On 9/10/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/09/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Not necessarily, but unless our ban of them was mistaken, there was a reason to ban them. This was generally connected to their behavior on the project.
Do you really see people in such black-and-white terms?
Not entirely; however, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of people banned have been banned for good reason. There may be some edge cases; I'd submit that in the vast majority even of those, keeping the record available is beneficial, in that it can help explain what happened and perhaps why. Some people have been banned unjustly, I'm sure, but comparatively few: of these, the vast majority (unfortunately) are newbie-biting, and in most of those cases, there is little on-wiki history to erase in any case.
It's also generally the case, I've found, that the banned people making a big fuss about this are the ones for whom their history is deeply unflattering to them, and for good reason; they actually did behave badly.
(As I've explained before, YOU are not banned.)
-Matt
On 10/09/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/10/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/09/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Not necessarily, but unless our ban of them was mistaken, there was a reason to ban them. This was generally connected to their behavior on the project.
Do you really see people in such black-and-white terms?
Not entirely; however, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of people banned have been banned for good reason. There may be some edge cases; I'd submit that in the vast majority even of those, keeping the record available is beneficial, in that it can help explain what happened and perhaps why. Some people have been banned unjustly, I'm sure, but comparatively few: of these, the vast majority (unfortunately) are newbie-biting, and in most of those cases, there is little on-wiki history to erase in any case.
Can you conceive of circumstances in which someone might be a detriment to the project without being an evil person who needs to suffer, or should I start listing hypothetical examples?
Also, something can be public without being indexed by Google.
Besides, if Wikipaedia is the only source of certain negative information on these people, and Wikipaedia is not a reliable source, then why are negative Wikipaedia pages still the #1 Google hits for some of these people years after the fact? BLP applied to all namespaces, last I checked.
It's also generally the case, I've found, that the banned people making a big fuss about this are the ones for whom their history is deeply unflattering to them, and for good reason; they actually did behave badly.
-Matt
'Behave badly' is rather broad. Who hasn't? Let's see... very very small children.
But anyway, have you noticed how people, often banned people, who feel hurt by Wikipaedia tend to start 'behaving badly' *as a reaction* to getting hurt by Wikipaedia?
Besides, if Wikipaedia is the only source of certain negative information on these people, and Wikipaedia is not a reliable source, then why are negative Wikipaedia pages still the #1 Google hits for some of these people years after the fact? BLP applied to all namespaces, last I checked.
Wikipedia is a reliable source for things about Wikipedia. While BLP may apply, it is not relevant.
On 11/09/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Besides, if Wikipaedia is the only source of certain negative information on these people, and Wikipaedia is not a reliable source, then why are negative Wikipaedia pages still the #1 Google hits for some of these people years after the fact? BLP applied to all namespaces, last I checked.
Wikipedia is a reliable source for things about Wikipedia. While BLP may apply, it is not relevant.
It's about the banned user, not about Wikipaedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Sources
'Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.'
Wikipaedia is not a 'reliable third-party source'.
'Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links (see above).'
Few banned users, or indeed any editors or former editors of Wikipaedia, have been written about outside Wikipaedia, and even when they have it is often in those other questionable sources or sources of dubious value such as those wikis and forums that criticise Wikipaedia regularly.
'Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).'
So the only material you could quote what the banned user him or her self said - leaving up the userpage he or she wrote him or her self before being banned would be acceptable. Note that this still does not make the person in any way, shape, or form notable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the...
'In some cases the subject may become involved in editing the article, either directly or through a representative. While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles are welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material.'
Hear that, all ye banned users lurking on this list? You are *welcome* to circumvent your ban for the purpose of removing 'unsourced or poorly sourced material' about yourself on Wikipaedia.
According to policy, at least. In practise, if you did so, Wikipaedia would probably just keep setting an example for Encyclopaedia Dramatica to follow by making things worse on you, even if you contact OTRS rather than circumvent your ban.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#People_who_are_relatively_unknown
'Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source.'
Erm, how often is there *any* information on banned users relevant to their 'notability', which is generally non-existent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Privacy_of_contact_information
'Wikipedia biographies should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted.'
E-mail addresses... and perhaps IP addresses? Sometimes a problem in sockpuppetry and COI investigations....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Privacy_of_names
'Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.'
First question, do this mean only legal names, or is it including long-standing pseudonyms?
