On 15 Oct 2007 at 14:34:44 -0700, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Doing so won't punish those sites, or even make them stop the harassment, but it will reduce the disruption to Wikipedia that those sites cause. If there's a better way to do that then please suggest it.
The way I see it, there has been vastly more disruption to Wikipedia coming from attempts to suppress links to sites than has ever occurred by the presence of such links.
On 10/15/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 15 Oct 2007 at 14:34:44 -0700, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Doing so won't punish those sites, or even make them stop the harassment, but it will reduce the disruption to Wikipedia that those sites cause. If there's a better way to do that then please suggest it.
The way I see it, there has been vastly more disruption to Wikipedia coming from attempts to suppress links to sites than has ever occurred by the presence of such links.
In the case of WR, I think that there's a case to be made.
For everything else... the fighting back and forth has been far more disruptive than leaving it alone would have been (Moore, Making Light).
On 16/10/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The way I see it, there has been vastly more disruption to Wikipedia coming from attempts to suppress links to sites than has ever occurred by the presence of such links.
In the case of WR, I think that there's a case to be made.
"If you want to take Vienna, take Vienna". If you want to block linking to Wikipedia Review, then block linking *to Wikipedia Review*.
There are many people violently against the "attack sites removal" concept who would tolerate "site A and B are irredeemably and inherently useless for reasons X Y and Z, don't link there". I still haven't seen a good reason we can't have an (Arbcom-named?) blacklist, kept as small and undisputable as possible...
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 16/10/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The way I see it, there has been vastly more disruption to Wikipedia coming from attempts to suppress links to sites than has ever occurred by the presence of such links.
In the case of WR, I think that there's a case to be made.
"If you want to take Vienna, take Vienna". If you want to block linking to Wikipedia Review, then block linking *to Wikipedia Review*.
There are many people violently against the "attack sites removal" concept who would tolerate "site A and B are irredeemably and inherently useless for reasons X Y and Z, don't link there". I still haven't seen a good reason we can't have an (Arbcom-named?) blacklist, kept as small and undisputable as possible...
That seems reasonable to me, and as an added bonus it could be done in a manner that doesn't special-case Wikipedians. The general category of non-notable attack websites/blogs is rarely worth linking to, and since their proponents often spend a lot of effort trying to link them and they can have negative effects (moreso than most spam), it might be worth some special effort to keep them out.
I think this is actually more common with non-Wikipedia-related attack blogs than with Wikipedia-related ones, but those don't get as much attention unless someone complains to OTRS. (See the history of [[Erwin Raphael McManus]] for one particular instance of persistent attempts to link an attack blog.) But of course it would apply to those who attack Wikipedians as well.
In either case that approach wouldn't justify removing information about *notable* attack sites (or attack books, or attack newspapers, or whatever), which is really what the problem with 'badsites' and similar proposals is.
-Mark
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Delirium wrote:
That seems reasonable to me, and as an added bonus it could be done in a manner that doesn't special-case Wikipedians. The general category of non-notable attack websites/blogs is rarely worth linking to, and since their proponents often spend a lot of effort trying to link them and they can have negative effects (moreso than most spam), it might be worth some special effort to keep them out.
"Rarely", though, isn't "never".
What happens when one of those rare cases shows up?
On 10/16/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Delirium wrote:
That seems reasonable to me, and as an added bonus it could be done in a manner that doesn't special-case Wikipedians. The general category of non-notable attack websites/blogs is rarely worth linking to, and since their proponents often spend a lot of effort trying to link them and they can have negative effects (moreso than most spam), it might be worth some special effort to keep them out.
"Rarely", though, isn't "never".
What happens when one of those rare cases shows up?
It appears to be (order of) once a year.
Especially if the nominating process (whatever that ends up being) is fairly straighforwards, jumping through some hoops once a year won't kill us.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Delirium wrote:
That seems reasonable to me, and as an added bonus it could be done in a manner that doesn't special-case Wikipedians. The general category of non-notable attack websites/blogs is rarely worth linking to, and since their proponents often spend a lot of effort trying to link them and they can have negative effects (moreso than most spam), it might be worth some special effort to keep them out.
"Rarely", though, isn't "never".
What happens when one of those rare cases shows up?
