers is convicted of is sufficient, though.
Huh? Didn't he grope a nurse at his nursing home or something? Talk to someone at works at these places, that's an everyday occurrence.
If it's an everyday occurrence, then do you really think that's what happened?
The person who made up the story about Peppers accidently groping a nurse has admitted that it was a hoax.
Even if he was a rapist or child molester, I don't see why his right to privacy should necessarily be diminished - unless the Wikipedia community takes it upon itself to decide that additional punishment needs to be meted out to such people.
So why don't we delete [[John Couey]] and all the others in [[Category:Convicted child sex offenders]]? Are we punishing them?
In fact, who *can* we have an article about? Only people who give us permission? Or are there some people we're allowed to punish?
Sure, and I think providing information about Brian Peppers does make the encyclopedia better. But at the same time I think we have to consider personal privacy issues. Both have to be present. Articles have to make the encyclopedia better, but they also have to refrain from violating the privacy rights of the subject.
I don't think that writing "Brian Peppers was an internet meme due to his oversized head" is violating his privacy. Naming the nursing home where he lives or providing details on the offence he committed could be.
I don't think there's any reason to name which nursing home he lives at, of course this information is relatively easy to find anyway.
As for providing details on the offence he committed, I most certainly don't think that's a violation of his privacy.
Anthony
On 7/18/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
So why don't we delete [[John Couey]] and all the others in [[Category:Convicted child sex offenders]]? Are we punishing them?
Presumably John Couey is a *notable* sex offender, although the article utterly fails to establish his notability.
Articles on notable sex offenders is totally within our mission.
In fact, who *can* we have an article about? Only people who give us permission? Or are there some people we're allowed to punish?
Those weren't serious questions were they? Punishment is *not* our goal. Writing the encyclopaedia is. Keep that in mind, and your way will become clearer.
As for providing details on the offence he committed, I most certainly don't think that's a violation of his privacy.
Depending on the exact case, I think it could be. Can you imagine having a whole paragraph to the article on a Nobel-prize winning physicist like "when Smith was 21, he was arrested for fondling the breasts of a 17-year old neighbour. According to the police report <500 word description of the entire saga>..."?
Steve
Could you give me a definition of "notability" that is not entirely centred around the culture and experience of the person who uses it? I'm yet to hear one. IMO, we should completely abandon, or redefine, "notability" for something more tangible, measurable and worthy of our efforts.
On 18/07/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/18/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
So why don't we delete [[John Couey]] and all the others in [[Category:Convicted child sex offenders]]? Are we punishing them?
Presumably John Couey is a *notable* sex offender, although the article utterly fails to establish his notability.
Articles on notable sex offenders is totally within our mission.
In fact, who *can* we have an article about? Only people who give us permission? Or are there some people we're allowed to punish?
Those weren't serious questions were they? Punishment is *not* our goal. Writing the encyclopaedia is. Keep that in mind, and your way will become clearer.
As for providing details on the offence he committed, I most certainly don't think that's a violation of his privacy.
Depending on the exact case, I think it could be. Can you imagine having a whole paragraph to the article on a Nobel-prize winning physicist like "when Smith was 21, he was arrested for fondling the breasts of a 17-year old neighbour. According to the police report <500 word description of the entire saga>..."?
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oldak Quill wrote:
Could you give me a definition of "notability" that is not entirely centred around the culture and experience of the person who uses it? I'm yet to hear one. IMO, we should completely abandon, or redefine, "notability" for something more tangible, measurable and worthy of our efforts.
I don't know the "I know it when I see it and I'll vote that way" approach does not seem to me to be the biggest problem we have. I think a bigger problem is focusing on notability too much to the exclusion of such questions as: "Is there enough verifiable information on this topic for an encyclopedic article?", "Is this topic fit or appropriate for an encyclopedia?", "If this topic were covered completely and throughly would it be worth reading?". In the case of people article I would also say "Is a single transitory cultural event that the person was involved in the only reason for the article to exist?" There are other questions things to consider other than if the topic or person meets some arbitrary bar of notability and I suspect that putting much effort into rigidly defining notability would exacerbate the tendency to ignore other considerations (like human dignity).
Dalf
I was getting at what you have put across: notability is indefinable and we rely on it far too much. Verifiability and factual accuracy are my two greatest concerns.
On 19/07/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
Could you give me a definition of "notability" that is not entirely centred around the culture and experience of the person who uses it? I'm yet to hear one. IMO, we should completely abandon, or redefine, "notability" for something more tangible, measurable and worthy of our efforts.
I don't know the "I know it when I see it and I'll vote that way" approach does not seem to me to be the biggest problem we have. I think a bigger problem is focusing on notability too much to the exclusion of such questions as: "Is there enough verifiable information on this topic for an encyclopedic article?", "Is this topic fit or appropriate for an encyclopedia?", "If this topic were covered completely and throughly would it be worth reading?". In the case of people article I would also say "Is a single transitory cultural event that the person was involved in the only reason for the article to exist?" There are other questions things to consider other than if the topic or person meets some arbitrary bar of notability and I suspect that putting much effort into rigidly defining notability would exacerbate the tendency to ignore other considerations (like human dignity).