In any case, there are banned users who have edited under their real names, so this is a problem.
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Thomas Dalton wrote:
BLP applied to all namespaces, last I checked.
Wikipedia is a reliable source for things about Wikipedia. While BLP may apply, it is not relevant.
Wikipedia is a reliable source for things about Wikipedia itself, not about people involved with Wikipedia.
On 9/11/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Thomas Dalton wrote:
BLP applied to all namespaces, last I checked.
Wikipedia is a reliable source for things about Wikipedia. While BLP may apply, it is not relevant.
Wikipedia is a reliable source for things about Wikipedia itself, not about people involved with Wikipedia.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In this case, Wikipedia is a reliable source for who is indefinitely (or definitely) blocked from Wikipedia.
WilyD
On 11/09/2007, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/11/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Thomas Dalton wrote:
BLP applied to all namespaces, last I checked.
Wikipedia is a reliable source for things about Wikipedia. While BLP may apply, it is not relevant.
Wikipedia is a reliable source for things about Wikipedia itself, not
about
people involved with Wikipedia.
In this case, Wikipedia is a reliable source for who is indefinitely (or definitely) blocked from Wikipedia.
WilyD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Sources
'Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).'
Wikipaedia is a self-published source... ergo, not reliable, unless you are talking about what the banned user publish his or her self.
Remember, BLP serves not only to ensure accuracy, but also to avoid destroying someone's reputation over a non-notable incident, such as being banned from an encyclopaedia.
Wikipedia is a reliable source for things about Wikipedia itself, not about people involved with Wikipedia.
For the things those people did on Wikipedia, it's a very reliable source. Wikipedia keeps very detailed logs about who does what.
On 9/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is a reliable source for things about Wikipedia itself, not about people involved with Wikipedia.
For the things those people did on Wikipedia, it's a very reliable source. Wikipedia keeps very detailed logs about who does what.
Unless that person is a friend of someone with oversight power.
Unless that person is a friend of someone with oversight power.
I've just gone through the list and, personally, I trust the oversighters. I don't think any of them would abuse their power just to help a friend. Even if they did, the other oversighters regularly check the logs and would prevent any abuse (or, at least, they're meant to - I imagine at least some of them do).
On 9/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Unless that person is a friend of someone with oversight power.
I've just gone through the list and, personally, I trust the oversighters. I don't think any of them would abuse their power just to help a friend.
Whether or not what they did was an abuse of power is debatable, but there have been a number of instances of evidence of misbehavior of admins being oversighted.
On 11/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Unless that person is a friend of someone with oversight power.
I've just gone through the list and, personally, I trust the oversighters. I don't think any of them would abuse their power just to help a friend.
Whether or not what they did was an abuse of power is debatable, but there have been a number of instances of evidence of misbehavior of admins being oversighted.
More things should be oversighted.
On 9/11/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 11/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Unless that person is a friend of someone with oversight power.
I've just gone through the list and, personally, I trust the oversighters. I don't think any of them would abuse their power just to help a friend.
Whether or not what they did was an abuse of power is debatable, but there have been a number of instances of evidence of misbehavior of admins being oversighted.
More things should be oversighted.
That'd be fine with me, as the oversight itself is not what's wrong. Of course, oversight of anything that has already appeared in a database dump is probably counterproductive, as it merely draws attention to the oversighted edit.
On 9/11/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
More things should be oversighted.
On 11/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
That'd be fine with me, as the oversight itself is not what's wrong. Of course, oversight of anything that has already appeared in a database dump is probably counterproductive, as it merely draws attention to the oversighted edit.
Another reason Oversight should be taken more lightly - getting it done before anyone notices or the material shows up in the database dumps.
Note that material being in the database dumps does not really make Oversight that counterproductive, since the database dumps are huge and few will take the time to download and uncompress them.
Whether or not what they did was an abuse of power is debatable, but there have been a number of instances of evidence of misbehavior of admins being oversighted.
Misbehaviour in whose judgement? Oversighters are generally members (or former members) or ArbCom - they all very well qualified to tell if an admin is misbehaving and would deal with it if they felt it necessary.
On 9/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Whether or not what they did was an abuse of power is debatable, but there have been a number of instances of evidence of misbehavior of admins being oversighted.
Misbehaviour in whose judgement?
In my judgement. I won't be more specific in a public forum.
