I've done a rewrite of the proposed guideline at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/temp
It's rewritten very much in the style of a quickly usable guideline - you should be able to get the whole idea from the intro, the rest is details.
I've also tried to greatly tighten the writing from the original, but it could do with more (e.g. the looong examples). Please hack away.
- d.
On 12/20/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've done a rewrite of the proposed guideline at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/temp
It's rewritten very much in the style of a quickly usable guideline - you should be able to get the whole idea from the intro, the rest is details.
I like it. I'll see if I can improve.
-Matt
David Gerard wrote:
I've done a rewrite of the proposed guideline at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/temp
It's rewritten very much in the style of a quickly usable guideline - you should be able to get the whole idea from the intro, the rest is details.
I've also tried to greatly tighten the writing from the original, but it could do with more (e.g. the looong examples). Please hack away.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I left some comments on the initial version.
One thing I would found useful is that a dual document is produced. One to be adressed to the editor (the guidelines) and one to be adressed to the one editing his biography. Sarah initial version was confusing both public, while David's one is now totally oriented toward regular editors.
I think both documents are needed.
Now, one thing that is imho, strongly missing in David version is somehow the description of HOW a person might feel when she discovers very questionable statements about her all over the web... and has very little idea how Wikipedia works. She must really feel like a stranger falling in a strange land.
I think that I can give this perspective, due to the number of times I had to answer one of these editors with a biography on OTRS. Some pretty cool, some totally abashed, some absolutely furious.
While it is important to explain editors which guidelines to follow, it is also important to explain to them the dismay of those with biographies they perceive wrong (and which are sometimes wrong actually).
And it is also important for the newbies to understand what is gonna happen to them, when they just feel like correcting what they think is wrong.
Both sides are important to consider, not just one. Each time there is a dispute, there are two sides. Not one person guilty of fixing his biography and one side being in his full rights to "save" the encyclopedia from the bad censor.
There are always too sides in a dispute and in this, I believe very very much in Sarah empathic approach. And again, I say this from the perspective of one who has precisely to deal with some enraged people on OTRS, mishandled by an editor.
It is important to remember these guys are most of the time acting in all good faith.
Aside from this, I believe the paragraph about legal threats is problematic. I wish that it is reworked. As a reminder, the FOundation may hold a responsability as a sort of publisher, when informed, it does not make an effort to fix a lie or a libel. But ultimately, the editor himself is liable. The editor is responsible of what he writes. Additionnaly, please remove phone numbers. Remove info-de, you are the english wikipedia, NOT the german speaking wikipedia. Remove personal email addresses as well, especially when they lead to Wikia (Wikia is not the Foundation). And if we are talking about neutrality, also see the one complaining side : the very expression "legal threat" is biaised :-)
Thanks a lot in any cases for all those working on these guidelines. Legal issues over biographies, most of you know this, are currently a huge issue for the board, we really appreciate your help here to deal with this. The Foundation will suffer of any legal action, whether if right or wrong.
ant
Anthere wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
I've done a rewrite of the proposed guideline at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/temp It's rewritten very much in the style of a quickly usable guideline - you should be able to get the whole idea from the intro, the rest is details.
I left some comments on the initial version. One thing I would found useful is that a dual document is produced. One to be adressed to the editor (the guidelines) and one to be adressed to the one editing his biography. Sarah initial version was confusing both public, while David's one is now totally oriented toward regular editors.
The one for the public is [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]].
Now, one thing that is imho, strongly missing in David version is somehow the description of HOW a person might feel when she discovers very questionable statements about her all over the web... and has very little idea how Wikipedia works. She must really feel like a stranger falling in a strange land. I think that I can give this perspective, due to the number of times I had to answer one of these editors with a biography on OTRS. Some pretty cool, some totally abashed, some absolutely furious. While it is important to explain editors which guidelines to follow, it is also important to explain to them the dismay of those with biographies they perceive wrong (and which are sometimes wrong
actually).
Check the history - my first version at /temp included the paragraphs on this from SlimVirgin's version; Morven changed them to instructions for those who don't like their biography.
There are always too sides in a dispute and in this, I believe very very much in Sarah empathic approach. And again, I say this from the perspective of one who has precisely to deal with some enraged people on OTRS, mishandled by an editor. It is important to remember these guys are most of the time acting in all good faith.
Indeed. However, SlimVirgin's first version (and its title) leant too much towards sympathetic point of view IMO. Which is not NPOV, not at all.
Aside from this, I believe the paragraph about legal threats is problematic. I wish that it is reworked. As a reminder, the
I just cut'n'pasted that from Slim's version; please kill it if we shouldn't have it, or rework it as is appropriate.