Dalf _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/18/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Could you give me a definition of "notability" that is not entirely centred around the culture and experience of the person who uses it?
Well you can come up with lots of definitions for different classes of things. The top 10 richest people in some category, top 10 most decorated athletes in another, etc, are all notable. An overall definition is tricky, but we must take into account that there are two reasons for having articles in Wikipedia: either because the subject is notable, or for completeness. Most communes in France aren't notable - but having reference material on all the communes is pretty useful. (and there are better, less contentious examples)
On that last note, it would be interesting to formulate a rule like: If X% of all members of some class are "notable", then articles for all members of that class should exist.
Then, what should X be? 30? 50?
I'm yet to hear one. IMO, we should completely abandon, or redefine, "notability" for something more tangible, measurable and worthy of our efforts.
Yep. Because the fundamential issue here is not "is Y notable?" It is "should we have an article on Y?" Therefore the issue should be called "includability" or something. And then we can formalise what we already all basically agree on: that the rules for what we do and don't include depend to a great extent on the individual subject matter. But that perhaps there are a couple of common principles that can be applied to them. I tried to come up with some a few months ago, maybe it's time I had another go.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
OT: I was irked today when I went to look up OMFGWTFBBQ in Wikipedia, only to find a redirect to [[Internet slang]], which didn't actually mention it. Nor did [[List of internet slang]]. In fact there *was* a useful definition once upon a time, but it got deleted by someone zealously enforcing WP:NOT. What can I say - the encyclopaedia let me down on this one.
Steve
WARNING: topic drift
Without claiming that we should or should not have such a entry in those articles, I have for a long time been interested in looking through the DB dump for redirects to pages that do not contain the term being redirected to them, or something close. Its the "or something close" and the fact that some times this is probably "ok" that makes it hard to just do this. In any event I have frequently come across very bad redirects, some of them POV some of them I think people did just to avoid having a red link. Is there any sort of redirect auditing being done? I can't say I know of a good way to go about it efficiently but its is worth thinking about.
Dalf
On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:09 PM, ScottL wrote:
WARNING: topic drift
Without claiming that we should or should not have such a entry in those articles, I have for a long time been interested in looking through the DB dump for redirects to pages that do not contain the term being redirected to them, or something close. Its the "or something close" and the fact that some times this is probably "ok" that makes it hard to just do this. In any event I have frequently come across very bad redirects, some of them POV some of them I think people did just to avoid having a red link. Is there any sort of redirect auditing being done? I can't say I know of a good way to go about it efficiently but its is worth thinking about.
Dalf
Not on a regular basis, but as you find them, fix them. Nothing wrong with a red link if there is no article on the subject.
Fred
On 7/18/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
Without claiming that we should or should not have such a entry in those articles, I have for a long time been interested in looking through the DB dump for redirects to pages that do not contain the term being redirected to them, or something close. Its the "or something close" and the fact that some times this is probably "ok" that makes it hard to just do this. In any event I have frequently come across very bad redirects, some of them POV some of them I think people did just to avoid having a red link. Is there any sort of redirect auditing being done? I can't say I know of a good way to go about it efficiently but its is worth thinking about.
A useful tool would be some javascript that shows you every redirect that links to each page that you visit, so any bad ones might jump out at you.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/18/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
Without claiming that we should or should not have such a entry in those articles, I have for a long time been interested in looking through the DB dump for redirects to pages that do not contain the term being redirected to them, or something close. Its the "or something close" and the fact that some times this is probably "ok" that makes it hard to just do this. In any event I have frequently come across very bad redirects, some of them POV some of them I think people did just to avoid having a red link. Is there any sort of redirect auditing being done? I can't say I know of a good way to go about it efficiently but its is worth thinking about.
A useful tool would be some javascript that shows you every redirect that links to each page that you visit, so any bad ones might jump out at you.
Steve
I like that idea. My initial thought was a off line parsing of the DB Dump for redirects that are not in whole or in part mentioned in the target to the redirect. But I (wildly and with no basis) estimated that probably 50% of those or more would be perfectly acceptable redirects. In such a case there would little hope get getting many editors involved going thorough them looking fr the bad ones.
Your suggestions is much better. There are a number of other nifty javascript things that could be done for the whatlinkshere page as well. *wanders off and ponders tinkering*
SKL
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:32:20 +1000, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
We attempt to have neutral, unbiased articles about the utter dregs of humanity, the worst scum the human race has produced. We don't say (sorry) "Mr Hitler was a bad man, so we don't need to follow NPOV"
Last time I checked, Mr Hitler was (a) dead and (b) dead famous.
Guy (JzG)
G'day Guy,
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:32:20 +1000, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
We attempt to have neutral, unbiased articles about the utter dregs of humanity, the worst scum the human race has produced. We don't say (sorry) "Mr Hitler was a bad man, so we don't need to follow NPOV"
Last time I checked, Mr Hitler was (a) dead and (b) dead famous.