Oversighters are generally members (or former members) or ArbCom - they all very well qualified to tell if an admin is misbehaving and would deal with it if they felt it necessary.
If you're right then I guess they don't feel it necessary.
On 9/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is a reliable source for things about Wikipedia itself, not about people involved with Wikipedia.
For the things those people did on Wikipedia, it's a very reliable source. Wikipedia keeps very detailed logs about who does what.
Precise? perhaps. Accurate? hell no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Li...
Precise? perhaps. Accurate? hell no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Li...
What does that AfD have to do with inaccurate logs?
On 9/12/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Precise? perhaps. Accurate? hell no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Li...
What does that AfD have to do with inaccurate logs?
Your reply further establishes my point: Apparently many Wikipedians can't even recognize when their own data is astonishingly wrong. ;)
Look carefully. The site claims that edit was made two years prior to when it actually was.
Perhaps it's more obvious from this history view of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Li...
Or do you just not believe in causality?
Your reply further establishes my point: Apparently many Wikipedians can't even recognize when their own data is astonishingly wrong. ;)
Look carefully. The site claims that edit was made two years prior to when it actually was.
Perhaps it's more obvious from this history view of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Li...
Or do you just not believe in causality?
Ah, I didn't even look at the date. I assumed you were saying something about the content of the edit, sorry. That was, quite clearly, a temporary glitch in the servers somewhere. Occasional mistakes do not make a source unreliable - no source is perfect.
On 12/09/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Your reply further establishes my point: Apparently many Wikipedians can't even recognize when their own data is astonishingly wrong. ;)
Look carefully. The site claims that edit was made two years prior to when it actually was.
Perhaps it's more obvious from this history view of the page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Li...
Or do you just not believe in causality?
Ah, I didn't even look at the date. I assumed you were saying something about the content of the edit, sorry. That was, quite clearly, a temporary glitch in the servers somewhere. Occasional mistakes do not make a source unreliable - no source is perfect.
Wikis are, by Wikipaedia's own definition, self-published and therefore unreliable, especially when it comes to negative info on living persons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper...
Wikis are, by Wikipaedia's own definition, self-published and therefore unreliable, especially when it comes to negative info on living persons.
For the main namespace, certainly. Other namespaces and the official logs are acceptable primary sources for things to do with Wikipedia and events that happened on it.
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Wikis are, by Wikipaedia's own definition, self-published and therefore unreliable, especially when it comes to negative info on living persons.
For the main namespace, certainly. Other namespaces and the official logs are acceptable primary sources for things to do with Wikipedia and events that happened on it.
If I wrote on my blog that you eat hobbits, my blog is a primary source for "Ken claims Mr. Dalton eats hobbits", but an unreliable self-published source for "Mr. Dalton actually does eat hobbits". The former is an event that happened on my blog. The latter is unreliable info about a living person.
Most people who Google someone's name and come across a Wikipedia page about them will be using Wikipedia as a source in the latter, unreliable, way.
On 13/09/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Wikis are, by Wikipaedia's own definition, self-published and therefore unreliable, especially when it comes to negative info on living persons.
For the main namespace, certainly. Other namespaces and the official logs are acceptable primary sources for things to do with Wikipedia and events that happened on it.
If I wrote on my blog that you eat hobbits, my blog is a primary source for "Ken claims Mr. Dalton eats hobbits", but an unreliable self-published source for "Mr. Dalton actually does eat hobbits". The former is an event that happened on my blog. The latter is unreliable info about a living person.
Most people who Google someone's name and come across a Wikipedia page about them will be using Wikipedia as a source in the latter, unreliable, way.
Exactly. : ) Also, reliable sourcing restrictions server not only to ensure a certain level of accuracy, but also to ensure a certain level of notability. Non-notable subjects have a presumption in favour of privacy. So, unless Britannica bothers to mention that the individual was banned from Wikipaedia, not need for Wikipaedia to mention it on a Google-indexed page.
If I wrote on my blog that you eat hobbits, my blog is a primary source for "Ken claims Mr. Dalton eats hobbits", but an unreliable self-published source for "Mr. Dalton actually does eat hobbits". The former is an event that happened on my blog. The latter is unreliable info about a living person.
Absolutely true.
Most people who Google someone's name and come across a Wikipedia page about them will be using Wikipedia as a source in the latter, unreliable, way.
I'm sure I understand your point. People using sources badly isn't our problem...