Thanks a lot in any cases for all those working on these guidelines. Legal issues over biographies, most of you know this, are currently a huge issue for the board, we really appreciate your help here to deal with this. The Foundation will suffer of any legal action, whether if right or wrong.
- d.
It's certainly best to stress positives: "DO this", "DO that", rather than negatives "DON'T DO this", "DON'T DO that" (as many a manager will tell you (and forget to take heed of!)).
I wasn't proposing another guideline on Relevancy - and I agree there'd be no point in having one. We'd never agree on a definition anyway. Relevancy is an issue, though - what to include and exclude from any given article (call it notability or something else if you wish).
Come the end of the day, commonsense, or editorial judgment as David refers to it as, can't be legislated for. But we do need good editors to fight the fight on controversial subjects to make commonsense prevail.
Jon
David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote: Anthere wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
I've done a rewrite of the proposed guideline at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/temp It's rewritten very much in the style of a quickly usable guideline - you should be able to get the whole idea from the intro, the rest is details.
I left some comments on the initial version. One thing I would found useful is that a dual document is produced. One to be adressed to the editor (the guidelines) and one to be adressed to the one editing his biography. Sarah initial version was confusing both public, while David's one is now totally oriented toward regular editors.
The one for the public is [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]].
Now, one thing that is imho, strongly missing in David version is somehow the description of HOW a person might feel when she discovers very questionable statements about her all over the web... and has very little idea how Wikipedia works. She must really feel like a stranger falling in a strange land. I think that I can give this perspective, due to the number of times I had to answer one of these editors with a biography on OTRS. Some pretty cool, some totally abashed, some absolutely furious. While it is important to explain editors which guidelines to follow, it is also important to explain to them the dismay of those with biographies they perceive wrong (and which are sometimes wrong
actually).
Check the history - my first version at /temp included the paragraphs on this from SlimVirgin's version; Morven changed them to instructions for those who don't like their biography.
There are always too sides in a dispute and in this, I believe very very much in Sarah empathic approach. And again, I say this from the perspective of one who has precisely to deal with some enraged people on OTRS, mishandled by an editor. It is important to remember these guys are most of the time acting in all good faith.
Indeed. However, SlimVirgin's first version (and its title) leant too much towards sympathetic point of view IMO. Which is not NPOV, not at all.
Aside from this, I believe the paragraph about legal threats is problematic. I wish that it is reworked. As a reminder, the
I just cut'n'pasted that from Slim's version; please kill it if we shouldn't have it, or rework it as is appropriate.
Thanks a lot in any cases for all those working on these guidelines. Legal issues over biographies, most of you know this, are currently a huge issue for the board, we really appreciate your help here to deal with this. The Foundation will suffer of any legal action, whether if right or wrong.
- d.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo.
Jon wrote:
I wasn't proposing another guideline on Relevancy - and I agree there'd be no point in having one. We'd never agree on a definition anyway. Relevancy is an issue, though - what to include and exclude from any given article (call it notability or something else if you wish).
Yeah. I left notability carefully undefined.
The problem with the cancerous proliferation of guidelines and policy on en: is that people keep trying to legislate cluefulness.
Come the end of the day, commonsense, or editorial judgment as David refers to it as, can't be legislated for. But we do need good editors to fight the fight on controversial subjects to make commonsense prevail.
I think we've got lots of those ;-) That's why I emphasised right up top that the goal is to get it *right*.
- d.
On 12/20/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Check the history - my first version at /temp included the paragraphs on this from SlimVirgin's version; Morven changed them to instructions for those who don't like their biography.
Do you think that paragraph should be rewritten to be wholly from the perspective of how current editors should behave? If so, we should create a new document from the perspective of 'So, you find someone's written about you on Wikipedia ...'
And [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]] is not it, at least not in its current form.
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
Do you think that paragraph should be rewritten to be wholly from the perspective of how current editors should behave? If so, we should create a new document from the perspective of 'So, you find someone's written about you on Wikipedia ...' And [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]] is not it, at least not in its current form.
A third one? Could do. What to call it?
[[Wikipedia:So you've just found the article about you ...]]
- d.
Matt Brown wrote:
On 12/20/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Check the history - my first version at /temp included the paragraphs on this from SlimVirgin's version; Morven changed them to instructions for those who don't like their biography.
Do you think that paragraph should be rewritten to be wholly from the perspective of how current editors should behave? If so, we should create a new document from the perspective of 'So, you find someone's written about you on Wikipedia ...'
And [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]] is not it, at least not in its current form.
-Matt
Matt is correct.
Ant
David Gerard wrote:
Anthere wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
I've done a rewrite of the proposed guideline at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/temp It's rewritten very much in the style of a quickly usable guideline - you should be able to get the whole idea from the intro, the rest is details.
