And as a counter-balance, your approach is flawed.
Any person who says "this article is Wrong", needs to show why it's wrong, not just say it. Even the subject. There is no such thing as "Right" and "Wrong" when dealing with biographies. That is why hard scientists should not try to stick their toes into biography, they just do not comprehend the distinction between Non-Fiction and Biography.
Right, Wrong, True, False, White, Black, and so on do not exist. They don't. No existence. They aren't there. Nowhere. Ok ...
Now on to step B.
Will Johnson
************** A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221621490x1201450102/aol?redir=http... hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooter421NO62)
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
And as a counter-balance, your approach is flawed.
Any person who says "this article is Wrong", needs to show why it's wrong, not just say it. Even the subject. There is no such thing as "Right" and "Wrong" when dealing with biographies. That is why hard scientists should not try to stick their toes into biography, they just do not comprehend the distinction between Non-Fiction and Biography.
Right, Wrong, True, False, White, Black, and so on do not exist. They don't. No existence. They aren't there. Nowhere. Ok ...
Now on to step B.
Will Johnson
Not so.
If I say, "you (wikipedia) have an article about me and it is libellous".
Then, given that we know anyone could have written it, and it may well say "Joe is a brothel-keeping cocksucker, who murders children", Wikipedia has an obligation to check the article and ensure that it is defensible.
If, having done that, Wikipedia cannot see any libel. Then it may ask the subject "can you specify what your problem is with the article"
Then the onus is on us to double-check that the material he has a problem with is fair, sourced and accurate.
Whilst many shades of grey exist, that isn't an excuse for saying that some things are not "wrong".
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Right, Wrong, True, False, White, Black, and so on do not exist. They don't. No existence. They aren't there. Nowhere. Ok ...
Is that why the standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, and not truth?
-----Original Message----- From: Anthony wikimail@inbox.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org; wjhonson@aol.com Sent: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 6:04 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of l...
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM, <WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:
Right, Wrong, True, False, White, Black, and so on do not exist. They
don't. No existence. They aren't there. Nowhere. Ok ... Is that why the standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, and not truth?>> -----------------
If I can cite to the New York Post stating that "Britney Spears likes to walk her poodles every morning at 8 AM" then I've done my job. I do not have to interview Ms Spears myself to confirm that. I do not need three separate sources to confirm it. And if she were to show up, or some imposter and claim face-to-face that it's wrong and it should say "Dobermans" not poodles, not *only* should I do nothing to remove the sourced claim, but rather if I were to, that itself would be original research. There is no way I can know if the imposter is truly Britney Spears and there is no way I can know if she has poodles or dobermans directly.
It is impossible to "take the word" of some random passerby and use that to modify content. Any viewer can *contest* any article without sources. We add a {{fact}} tag. They can as well spout off20on the Talk page. We however cannot be in the position of second guessing who anyone is or isn't. If they feel strongly about it, they can post a rebuttal. If they are not willing to type two sentences on an official site, but ARE willing to type a hundred in-project, than I submit it's *highly* unlikely to be the person in question in the first place.
IF they write a blog where they complain about process, that is simply more free publicity for us. There is no such thing as bad publicity.
Will Johnson
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
If they are not willing to type two sentences on an official site, but ARE willing to type a hundred in-project, than I submit it's *highly* unlikely to be the person in question in the first place.
IF they write a blog where they complain about process, that is simply more free publicity for us. There is no such thing as bad publicity.
This is exactly what's wrong with BLP. We care more about the process than we do about the people.
If someone says that a relatively uncontroversial fact in an article about themselves is wrong, we should fix it. If our process says we shouldn't listen to them, then we need to fix both the process and the article.
If you really doubt that the person themselves is sending you a correction, then fine. But that's only good if you really have some reason to doubt it's them. Saying "what if it isn't them" and then stretching it to cover all situations whether you believe it's them or not is just elevating process above people.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
If they are not willing to type two sentences on an official site, but ARE willing to type a hundred in-project, than I submit it's *highly* unlikely to be the person in question in the first place.
IF they write a blog where they complain about process, that is simply more free publicity for us. There is no such thing as bad publicity.
This is exactly what's wrong with BLP. We care more about the process than we do about the people.
If someone says that a relatively uncontroversial fact in an article about themselves is wrong, we should fix it. If our process says we shouldn't listen to them, then we need to fix both the process and the article.
If you really doubt that the person themselves is sending you a correction, then fine. But that's only good if you really have some reason to doubt it's them. Saying "what if it isn't them" and then stretching it to cover all situations whether you believe it's them or not is just elevating process above people.
And when you get two people contacting you, both claiming to be the same person?
Carcharoth
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
If they are not willing to type two sentences on an official site, but ARE willing to type a hundred in-project, than I submit it's *highly* unlikely to be the person in question in the first place.
IF they write a blog where they complain about process, that is simply more free publicity for us. There is no such thing as bad publicity.