If I wrote on my blog that you eat hobbits, my blog is a primary source for "Ken claims Mr. Dalton eats hobbits", but an unreliable self-published source for "Mr. Dalton actually does eat hobbits". The former is an event that happened on my blog. The latter is unreliable info about a living person.
Absolutely true.
But isn't that where original research comes into play? What is the purpose of quoting ken's claim about Dalton eating hobbits? If it's in an article on Dalton, in an effort to show that Dalton might actually eat hobbits, then the problem is it's a fringe theory, because Ken isn't an authoritative source. If it's in an article on Ken, to show how dumb Ken is for thinking Dalton eats hobbits, then it's original research. Don't quote Ken to make Ken look dumb, quote an expert who talks about how dumb Ken is.
The quote in question is strange, but this sort of stuff comes up all the time. Consider political figures. It's really easy to come up with a list of quotes from them that make them look stupid, or smart, or hypocritical, or whatever, but shouldn't we instead be looking for analysis from experts saying that they're stupid, or smart, or hypocritical, or whatever?
Most people who Google someone's name and come across a Wikipedia page about them will be using Wikipedia as a source in the latter, unreliable, way.
I'm sure I understand your point. People using sources badly isn't our problem...
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Anthony wrote:
If I wrote on my blog that you eat hobbits, my blog is a primary source for "Ken claims Mr. Dalton eats hobbits", but an unreliable self-published source for "Mr. Dalton actually does eat hobbits". The former is an event that happened on my blog. The latter is unreliable info about a living person.
Absolutely true.
But isn't that where original research comes into play? What is the purpose of quoting ken's claim about Dalton eating hobbits? If it's in an article on Dalton, in an effort to show that Dalton might actually eat hobbits, then the problem is it's a fringe theory, because Ken isn't an authoritative source. If it's in an article on Ken, to show how dumb Ken is for thinking Dalton eats hobbits, then it's original research. Don't quote Ken to make Ken look dumb, quote an expert who talks about how dumb Ken is.
You're forgetting the context.
The argument is that it's okay to let an administrative action taken against a user to come up as the #1 Google hit for the guy on the grounds that Wikipedia is a reliable source for information about itself.
It's a reliable source for the claim that the action happened, but not a reliable source for the truth of any of the allegations made during that action. And it's *definitely* not a reliable source for the allegations' *notability*. There's already a BLP problem on Wikipedia where someone finds a minor celebrity, digs up an article where they got drunk and went naked in public 20 years ago, and adds it to Wikipedia. We take that out because of BLP considerations, *even if it really did happen*. Not because it's not true, but because it's not notable. An ultimately minor incident 20 years ago shouldn't be posted so prominently on the Internet that the first Google hit for that person shows it. Being sanctioned on Wikipedia is no more notable than streaking in public, and no more worthy of being the #1 Google hit for that person.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
The argument is that it's okay to let an administrative action taken against a user to come up as the #1 Google hit for the guy on the grounds that Wikipedia is a reliable source for information about itself.
It's a reliable source for the claim that the action happened, but not a reliable source for the truth of any of the allegations made during that action. And it's *definitely* not a reliable source for the allegations' *notability*. There's already a BLP problem on Wikipedia where someone finds a minor celebrity, digs up an article where they got drunk and went naked in public 20 years ago, and adds it to Wikipedia. We take that out because of BLP considerations, *even if it really did happen*. Not because it's not true, but because it's not notable. An ultimately minor incident 20 years ago shouldn't be posted so prominently on the Internet that the first Google hit for that person shows it. Being sanctioned on Wikipedia is no more notable than streaking in public, and no more worthy of being the #1 Google hit for that person.
This seems like mainly a problem with Google and use of the internet, really, rather than anything Wikipedia-specific, though I don't oppose relatively unintrusive changes to mitigate it. But this is just how the internet works in the modern era. The top hits for my real name include some pretty irrelevant administrative stuff that happens to be posted on .edu sites that Google likes. I don't think they would take it down just because I complained that they were coming up too high in a Google search for my name, even if the info were negative (at the moment it's just non-notable, not particularly negative).
-Mark
On 9/13/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Anthony wrote:
If I wrote on my blog that you eat hobbits, my blog is a primary source for "Ken claims Mr. Dalton eats hobbits", but an unreliable self-published source for "Mr. Dalton actually does eat hobbits". The former is an event that happened on my blog. The latter is unreliable info about a living person.