It's better to make a policy to cover what happens most of the time. We can handle the exceptions on a case by case basis.
W.
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Delirium wrote:
That seems reasonable to me, and as an added bonus it could be done in a manner that doesn't special-case Wikipedians. The general category of non-notable attack websites/blogs is rarely worth linking to, and since their proponents often spend a lot of effort trying to link them and they can have negative effects (moreso than most spam), it might be worth some special effort to keep them out.
"Rarely", though, isn't "never".
What happens when one of those rare cases shows up?
It's better to make a policy to cover what happens most of the time. We can handle the exceptions on a case by case basis.
But we already do that. [[WP:EL]] already removes random personal webpages, blogs etc. The problem is that in the cases in question these aren't random at all but are the websites of the people in question.
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Will Beback wrote:
"Rarely", though, isn't "never".
What happens when one of those rare cases shows up?
It's better to make a policy to cover what happens most of the time. We can handle the exceptions on a case by case basis.
So BADSITES should be subject to IAR?
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Will Beback wrote:
"Rarely", though, isn't "never".
What happens when one of those rare cases shows up?
It's better to make a policy to cover what happens most of the time. We can handle the exceptions on a case by case basis.
So BADSITES should be subject to IAR?
I'm not talking about BADSITES, a policy that was rejected long ago. But IAR should apply to all of the current proposals, including my own. Only the core policies don't have exceptions (at least in theory).
Will
Quoting Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com:
On 16/10/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The way I see it, there has been vastly more disruption to Wikipedia coming from attempts to suppress links to sites than has ever occurred by the presence of such links.
In the case of WR, I think that there's a case to be made.
"If you want to take Vienna, take Vienna". If you want to block linking to Wikipedia Review, then block linking *to Wikipedia Review*.
There are many people violently against the "attack sites removal" concept who would tolerate "site A and B are irredeemably and inherently useless for reasons X Y and Z, don't link there". I still haven't seen a good reason we can't have an (Arbcom-named?) blacklist, kept as small and undisputable as possible...
I for one would be worried about the ArbCom then making what amount to content decisions, but I think that leaving that in the hands of the ArbCom would solve many of the problems associated with BADSITES. The other side to this is that we are already giving the ArbCom more and more authority and we've had at least two recent threads here about how the ArbCom is overworked. That doesn't go well together. But yes, leaving it in the hands of the ArbCom would solve many of the problems.
On 16/10/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
I for one would be worried about the ArbCom then making what amount to content decisions, but I think that leaving that in the hands of the ArbCom would solve many of the problems associated with BADSITES. The other side to this is that we are already giving the ArbCom more and more authority and we've had at least two recent threads here about how the ArbCom is overworked. That doesn't go well together. But yes, leaving it in the hands of the ArbCom would solve many of the problems.
Well, Arbcom was a random suggestion - some body which could say, after deliberation, "I give up, these people are never going to be any use", but be trusted to keep that limited and sane and transparent. (I would not place great faith in all of the current arbcom managing that sensibly, mind you)
Some kind of workable method for keeping people from randomly declaring sites that they don't like to be attack sites would be needed, and requiring an explicit agreement or edict on what those sites would be, from some defined process or group, seems a helpful restriction. But details are there to be worked out :-)
Quoting "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name:
On 15 Oct 2007 at 14:34:44 -0700, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Doing so won't punish those sites, or even make them stop the harassment, but it will reduce the disruption to Wikipedia that those sites cause. If there's a better way to do that then please suggest it.
The way I see it, there has been vastly more disruption to Wikipedia coming from attempts to suppress links to sites than has ever occurred by the presence of such links.
This is my impression as well. If someone is trolling with a specific link then we can block that person. However attempts to impose BADSITES has primarily resulted in the loss of much good editing and hurt feelings.
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
The way I see it, there has been vastly more disruption to Wikipedia coming from attempts to suppress links to sites than has ever occurred by the presence of such links.
You won't see the all of the disruption since in some cases it involves editors leaving due to the harassment. The aim of creating some kind of policy or guideline to cover the issue is to give editors a road map of how to handle this type of problem to minimize the disruptions that have resulted from off-site harassment. Simply saying it doesn't exist doesn't help.