Just to make sure I'm being clear here, I was comparing the argument (which, it seems, Anthony was not making, but never mind) that we don't need to worry about any concept of privacy or "human dignity" because Mr Peppers Is A Bad Man with the repeatedly-discredited argument that we don't need to worry about writing a NPOV article about certain historical figures because Those Historical Figures Were Bad Men.
The, ahem, badness of the subject has no bearing on how good our article should be --- or, in some cases, whether or not we should have an article at all.
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 7/15/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I don't even see what's so undignified about this particular incident that anyone would argue it on that basis in the first place. Everyone does boneheaded things from time to time.
This particular incident may only be embarrassing; what is undignified is AP's reportage using a full name. What would likewise be undignified would be the immortalisation of this in a biography, forever linking this person's name with this event and this event alone (there is no other biographical information available), as if that was the sum total of their life.
I'm not sure what the distinction between "embarrassing" and "undignified" is, here. And I already addressed the lack of other information separately, I would already have supported deletion on that basis alone. I was assuming that there was something more to the incident for the sake of argument so that the matter of "human dignity" could actually be addressed.
This incident is really a bad example for discussing the subject we're supposedly discussing, I wish Jimbo had used one that wasn't so obviously deletable for unrelated reasons.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
This incident is really a bad example for discussing the subject we're supposedly discussing, I wish Jimbo had used one that wasn't so obviously deletable for unrelated reasons.
Sure. I am open to other examples.
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 7/15/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I don't even see what's so undignified about this particular incident that anyone would argue it on that basis in the first place. Everyone does boneheaded things from time to time.
This particular incident may only be embarrassing; what is undignified is AP's reportage using a full name. What would likewise be undignified would be the immortalisation of this in a biography, forever linking this person's name with this event and this event alone (there is no other biographical information available), as if that was the sum total of their life.
Exactly. Perhaps I am surprisingly old-fashioned, but it seems to me that the news reporting in this case would have been _better_ had they simply used initials or some other literary device.
For me, the amusement at the cute story (woman calls 911 to ask for a date) was seriously impaired by my distaste for the fact that this poor woman's name was being brought into the matter globally and on the Internet and against her will, in a way that makes it somewhat likely that future googling on her name for the next 30 years will bring this incident, and only this incident, to the forefront.
--Jimbo
On 7/18/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Stephen Bain wrote:
This particular incident may only be embarrassing; what is undignified is AP's reportage using a full name. What would likewise be undignified would be the immortalisation of this in a biography, forever linking this person's name with this event and this event alone (there is no other biographical information available), as if that was the sum total of their life.
Exactly. Perhaps I am surprisingly old-fashioned, but it seems to me that the news reporting in this case would have been _better_ had they simply used initials or some other literary device.
For me, the amusement at the cute story (woman calls 911 to ask for a date) was seriously impaired by my distaste for the fact that this poor woman's name was being brought into the matter globally and on the Internet and against her will, in a way that makes it somewhat likely that future googling on her name for the next 30 years will bring this incident, and only this incident, to the forefront.
Indeed. In my newspaper of choice there's a section with a humorous or unusual story on the front page every day, called Oddspot. People's names are regularly omitted if the story is embarrassing such as this one about the 911 call, replaced with "a man from Sometown" or somesuch.
Today's Oddspot is two Irishmen who stole a boat in Wales trying to get to Dublin. They sailed in circles for hours before returning to Wales again. They're identified simply as "Two Irishmen" (http://www.theage.com.au/oddspot/).
The reason of course is that it's not real news, it's light entertainment. I don't think it's wrong to be making similar distinctions as to what is real encyclopaedic content and what is something else.
In message f30e42de0607180135s3209b202o90f5bbf19e1d8dca@mail.gmail.com, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3
Indeed. In my newspaper of choice there's a section with a humorous or unusual story on the front page every day, called Oddspot. People's names are regularly omitted if the story is embarrassing such as this one about the 911 call, replaced with "a man from Sometown" or somesuch.
Today's Oddspot is two Irishmen who stole a boat in Wales trying to get to Dublin. They sailed in circles for hours before returning to Wales again. They're identified simply as "Two Irishmen" (http://www.theage.com.au/oddspot/).
Actually, they are identified by name in this article from a newspaper covering the area they stole the boat from:
http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/regionalnews/tm_objectid=1739670 6&method=full&siteid=50142&headline=they-missed-the-ferry----so-stole-a-t rawler-name_page.html
The reason of course is that it's not real news, it's light entertainment. I don't think it's wrong to be making similar distinctions as to what is real encyclopaedic content and what is something else.
On 7/17/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
For me, the amusement at the cute story (woman calls 911 to ask for a date) was seriously impaired by my distaste for the fact that this poor woman's name was being brought into the matter globally and on the Internet and against her will, in a way that makes it somewhat likely that future googling on her name for the next 30 years will bring this incident, and only this incident, to the forefront.
You know, when you put it that way, maybe it would be better if this woman had a Wikipedia article. At least then Wikipedia could do a better job than the average newspaper story.