This is exactly what's wrong with BLP. We care more about the process than we do about the people.
If someone says that a relatively uncontroversial fact in an article about themselves is wrong, we should fix it. If our process says we shouldn't listen to them, then we need to fix both the process and the article.
If you really doubt that the person themselves is sending you a correction, then fine. But that's only good if you really have some reason to doubt it's them. Saying "what if it isn't them" and then stretching it to cover all situations whether you believe it's them or not is just elevating process above people.
And when you get two people contacting you, both claiming to be the same person?
It does actually happen, with common names and articles that combine details of two people...
Carcharoth
There are quite a number of people who like tinkering with birth years for the hell of it. it's one of the most common forms of vandalism. A good deal of the present BLP problem is the difficulty of preventing this on the more obscure articles. It would be counterproductive to have a policy to accept unsourced corrections of things like that, uncontroversial though they may seem.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
If someone says that a relatively uncontroversial fact in an article about themselves is wrong, we should fix it. If our process says we shouldn't listen to them, then we need to fix both the process and the article.
If you really doubt that the person themselves is sending you a correction, then fine. But that's only good if you really have some reason to doubt it's them. Saying "what if it isn't them" and then stretching it to cover all situations whether you believe it's them or not is just elevating process above people.
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, Carcharoth wrote:
If you really doubt that the person themselves is sending you a correction, then fine. But that's only good if you really have some reason to doubt it's them. Saying "what if it isn't them" and then stretching it to cover all situations whether you believe it's them or not is just elevating process above people.
And when you get two people contacting you, both claiming to be the same person?
Then, by definition, you must sincerely doubt that both of them are the person.
Doubt is fine in that case. But don't pretend that those cases are universal. They're not.
The moment we start to take someones word "because they claim it" without a source we can link or point to,we've gone wrong.
The argument "well what if it's a small uncontroversial fact" such as "dobermans" and "poodles" (above in this thread) is irrelevant and not for us to judge - what seems small to one person may not be to another. landmines ahead.
I did once suggest another approach that might help, and would certainly be within usual norms too. I observed that in an article on a person, that person's view is, and always should be considered "significant". Even if they are the only perosn on the planet saying it, I'd say that always, their claim about matters in their life is a "significant view". What's usually missing is evidence of it in a reliable source. If we had one, we could cite from it easily.
I once made a suggestion intended to address this. If the subject can either post the view that they'd like us to take note of, on some site formally connected to them (and where the poster's identity is not in doubt), then we can treat that as any primary selfpub source, it's good for claims of the form "X says Y". If they don't have one, but will post it on the wiki and confirm via OTRS (eg by phone contact) it's their's, so that we can affirm we know it's genuine, then ditto, it's also citable as them being directly quoted. I'd explain it like this:
You want us to put your view on this in your biography, but there are no sources we can rely upon where that is said. If you are willing to post that on your website, or else, to contact our volunteer team in a manner that allows them to verify that you really are who you say you are, and writethe points you would like referenced about yourself, in a manner that does not attack others but just discusses you, then we will cite it and use that as material toensure your stance is represented in the article.
For matters where there really is genuine credible sources and NPOV does require us to note the issue,this would provide a handy and useful solution, since it's pretty much 100% within the spirit of existing norms -- represent all significant views; require a verifiable source for "X says Y"
FT2
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
If they are not willing to type two sentences on an official site, but ARE willing to type a hundred in-project, than I submit it's *highly* unlikely to be the person in question in the first place.
IF they write a blog where they complain about process, that is simply more free publicity for us. There is no such thing as bad publicity.
This is exactly what's wrong with BLP. We care more about the process than we do about the people.
If someone says that a relatively uncontroversial fact in an article about themselves is wrong, we should fix it. If our process says we shouldn't listen to them, then we need to fix both the process and the article.
If you really doubt that the person themselves is sending you a correction, then fine. But that's only good if you really have some reason to doubt it's them. Saying "what if it isn't them" and then stretching it to cover all situations whether you believe it's them or not is just elevating process above people.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/4/22 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Right, Wrong, True, False, White, Black, and so on do not exist. They don't. No existence. They aren't there. Nowhere. Ok ...
Is that why the standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, and not truth?
A statement of objective truth concerning subjective matters is beyond the capacity of mere humans. Verifiability from reasonably reliable sources is the closest approximation we can muster, in the quest for a neutral overview of the view of a given topic from 20,000 feet.
- d.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 9:40 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/22 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Right, Wrong, True, False, White, Black, and so on do not exist. They don't. No existence. They aren't there. Nowhere. Ok ...
Is that why the standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, and not truth?
A statement of objective truth concerning subjective matters is beyond the capacity of mere humans. Verifiability from reasonably reliable sources is the closest approximation we can muster, in the quest for a neutral overview of the view of a given topic from 20,000 feet.
Wikiversity should have a course on this. The more Wikipedians you can convince of this line of thinking, the greater the chance of reaching your goals.