Absolutely true.
But isn't that where original research comes into play? What is the purpose of quoting ken's claim about Dalton eating hobbits? If it's in an article on Dalton, in an effort to show that Dalton might actually eat hobbits, then the problem is it's a fringe theory, because Ken isn't an authoritative source. If it's in an article on Ken, to show how dumb Ken is for thinking Dalton eats hobbits, then it's original research. Don't quote Ken to make Ken look dumb, quote an expert who talks about how dumb Ken is.
You're forgetting the context.
You're right, I was.
The argument is that it's okay to let an administrative action taken against a user to come up as the #1 Google hit for the guy on the grounds that Wikipedia is a reliable source for information about itself.
All depends on what the person did. Prank call 911? Leave the poor woman alone. Try to molest a minor? Have some respect for his human dignity. That's Jimbo's answer, anyway.
All depends on what the person did. Prank call 911? Leave the poor woman alone. Try to molest a minor? Have some respect for his human dignity. That's Jimbo's answer, anyway.
I'm afraid I don't understand. Could you rephrase that?
On 9/13/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
All depends on what the person did. Prank call 911? Leave the poor woman alone. Try to molest a minor? Have some respect for his human dignity. That's Jimbo's answer, anyway.
I'm afraid I don't understand. Could you rephrase that?
I was referring to Jimmy Wales' out of process deletion of the Brian Peppers article and the excuses he's made for it.
On 13/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/13/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
All depends on what the person did. Prank call 911? Leave the poor woman alone. Try to molest a minor? Have some respect for his human dignity. That's Jimbo's answer, anyway.
I'm afraid I don't understand. Could you rephrase that?
I was referring to Jimmy Wales' out of process deletion of the [Redacted] article and the excuses he's made for it.
Good! I support this. There should be a non-public way to get BLP-related things deleted. I recall someone suggested a BLP Committee.
On 9/13/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 13/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/13/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
All depends on what the person did. Prank call 911? Leave the poor woman alone. Try to molest a minor? Have some respect for his human dignity. That's Jimbo's answer, anyway.
I'm afraid I don't understand. Could you rephrase that?
I was referring to Jimmy Wales' out of process deletion of the Brian Peppers article and the excuses he's made for it.
Good! I support this. There should be a non-public way to get BLP-related things deleted. I recall someone suggested a BLP Committee.
Fine, but where do you draw the line, or don't you draw one at all? Protecting the privacy of sex offenders convicted of violent felonies goes too far, in my opinion.
On 9/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Fine, but where do you draw the line, or don't you draw one at all? Protecting the privacy of sex offenders convicted of violent felonies goes too far, in my opinion.
We aren't a sex offender registry, though.
-Matt
On 9/13/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Fine, but where do you draw the line, or don't you draw one at all? Protecting the privacy of sex offenders convicted of violent felonies goes too far, in my opinion.
We aren't a sex offender registry, though.
No, we aren't.
On 13/09/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Fine, but where do you draw the line, or don't you draw one at all? Protecting the privacy of sex offenders convicted of violent felonies goes too far, in my opinion.
We aren't a sex offender registry, though.
-Matt
Maybe, but the 'but he deserves to suffer because he is a horrible horrible person!' argument does apply better to violent sex offenders than it does to run-of-the-mill Wikipaedia defacers, black-hat SEOs, people promoting certain ideologies, and the merely annoying.
Still, an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth makes the whole world blind and toothless, so whether the person is a violent serial child rapist or simply an annoying link- spammer, using Wikipaedia's Google rankings for vengeance isn't a good idea.
Anthony wrote:
On 9/13/07, Armed Blowfish wrote:
Good! I support this. There should be a non-public way to get BLP-related things deleted. I recall someone suggested a BLP Committee.
Fine, but where do you draw the line, or don't you draw one at all? Protecting the privacy of sex offenders convicted of violent felonies goes too far, in my opinion.
When you get into issues of protecting the privacy of offenders of any kind you put yourself in the position of needing to make judgements about which offences negate privacy rights. We can perhaps agree on the extreme cases, but the borderlands are wide. I don't know if good objective criteria can be designed.