[snip to another email]
I think taking into account human dignity as one factor among many in our editorial judgments can go either way depending on the specific case. In the case of Brian Peppers, there is certainly a good argument to be made that having a thoughtful, NPOV article about him, including as much verifiable information as possible, can be a healthy antidote to the juvenile mocking we have seen in this meme.
Absolutely. Of course that can't happen as long as the system continues to be overriden by your edict. And no, don't bring up that there was already an AfD - that AfD was on completely different content from the new article.
In other cases, I think that human dignity points us in the other direction. The fellow in the Seigenthaler incident does not deserve to have a standalone article about him with this one tiny fact of what is likely an otherwise exemplary life turned into the #1 google hit for the rest of all time. (I think the current solution is fine, by the way: the article about him is redirected into the Seigenthaler incident article, therefore reporting the context.)
Chase is a much better example than the other two. But you know what, the current solution is terrible when it comes to what you're calling "human dignity". If it wasn't for Wikipedia mentioning his name and making that redirect, the guy wouldn't have *any* hits on Google.
Frankly, his name is irrelevant, even if you do think that [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]] is a valid encyclopedia topic.
If we want to be decent, and respect the guy's privacy, let's take his name out of Wikipedia completely. The one line description of him that's currently on his article (a disambig page) literally *is* one tiny fact out of his life. Sure, someone doing more research would still be able to find out the name, but it won't be in the top google hit.
Anthony
On 7/18/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Absolutely. Of course that can't happen as long as the system continues to be overriden by your edict. And no, don't bring up that there was already an AfD - that AfD was on completely different content from the new article.
I would support a modification of Jimmy's "edict" to the effect that an indefinitely semi-protected article on BP would be subject to regular community processes. Indefinite semi-protection would be an expression of the belief that more harm (unsubstantiated rumors, vandalism) is likely to come from having this particular article edited by unregistered users and very new ones, than productive edits.
This, however, is an untested hypothesis. Is there any existing article or set of articles which is highly comparable to BP, where we could verify whether such a trend of inaccuracy/vandalism does indeed exist?
Erik
On 7/18/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
I would support a modification of Jimmy's "edict" to the effect that an indefinitely semi-protected article on BP would be subject to regular community processes. Indefinite semi-protection would be an expression of the belief that more harm (unsubstantiated rumors, vandalism) is likely to come from having this particular article edited by unregistered users and very new ones, than productive edits.
This makes sense. But bear in mind two important points: *It takes less time to undo harmful edits than to make them (if the page is sufficiently watched) *Wikipedia would never work.
(I mention the last point as a reminder to always react to empirical evidence, not to try and predict how a complicated system involving anonymous users would work...)
Steve
On 7/17/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 7/15/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I don't even see what's so undignified about this particular incident that anyone would argue it on that basis in the first place. Everyone does boneheaded things from time to time.
This particular incident may only be embarrassing; what is undignified is AP's reportage using a full name. What would likewise be undignified would be the immortalisation of this in a biography, forever linking this person's name with this event and this event alone (there is no other biographical information available), as if that was the sum total of their life.
Exactly. Perhaps I am surprisingly old-fashioned, but it seems to me that the news reporting in this case would have been _better_ had they simply used initials or some other literary device.
For me, the amusement at the cute story (woman calls 911 to ask for a date) was seriously impaired by my distaste for the fact that this poor woman's name was being brought into the matter globally and on the Internet and against her will, in a way that makes it somewhat likely that future googling on her name for the next 30 years will bring this incident, and only this incident, to the forefront.
--Jimbo
That may have been the point. I know that in the UK at least there has been talk of "naming and shaming" people who missuse emergency phonelines.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
I don't even see what's so undignified about this particular incident that anyone would argue it on that basis in the first place. Everyone does boneheaded things from time to time.
Yes, but usually they do not end up being permanently presented in what is arguably the most important encyclopedic record of our time. Usually, such things come and go, a little blip in the news. Even today, when tons of information does get archived on the Internet, the power of wikipedia, and the breadth of it, means that for many borderline or non-notable people the #1 hit in google is going to be to the Wikipedia article.
http://www.google.com/search?q=brian+chase&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls...
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
I don't even see what's so undignified about this particular incident that anyone would argue it on that basis in the first place. Everyone does boneheaded things from time to time.
Yes, but usually they do not end up being permanently presented in what is arguably the most important encyclopedic record of our time. Usually, such things come and go, a little blip in the news.
If the event in question is just a "little blip in the news", then we would already reject an article about it based on existing notability guidelines.
This was really a bad example to discuss this issue based on, IMO. I had to assume for sake of argument that there was something significant about the 911 call case to make it worth having an article about in the first place, but now the incident's triviality is brought up again to modify the "human dignity" matter. This example makes it impossible to reasonably address the real issue in isolation.
Even today, when tons of information does get archived on the Internet, the power of wikipedia, and the breadth of it, means that for many borderline or non-notable people the #1 hit in google is going to be to the Wikipedia article.
http://www.google.com/search?q=brian+chase&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls...
Why is this not a good thing? Our articles are NPOV and verifiable, and easily corrected should errors in them be found. What would be a better site to have as the #1 hit?