I left some comments on the initial version. One thing I would found useful is that a dual document is produced. One to be adressed to the editor (the guidelines) and one to be adressed to the one editing his biography. Sarah initial version was confusing both public, while David's one is now totally oriented toward regular editors.
The one for the public is [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]].
Ah cool...
And don't you think there are some stuff missing in this page ? Or stuff maybe that should not be there now ?
I think beginning this page with a citation from Jimbo, to avoid doing something which he largely does himself, in particular after this has been mentionned in several places in the press... may actually not be best. In any cases, this could be used as an argument by the complainer in the future *against* this page and its recommandations ;-)
There is no clear explanation about how the system works at the top of the page.
There is nowhere mention of who they should contact in case they object *strongly* to the content.
And nowhere is gently mentionned that maybe (MAYBE) they could be right in complaining. It mostly insist in all what would be *wrong* in them editing the article, and not in what *we* could be wrong about and the people in their right to complain.
I understand you take the stance of the "editors" trying to fight vanity pages... and this is definitly important to do. Let me just take the other stance, the one of the visitor.
From a visitor perspective, finding *false* information on his biography, and being perplex, this page, indicating that it is basically bad for him to correct false information, is a bit troubling.
Please, do not answer me [[sofixit]]. I do not have the ability to do this in about 150 languages. And I already give a huge amount of time to the project. This is just *my* feeling to try to explain why we might get so many complaints on OTRS. I was asked to give my opinion, I do give it. I just can't myself try to fix all pending issues which might get us (me, not you) being sued :-(
Now, one thing that is imho, strongly missing in David version is somehow the description of HOW a person might feel when she discovers very questionable statements about her all over the web... and has very little idea how Wikipedia works. She must really feel like a stranger falling in a strange land. I think that I can give this perspective, due to the number of times I had to answer one of these editors with a biography on OTRS. Some pretty cool, some totally abashed, some absolutely furious. While it is important to explain editors which guidelines to follow, it is also important to explain to them the dismay of those with biographies they perceive wrong (and which are sometimes wrong
actually).
Check the history - my first version at /temp included the paragraphs on this from SlimVirgin's version; Morven changed them to instructions for those who don't like their biography.
I do not really care about who wrote what. I just look at the result and comment it :-)
There are always too sides in a dispute and in this, I believe very very much in Sarah empathic approach. And again, I say this from the perspective of one who has precisely to deal with some enraged people on OTRS, mishandled by an editor. It is important to remember these guys are most of the time acting in all good faith.
Indeed. However, SlimVirgin's first version (and its title) leant too much towards sympathetic point of view IMO. Which is not NPOV, not at all.
I agree you were correct to change the title.
Aside from this, I believe the paragraph about legal threats is problematic. I wish that it is reworked. As a reminder, the
I just cut'n'pasted that from Slim's version; please kill it if we shouldn't have it, or rework it as is appropriate.
Yup.
I suggest raising the issue on juriwiki-l@wikimedia.org
I'll put them a link to the page for their consideration. They will know what the legal implications of the phrasing are, much much better than I could myself :-)
Thanks a lot in any cases for all those working on these guidelines. Legal issues over biographies, most of you know this, are currently a huge issue for the board, we really appreciate your help here to deal with this. The Foundation will suffer of any legal action, whether if right or wrong.
- d.
A comment, just aside... as a person having her biography on WP. It is just a stub, and unlikely to ever grow, so I have not to complain because no one will ever pretend I am a pornograph, or have been prostituting myself in the past.
Still...
I hardly dared changing my age when I noticed the year of birth was erroneous on one project. I will not change the number of my kids and I did not update my professional situation, though it has changed and could cause me prejudice in the future, for not reflecting the reality of my life.
Why not ? Because they are no primary sources which could be trusted on the internet to assert my claims. According to your guidelines, I must not do this "Facts, retellings of events, and clarifications which you may wish to have added to an article about yourself must be cited from an external source."
Eheh, I find that a bit ridiculous... but to follow guidelines, I let untrue information on my page ;-) I can't prove they are untrue. It does not matter. But the day it writes I am currently prostituting myself to make a living... guidelines or no guidelines for me not to edit my article, unless there is a valid source, I will edit my article and remove the information. If reverted and blocked myself, I will know where to go, unlike a "victim" who is only offered this template...
We should take care of writers, but also of readers. Imho.
On 12/21/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've done a rewrite of the proposed guideline at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/temp
It's rewritten very much in the style of a quickly usable guideline - you should be able to get the whole idea from the intro, the rest is details.
I've also tried to greatly tighten the writing from the original, but it could do with more (e.g. the looong examples). Please hack away.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David,
Thank you for this work.
It certainly covers my concerns.
Regards
*Keith Old*
Keith Old