Ec
But isn't that where original research comes into play? What is the purpose of quoting ken's claim about Dalton eating hobbits? If it's in an article on Dalton, in an effort to show that Dalton might actually eat hobbits, then the problem is it's a fringe theory, because Ken isn't an authoritative source. If it's in an article on Ken, to show how dumb Ken is for thinking Dalton eats hobbits, then it's original research. Don't quote Ken to make Ken look dumb, quote an expert who talks about how dumb Ken is.
[...]
It's a reliable source for the claim that the action happened, but not a reliable source for the truth of any of the allegations made during that action. And it's *definitely* not a reliable source for the allegations' *notability*.
That's the key point. Stating Ken's claim about me eating hobbits is fine from a reliability point of view, but if Ken isn't some kind of expert on either me or hobbits, then his claim isn't notable and shouldn't be included for that reason, and that reason alone. If Ken was an expert on people eating hobbits then his claim would be notable and it should be included in any article on me.
Of course, we're not actually talking about articles, so we've ended up a little off-topic. People need to stop applying Wikipedia's policies about articles to everything else - they don't apply. Perhaps the problem is our overuse of acronyms - people end up forgetting what they actually stand for. The B in BLP stands for "Biographies". The policy is about biographies, that means articles about people, articles go in the main namespace. The BLP policy does not apply to the rest of Wikipedia. Some of the reasoning behind it does, but not all.
On 13/09/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It's a reliable source for the claim that the action happened, but not a reliable source for the truth of any of the allegations made during that action. And it's *definitely* not a reliable source for the allegations' *notability*.
That's the key point. Stating Ken's claim about me eating hobbits is fine from a reliability point of view, but if Ken isn't some kind of expert on either me or hobbits, then his claim isn't notable and shouldn't be included for that reason, and that reason alone. If Ken was an expert on people eating hobbits then his claim would be notable and it should be included in any article on me.
Of course, we're not actually talking about articles, so we've ended up a little off-topic. People need to stop applying Wikipedia's policies about articles to everything else - they don't apply. Perhaps the problem is our overuse of acronyms - people end up forgetting what they actually stand for. The B in BLP stands for "Biographies". The policy is about biographies, that means articles about people, articles go in the main namespace. The BLP policy does not apply to the rest of Wikipedia. Some of the reasoning behind it does, but not all.
BLP isn't just about having a good encyclopaedia, it's about ethics, and ethics apply everywhere.
If all namespaces were not Google-indexed, it wouldn't matter so much. All namespaces need not be Google-indexed - robots.txt can be adjusted to leave the non-encyclopaedic ones out. However, user pages rank just about as high as article-space biographies, making them just as much of an issue.
The first sentence of WP:BLP: 'Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page.'
*any* Wikipaedia page - any namespace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Templates
'This policy applies to all living persons in an entry, not merely the subject of the entry.' (That, in turn, cites an RfAr.)
So, the entire page doesn't need to be about a particular person for that page to contain a BLP violation with regards to that person. (Consider all the RfCs and RfArs....)
On 9/13/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
*notability*. There's already a BLP problem on Wikipedia where someone finds a minor celebrity, digs up an article where they got drunk and went naked in public 20 years ago, and adds it to Wikipedia. We take that out because of BLP considerations, *even if it really did happen*. Not because it's not true, but because it's not notable. An ultimately minor incident
I don't quite agree with the other parts of your message either, but I want to point this out: we absolutely *do not* remove true information from articles on people because of 'BLP considerations'. We do it for *exactly* the same reasons we'd remove such information from any other article; namely, NPOV and in particular to avoid undue weight. The [[WP:BLP]] itself notes that there may be problems with neutrality if we just leave any true information in, and gives this as the reason for removing such information.
The important lesson from this is that we remove true things from articles *because they are encyclopedia articles* and our articles need to follow NPOV. Our project space pages are under no such restriction. We do courtesy blankings and in general try to be nice to people, but it has nothing to do with our BLP policy.
Tracy Poff
On 14/09/2007, Tracy Poff tracy.poff@gmail.com wrote:
we absolutely *do not* remove true information from articles on people because of 'BLP considerations'.
Doesn't BLP give us the basis to remove unverified, unsourced information from articles on living people? Even if we know it to be true.
~Mark Ryan
On 9/14/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/09/2007, Tracy Poff tracy.poff@gmail.com wrote:
we absolutely *do not* remove true information from articles on people because of 'BLP considerations'.
Doesn't BLP give us the basis to remove unverified, unsourced information from articles on living people? Even if we know it to be true.