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Why is this not a good thing? Our articles are NPOV and verifiable, and easily corrected should errors in them be found. What would be a better site to have as the #1 hit?
That's a good point. Given that we don't, currently, provide any information on Brian Peppers, I'm glad, for the sake of human dignity, that Snopes does (and actually outranks us on Google). Because if they didn't, the next sites down the list are Wikitruth and YTMND.
Reference: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22brian+peppers%22
Ilmari Karonen wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Why is this not a good thing? Our articles are NPOV and verifiable, and easily corrected should errors in them be found. What would be a better site to have as the #1 hit?
That's a good point. Given that we don't, currently, provide any information on Brian Peppers, I'm glad, for the sake of human dignity, that Snopes does (and actually outranks us on Google). Because if they didn't, the next sites down the list are Wikitruth and YTMND.
Reference: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22brian+peppers%22
The YMTD wouldn't be bad, if it weren't for the awful music. -kc-
On 7/16/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Why is this not a good thing? Our articles are NPOV and verifiable, and easily corrected should errors in them be found. What would be a better site to have as the #1 hit?
That's a good point. Given that we don't, currently, provide any information on Brian Peppers, I'm glad, for the sake of human dignity, that Snopes does
Indeed, this is a very powerful moral argument on which I'd particularly like to hear Jimmy's thoughts: Isn't a neutral summary better than the rubbish of fark.com and so forth? At least in cases where the damage is already done? (If anything, we've pushed the meme further by arguing endlessly about it.)
My immediate response would be: Yes, if we permanently semi-protect it. Otherwise Wikipedia will in fact be used _like_ fark.com or YTTMAND or whatever its name is, and as a visitor, there will be a good chance that the article will have been recently abused the moment you look at it.
In the future this would be a candidate for what I call "quality protection", where you only ever get to see the latest "stable version". [*] This is not something that I ever would like to see for _all_ articles, but for the very same subset which are currently permanently semi-protected, effectively further weakening protection (but possibly slightly enlarging the subset).
Erik
[*] I'm not convinced that the concept of a "stable version" as currently debated makes sense for anything but very basic assertions about quality, though it would already be a great leap forward (*cough*) from not distinguishing obvious vandalism from non-vandalism at all.
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 7/16/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Why is this not a good thing? Our articles are NPOV and verifiable, and easily corrected should errors in them be found. What would be a better site to have as the #1 hit?
That's a good point. Given that we don't, currently, provide any information on Brian Peppers, I'm glad, for the sake of human dignity, that Snopes does
Indeed, this is a very powerful moral argument on which I'd particularly like to hear Jimmy's thoughts: Isn't a neutral summary better than the rubbish of fark.com and so forth? At least in cases where the damage is already done? (If anything, we've pushed the meme further by arguing endlessly about it.)
Yes!
I think taking into account human dignity as one factor among many in our editorial judgments can go either way depending on the specific case. In the case of Brian Peppers, there is certainly a good argument to be made that having a thoughtful, NPOV article about him, including as much verifiable information as possible, can be a healthy antidote to the juvenile mocking we have seen in this meme.
In other cases, I think that human dignity points us in the other direction. The fellow in the Seigenthaler incident does not deserve to have a standalone article about him with this one tiny fact of what is likely an otherwise exemplary life turned into the #1 google hit for the rest of all time. (I think the current solution is fine, by the way: the article about him is redirected into the Seigenthaler incident article, therefore reporting the context.)
--Jimbo
Ilmari Karonen wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Why is this not a good thing? Our articles are NPOV and verifiable, and easily corrected should errors in them be found. What would be a better site to have as the #1 hit?
That's a good point. Given that we don't, currently, provide any information on Brian Peppers, I'm glad, for the sake of human dignity, that Snopes does (and actually outranks us on Google). Because if they didn't, the next sites down the list are Wikitruth and YTMND.
Reference: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22brian+peppers%22
[this is not so much a direct reply to this post as a general feeling about this thread] Others have pointed this out I am sure but it seems to me that many of these less notables, especially the meme ones, quickly become less so. To the point that the most notable thing about them is that they have a wikipedia article, because otherwise they would have been forgotten. The "Human dignity" is a value judgment and is therefore POV argument is, to me at least somewhat specious, since notability is also a value judgment (that is why not include any thing that can be verified even if its not notable).
As a community we have established standards for what is encyclopedic. Some have historical precedent others less so, but they all are ultmatly derived from value judgments. That said I think the most compelling argument against this sort of article is not human dignity (though its a good one), its just that we really do seem to have let the bar of notability fall to a level that I think harms the project.
Dalf
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I am curious to know whether very many people agree with me that "human dignity" is a valid reason for a "delete" vote in a case like this.
Here is another example, and I will probably regret mentioning it: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/ap_on_fe_st/911_love
This woman (please do not name her in the email archives, eh?) had a policeman come to her home for a noise complaint. She thought he was very attractive. So, a few weeks later, she called 911 to inquire about him, to ask for his name. She indicated in the phone call that she did not know how else to contact him, and gave her phone number and ask them to have the officer call her or drop by.
Now, if she had stopped for a moment to think about why calling 911 about this was a bad idea, I am sure she could have called the non-emergency phone number. (For non-US readers: '911' is what you call everywhere in the US in case you have an emergency, and they will send the police, fire department, or ambulance as necessary.)
Instead, she was arrested for abuse of the 911 system. As far as I can tell from the story, she did not have malicious intent, it was not even a prank, it was just a mistaken call to the wrong number, and a "cute" story.
The AP, in what I must say I personally find to be a lack of journalistic ethics, chose to publish her full name and distribute the story to millions of people worldwide. Our understanding of the story is not enhanced by knowing her full name. It is just a funny little story about someone being stupid.
Fortunately, most AP stories vanish from the net pretty quickly. This one will. The Yahoo link will die in a few months. But imagine if someone were to write a Wikipedia article using precisely the (daft, if you ask me) arguments that Anthony DiPierro has been using. It is a confirmable story, we do know a number of fairly trivial facts about her, and... we might imagine... this *could* become an idiotic short lived meme among the immature segment of the under-17 crowd on the Internet, as did Brian Peppers.
Should we therefore have an article? Let's assume that we can verify the story easily enough. (Maybe one newspaper keeps its archives online for free... maybe a dozen blogs pick up the story.)
I would vote "delete, nn - human dignity". A full explanation would be: For goodness sake, leave the poor woman alone.
This has already appeared on two separate TV news shows here. There is an abiding interest in the general public for this kind of story, but admittedly the name of the person is not important. I can accept the premise that her name should not be mentioned by us, though there are whole books about the stupidest things ever done, and The Guiness Book of Records lists strange things without end. They do name names.
Perhaps an article like [[Stupid things which people have done]] would satisfy the cravings of those readers. Few of these incidents would merit more than a paragraph, but anything there would need to be verifiable. If anyone really wants to know the name they could always track down the reference.
Ec
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I am curious to know whether very many people agree with me that "human dignity" is a valid reason for a "delete" vote in a case like this.
Not in the slightest. That's a POV, which I may or may not agree with, but which has no place shaping the contents of the encyclopedia. Either the subject is not notable, in which case there should be no article, or he/she is, in which case there should be. Obviously we don't delete notable articles because of concerns about "human dignity", as basically everyone has agreed in several obvious examples like [[Joseph Merrick]].
If we're going to start bringing in other content-based guidelines, then why is "human dignity" the first or only one? How about, "delete -- inflames ethnic conflict"?
-Mark
On Jul 15, 2006, at 6:07 AM, Delirium wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I am curious to know whether very many people agree with me that "human dignity" is a valid reason for a "delete" vote in a case like this.
Not in the slightest. That's a POV, which I may or may not agree with, but which has no place shaping the contents of the encyclopedia. Either the subject is not notable, in which case there should be no article, or he/she is, in which case there should be. Obviously we don't delete notable articles because of concerns about "human dignity", as basically everyone has agreed in several obvious examples like [[Joseph Merrick]].
If we're going to start bringing in other content-based guidelines, then why is "human dignity" the first or only one? How about, "delete -- inflames ethnic conflict"?
-Mark
That we tend to inflame political conflict is certainly the reason the Chinese have blocked us. Zeq has been working on me regarding inflaming ethnic conflict. Human dignity I like and support, both for reasons of being kind and as a legal prophylactic. I just don't think we should act mean. With great power comes great responsibility.
Fred
On 7/14/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Fortunately, most AP stories vanish from the net pretty quickly. This one will. The Yahoo link will die in a few months. But imagine if someone were to write a Wikipedia article using precisely the (daft, if you ask me) arguments that Anthony DiPierro has been using. It is a confirmable story, we do know a number of fairly trivial facts about her, and... we might imagine... this *could* become an idiotic short lived meme among the immature segment of the under-17 crowd on the Internet, as did Brian Peppers.
It could, I suppose, but it hasn't.
When this woman starts getting the level of searches for her name that Brian Peppers does, why don't you bring this up again.
Until then, you're making a strawman argument.
Anthony
On 7/15/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I am curious to know whether very many people agree with me that "human dignity" is a valid reason for a "delete" vote in a case like this.
Since we don't have a real policy on notability, anything is a valid reason for voting delete if the people participating in that particular AFD discussion think it is.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/15/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I am curious to know whether very many people agree with me that "human dignity" is a valid reason for a "delete" vote in a case like this.
Since we don't have a real policy on notability, anything is a valid reason for voting delete if the people participating in that particular AFD discussion think it is.
In a technical sense, yes, but closing admins have the liberty to ignore particularly stupid reasons.
On 7/15/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I am curious to know whether very many people agree with me that "human dignity" is a valid reason for a "delete" vote in a case like this.
We need two things, really.
A sensible deletion process.
A sensible deletion review process.
I'm not saying that the current processes don't have many good, decent and well meaning adherents. But they don't work. They are often actively, perversely, resistant to commonsense decisions, they attract trolls and people who are prone to abusing Wikipedia as a forum for advancing their point of view. A spurious concept of concensus is endemic, and the sheer poisonous nature of the current processes seems (by personal reports I've had) to repel many otherwise highly involved and motivated editors.