~Mark Ryan
No, it doesn't. WP:V and WP:RS gives us the mandate to remove unverified, unsourced material from articles. WP:BLP just says "You really ought to do this."
WilyD
On 14/09/2007, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
No, it doesn't. WP:V and WP:RS gives us the mandate to remove unverified, unsourced material from articles. WP:BLP just says "You really ought to do this."
WilyD
Ah, right, my bad.
~Mark Ryan
On 14/09/2007, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/09/2007, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
No, it doesn't. WP:V and WP:RS gives us the mandate to remove unverified, unsourced material from articles. WP:BLP just says "You really ought to do this."
WilyD
Ah, right, my bad.
~Mark Ryan
WP:V and WP:RS (or WP:ATT if y'all ever switch) may set the basis, but WP:BLP changes the beat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CITE#Unsourced_material
'If an article has no references, and you are unable to find them yourself, you can tag the article with the template {{Unreferenced}}, so long as the article is not nonsensical or a biography of a living person, in which case request admin assistance. If a particular claim in an article lacks citation and is doubtful, consider placing {{fact}} after the sentence or removing it. Consider the following in deciding which action to take: '1. If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article or to Wikipedia, use the {{fact}} tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time. '2. If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it as very harmful or absurd, in which case it should not be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense. 'All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately. It should not be tagged. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel.'
In short, if it isn't on an important subject such as a living person, you have time to figure it out, and you might bend the definition of a reliable source. If it is on a living person, it must be fixed ASAP using the strictest definition of a reliable source.
Also, V and RS apply only to mainspace, except that they form a basis for BLP, which applies to all namespaces.
On 9/11/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
But anyway, have you noticed how people, often banned people, who feel hurt by Wikipaedia tend to start 'behaving badly' *as a reaction* to getting hurt by Wikipaedia?
Basic game theory. You give the other guy a chance, and thereafter treat
them as they treat you. Things can rapidly spiral out of control, but of course, if you are a WP admin, you have the control and a support community.
Skyring wrote:
On 9/11/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
But anyway, have you noticed how people, often banned people, who feel hurt by Wikipaedia tend to start 'behaving badly' *as a reaction* to getting hurt by Wikipaedia?
Basic game theory. You give the other guy a chance, and thereafter treat
them as they treat you. Things can rapidly spiral out of control, but of course, if you are a WP admin, you have the control and a support community.
My expectations of Wikipedia admins go far beyond giving the other guy a chance, then treating them as they treat you. That sounds like the minimum you should expect from anyone you meet. Wikipedia admins should be held to a higher standard.
-Rich
On 9/17/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Skyring wrote:
On 9/11/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
But anyway, have you noticed how people, often banned people, who feel hurt by Wikipaedia tend to start 'behaving badly' *as a reaction* to getting hurt by Wikipaedia?
Basic game theory. You give the other guy a chance, and thereafter
treat
them as they treat you. Things can rapidly spiral out of control, but of course, if you are a WP admin, you have the control and a support
community.
My expectations of Wikipedia admins go far beyond giving the other guy a chance, then treating them as they treat you. That sounds like the minimum you should expect from anyone you meet. Wikipedia admins should be held to a higher standard.
Well, yeah, that'd be nice. Some wikiadmins are superb people. And some,
well, let's just say that they wouldn't make it past RfA a second time.
Realistically, we have no idea who some of our admins are. Just a screen name. Some of them may be banned users.
It's the way the system works. It's not perfect. It's not the way you'd set things up if you were starting from scratch. But it works.
On 16/09/2007, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
Realistically, we have no idea who some of our admins are. Just a screen name. Some of them may be banned users.
Please refrain from using 'banned' in a derogatory manner. Thanks.
On 16/09/2007, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
It's the way the system works. It's not perfect. It's not the way you'd set things up if you were starting from scratch. But it works.
omgno. we must have a perfect system. it must be ideologically sound and consistent. we must have a constitution for the community. and elect people. and vote on things. and have laws. "it works" isn't acceptable.
(Sorry, just channelling...)
On 17/09/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/09/2007, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
It's the way the system works. It's not perfect. It's not the way you'd set things up if you were starting from scratch. But it works.
omgno. we must have a perfect system. it must be ideologically sound and consistent. we must have a constitution for the community. and elect people. and vote on things. and have laws. "it works" isn't acceptable. (Sorry, just channelling...)