On 7/16/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/15/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I am curious to know whether very many people agree with me that "human dignity" is a valid reason for a "delete" vote in a case like this.
We need two things, really.
A sensible deletion process.
A sensible deletion review process.
I'm not saying that the current processes don't have many good, decent and well meaning adherents. But they don't work. They are often actively, perversely, resistant to commonsense decisions,
Well of course. Common sense has no rational philisophical basis in any of the more popular systems.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
A spurious concept of concensus is endemic, and the sheer poisonous nature of the current processes seems (by personal reports I've had) to repel many otherwise highly involved and motivated editors.
It is very common to hear from our best editors, "Oh, I avoid AfD like the plague."
--Jimbo
On 7/14/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I would vote "delete, nn - human dignity". A full explanation would be: For goodness sake, leave the poor woman alone.
I agree with what you are trying to express here, but I want you to reconsider whether you want the phrase "human dignity" to be overused on Wikipedia to the point that it becomes a meaningless platitude, the way NPOV has. Some terms are rarely invoked because they are meant to have a powerful and specific meaning, and not one of generic policy jargon.
Ryan
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:24:11 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
You're missing the point. We don't know either way, there are no reliable sources. we don't have a court transcript, a report from the paper, a statement, nothing.
So you think the guy's brother was telling the truth, and then he retracted it for some reason? Or you think some random guy made up a hoax story which just coincidentally happened to be the truth?
No, as I've said several times, I think *we don't know* because there are no reliable sources.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
But in the end, no. I don't think we should have an article on somebody who is in the end "famous" solely because, well, a group of sophomoric fucktards got their rocks off laughing at his appearance.
Then you'd need to delete Star Wars Kid and Gary Broslma, for starters.
And in the end, I don't think we should *not* have an article on somebody simply because they have a serious disability which makes some people laugh at them. Equal rights, and everything, I say.
How many articles do we have on people known only for their deformities? The only one I can think of is Joseph Merrick.
FWIW, see Category:Conjoined twins and Category:Sideshow attractions.
-KeithTyler
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
But in the end, no. I don't think we should have an article on somebody who is in the end "famous" solely because, well, a group of sophomoric fucktards got their rocks off laughing at his appearance.
Up for deleting [[Joseph Merrick]]? Or is there a threshold for "famousness" above which such humanitarian concerns cease to apply?
-Mark
On 7/13/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Up for deleting [[Joseph Merrick]]? Or is there a threshold for "famousness" above which such humanitarian concerns cease to apply?
Yep. When Hollywood makes Brian Peppers: The Movie, we can restore that article.
No, I don't think Hollywood is, or should be, the measure of notability. There are many famous biologists who deserve articles but who Hollywood won't honour.
On 13/07/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/13/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Up for deleting [[Joseph Merrick]]? Or is there a threshold for "famousness" above which such humanitarian concerns cease to apply?
Yep. When Hollywood makes Brian Peppers: The Movie, we can restore that article. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:12:41 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Up for deleting [[Joseph Merrick]]? Or is there a threshold for "famousness" above which such humanitarian concerns cease to apply?
How many films have been made about Brian Peppers? How many books written about his life? Is he a prominent member of London society? Is his skeleton likely to be kept by the medical community and studied long after his death? What are the chances of his being played by John Hurt in the film?
The parallel is absurd.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:12:41 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Up for deleting [[Joseph Merrick]]? Or is there a threshold for "famousness" above which such humanitarian concerns cease to apply?
How many films have been made about Brian Peppers? How many books written about his life? Is he a prominent member of London society? Is his skeleton likely to be kept by the medical community and studied long after his death? What are the chances of his being played by John Hurt in the film?
The parallel is absurd.
I wasn't claiming they were equivalent. You had suggested that, for humanitarian reasons, we shouldn't have articles on people notable solely for deformities or ridicule. I was asking if there's some level of "notable" above which the notability outweighs those concerns. It appears from your response that there is---you believe Merrick is sufficiently notable to outweigh any humanitarian concerns.
I'd say in principle I agree, only I make the judgment of degree differently in this case. I think Peppers is sufficiently notable, based on some media coverage and familiarity within academic circles. There are other people who are less notable than Peppers (people known only on YTMND and some web forums and nowhere else, for example), and those people I agree are not worth having articles about.
Therefore, I think your original claim is basically the same as mine: We shouldn't have articles on people notable solely for deformities or ridicule, unless they reach some threshold level of notability. We differ perhaps in both where we'd put the threshold, and where on the scale we'd put the specific person in question.
-Mark
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:17:10 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I wasn't claiming they were equivalent. You had suggested that, for humanitarian reasons, we shouldn't have articles on people notable solely for deformities or ridicule. I was asking if there's some level of "notable" above which the notability outweighs those concerns. It appears from your response that there is---you believe Merrick is sufficiently notable to outweigh any humanitarian concerns.
But he was not notable solely for deformities or ridicule. His story is much wider than that.
The "media coverage" of peppers is approximately zero. I don't recall a single news story being posted about him, even local news.
Guy (JzG)
I did a Google News search earlier and absolutely nothing came up (apart from an article referencing him on a joke site).
On 13/07/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:17:10 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I wasn't claiming they were equivalent. You had suggested that, for humanitarian reasons, we shouldn't have articles on people notable solely for deformities or ridicule. I was asking if there's some level of "notable" above which the notability outweighs those concerns. It appears from your response that there is---you believe Merrick is sufficiently notable to outweigh any humanitarian concerns.
But he was not notable solely for deformities or ridicule. His story is much wider than that.
The "media coverage" of peppers is approximately zero. I don't recall a single news story being posted about him, even local news.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/13/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy, I think this is a case where your famous divine intervention might be helpful to establish a general principle, so I'd appreciate your input.
We have Angela (Beesley) on AfD now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley_...
Two comments:
- Imagine the field day the press and Wikipedia pundits will have -- seasoned Wikipedians get special treatment on the "NPOV" encyclopedia. Apparently, neutral only applies to the rabble. Is there really no cabal?
- Why isn't semi-protection, or even full protection, adequate? The first line in the AfD is, "I'm sick of this article being trolled. It's full of lies and nonsense." Why not just lock it down. As others have mentioned, Angela is co-founder of Wikia, has been a high profile international evangelist for Wikipedia and historically, still notable as serving on the first Wikimedia board.
As someone penning a book about Wikipedia and its history, including the creation of Wikimedia Foundation, you can imagine my feelings on this.
Please don't take this to mean bio subjects should be left out to hang in the wind. But this would set a bad precedent in terms of consistency. And Wikipedia would get criticism for it, and deservedly so.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
Andrew Lih wrote:
On 7/13/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy, I think this is a case where your famous divine intervention might be helpful to establish a general principle, so I'd appreciate your input.
We have Angela (Beesley) on AfD now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley_...
Two comments:
- Imagine the field day the press and Wikipedia pundits will have --
seasoned Wikipedians get special treatment on the "NPOV" encyclopedia. Apparently, neutral only applies to the rabble. Is there really no cabal?
- Why isn't semi-protection, or even full protection, adequate? The
first line in the AfD is, "I'm sick of this article being trolled. It's full of lies and nonsense." Why not just lock it down. As others have mentioned, Angela is co-founder of Wikia, has been a high profile international evangelist for Wikipedia and historically, still notable as serving on the first Wikimedia board.
As someone penning a book about Wikipedia and its history, including the creation of Wikimedia Foundation, you can imagine my feelings on this.
Please don't take this to mean bio subjects should be left out to hang in the wind. But this would set a bad precedent in terms of consistency. And Wikipedia would get criticism for it, and deservedly so.
While I have deep personal sympathy for Angela's plight, being in the same basic plight myself, I have to agree with Andrew. I take no position on whether Angela is notable or not, but I will say that whatever we decide here should be consistent with whatever we decide on similar topics.
For a long time past the time when I was notable enough to have a bio, we did not have one, because I thought it was important that the project not be subject to attack from a mocking article in the mainstream press about us being self-absorbed. But we are so much now, that the meanstream press seems to need no actual REASON to mock us, they just mock us as they please anyway. :)
--Jimbo
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Jimmy, you might be interested in this:
My intervention in the en case was based on there being a proper AfD result which was being overturned by people who were, in my opinion, just trolling. I feared (perhaps unnecessarily) a new wheel war over it, and stepped in to say, no the AfD stands, let's not go through repeated recreations and deletions.
This was, remember, just have the pedophile userbox war, and at the height of the userbox wars, which seem to be on the back burner lately, probably because the wave of immature newcomers has started to see the light and/or leave.
If I were voting to delete, I would vote to delete. But my action in that case had more to do with me trying to prevent what looked to me like a brewing edit war.
I also appreciate that it sets an entirely different precedent: that Wikipedia will not somehow explode in the event that we stop to think for a few months. :)
--Jimbo
On 7/15/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
My intervention in the en case was based on there being a proper AfD result
False. The was an AFD result over unrelated content. The only ADF on the content resembling what you deleted did not decide to delete. This has been explained before.
On 7/14/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/15/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
My intervention in the en case was based on there being a proper AfD result
False. The was an AFD result over unrelated content. The only ADF on the content resembling what you deleted did not decide to delete. This has been explained before.
-- geni
Which AFD? There seem to have been around three. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Br...
~maru
On 7/12/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Angela is co-founder and VP of a company that has received $4M in funding, and hosts over 1,500 wikis, including some of the largest ones besides Wikipedia. Seth is a noted anti-censorship activist. Brandt is, well, Brandt.
FWIW, as a co-founder and VP of a company that received over $10M in funding before finally going bankrupt, I'd say Angela's bigger claim to fame is as a (soon to be former) director of Wikimedia.
Personally I think it would be a terrible mistake for Wikipedia not to have some information about Angela. She played an important role in the history of Wikimedia, her resignation doesn't delete that.
Anthony