1. Wikipedia's rules are inconsistent. 2. This is a feature, not a bug.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PRO
- suggestions for improvement heartily welcomed.
- d.
On 17/09/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
suggestions for improvement heartily welcomed.
d.
Heartily welcomed? Erm... not usually....
Anyhow, the suggestion is: hide everything unencyclopaedic from Google -- basically everything but main space and image space.
Advantages: * Don't need to worry about BLP violations outside of the encyclopaedia showing up on top of Google * Hopefully less negative attention from outside - make Wikipaedians safer * Encourage Wikipaedians to feel safe revealing whatever personal info counts as 'accountability' without that info showing up on Google * The average reader won't be concerned with what goes on behind the scenes in wiki-building, no need to clog search engines shared with the rest of the world with all that * No loss in transparency - all info is still publicly available (not necessarily a good thing, but not a change either) * Discourage people not interested in encyclopaedia writing from using user pages as Myspace * Probably more things I can't think of at the moment....
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, David Gerard wrote:
- Wikipedia's rules are inconsistent.
- This is a feature, not a bug.
Is that the cynical "people like to ignore bugs by calling them features" type of feature, or are you actually suggesting it's a real feature?
On 9/17/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Is that the cynical "people like to ignore bugs by calling them features" type of feature, or are you actually suggesting it's a real feature?
I suspect that David believes, as do I, that doing the right thing on Wikipedia cannot be wholly written into a set of iron-clad rules capable of being interpreted by a robot. Furthermore, given the dynamic environment, things constantly change. Therefore, human decision-making and sensible conflict resolution must be used.
-Matt
On 9/17/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/17/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Is that the cynical "people like to ignore bugs by calling them features" type of feature, or are you actually suggesting it's a real feature?
I suspect that David believes, as do I, that doing the right thing on Wikipedia cannot be wholly written into a set of iron-clad rules capable of being interpreted by a robot. Furthermore, given the dynamic environment, things constantly change. Therefore, human decision-making and sensible conflict resolution must be used.
-Matt
Roughly, yes. We're supposed to be making the right decision regardless of the rules.
WilyD
On 9/17/07, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/17/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/17/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Is that the cynical "people like to ignore bugs by calling them features" type of feature, or are you actually suggesting it's a real feature?
I suspect that David believes, as do I, that doing the right thing on Wikipedia cannot be wholly written into a set of iron-clad rules capable of being interpreted by a robot. Furthermore, given the dynamic environment, things constantly change. Therefore, human decision-making and sensible conflict resolution must be used.
-Matt
Roughly, yes. We're supposed to be making the right decision regardless of the rules.
The thing is, there rarely is a "right" decision. A while ago I stated about how it doesn't matter if red means go and green me stop as long as we are consistent about which is which. It was pointed out at the time that turn signals wouldn't work if green and red were mixed up, but that's just inconsistency between the people who drive and the people who made the traffic lights.
I'd say inconsistency in "the rules" is the biggest primary problem currently facing Wikipedia.
On 9/17/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/17/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Is that the cynical "people like to ignore bugs by calling them features" type of feature, or are you actually suggesting it's a real feature?
I suspect that David believes, as do I, that doing the right thing on Wikipedia cannot be wholly written into a set of iron-clad rules capable of being interpreted by a robot.
I don't think anyone believes that. However, rules can be consistent without being capable of being interpreted by a robot.
On 17/09/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
omgno. we must have a perfect system. it must be ideologically sound and consistent. we must have a constitution for the community. and elect people. and vote on things. and have laws. "it works" isn't acceptable.
(Sorry, just channelling...)
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Warning: Excessive following of rules may cause you to do ridiculous things.
Exempli gratia:
'A man was hanged who had cut his throat, but who had been brought back to life. They hanged him for suicide. The doctor had warned them that it was impossible to hang him as the throat would burst open and he would breathe through the aperture. They did not listen to his advice and hanged their man. The wound in the neck immediately opened and the man came back to life again although he was hanged. It took time to convoke the aldermen to decide the question of what was to be done. At length the aldermen assembled and bound up the neck below the wound until he died. Oh my Mary, what a crazy society and what a stupid civilization.' -- Nicholas Ogarev, a Russian exile living in England circa 1860
(Note that Mary refers not to the Virgin Mary, but to Mary Sutherland, Nicholas's mistress.)