Will
Dan Tobias wrote:
The way I see it, there has been vastly more disruption to Wikipedia coming from attempts to suppress links to sites than has ever occurred by the presence of such links.
Three or four people said this in rapid succession, so let me just say: fifthed.
Will Beback wrote:
The aim of creating some kind of policy or guideline to cover the issue is to give editors a road map of how to handle this type of problem to minimize the disruptions that have resulted from off-site harassment. Simply saying it doesn't exist doesn't help.
No one is saying off-site harassment doesn't exist. But since it's off-site, there is by definition nothing we can do about it directly, at least not within the confines of our Wikipedia sites.
I may be very stupid, but I'm still not seeing why we need more policy here. We've already got WP:NPA, which says that that a link which serves as an attack (my means of pointed reference to an off-site attack) is tantamount to an on-wiki personal attack, and is prohibited. We've already got WP:RS, which works hard to define what a reliable source is, and which says that blogs generally aren't.
So what more do we need? Which elements of the policy formerly known as BADSITES do we need to preserve, and why? What is the cost (in false positives, unexpected consequences, or general inconvenience) of those elements? What is the cost (in terms of potential editor harassment, or other imagined travails) if we don't adopt those elements?
I'm aware of three such elements, are there others?
1. WP:NPA only talks about links which serve as attacks. But we need to ban *all* links to attack sites, even when the links aren't meant to attack, even when they're to pages on the attack sites which aren't attacks.
2. WP:RS only talks about links in article space. But we need to ban links to attack sites from anywhere, including talk and project pages.
3. Removal of any links covered by the policy formerly known as BADSITES should not be subject to the three-revert rule.
(Me, I disagree pretty vehemently with at least the first two of these elements, but the arguments against them have been posted ad nauseam, so I'll not rehearse them here.)
Will Beback wrote:
The aim of creating some kind of policy or guideline to cover the issue is to give editors a road map of how to handle this type of problem to minimize the disruptions that have resulted from off-site harassment. Simply saying it doesn't exist doesn't help.
No one is claiming the off-site harassment doesn't exist or that off-site harassement is not disruptive. The observation being made is that this form of attempting to deal with it, by banning links, appears to be creating more disruption than it is stopping.
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Will Beback wrote:
The aim of creating some kind of policy or guideline to cover the issue is to give editors a road map of how to handle this type of problem to minimize the disruptions that have resulted from off-site harassment. Simply saying it doesn't exist doesn't help.
No one is claiming the off-site harassment doesn't exist or that off-site harassement is not disruptive. The observation being made is that this form of attempting to deal with it, by banning links, appears to be creating more disruption than it is stopping.
What form of dealing with it do you recommend?
W.
On 16/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
No one is claiming the off-site harassment doesn't exist or that off-site harassement is not disruptive. The observation being made is that this form of attempting to deal with it, by banning links, appears to be creating more disruption than it is stopping.
What form of dealing with it do you recommend?
One that doesn't trash article space the way present actions are.
- d.
On 16/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
attempting to deal with it, by banning links, appears to be creating more disruption than it is stopping.
What form of dealing with it do you recommend?
One that doesn't trash article space the way present actions are.
And, to a lesser extent, trash non-article space. (Purging of a single link can get fairly comprehensive, and a link not appropriate for article space, as an unreliable source, may still be useful in a meta-discussion)
The most obvious single step for curbing the stupid uses would be to ensure that whatever method is implemented for dealing with it, it can't be kicked off by one user or group of users screaming "attack site!" without sanity-checking from an external group.
On 16/10/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
The most obvious single step for curbing the stupid uses would be to ensure that whatever method is implemented for dealing with it, it can't be kicked off by one user or group of users screaming "attack site!" without sanity-checking from an external group.
Ideally, arbcom.
- d.
On 10/16/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Will Beback wrote:
The aim of creating some kind of policy or guideline to cover the issue is to give editors a road map of how to handle this type of problem to minimize the disruptions that have resulted from off-site harassment. Simply saying it doesn't exist doesn't help.
No one is claiming the off-site harassment doesn't exist or that off-site harassement is not disruptive. The observation being made is that this form of attempting to deal with it, by banning links, appears to be creating more disruption than it is stopping.
What form of dealing with it do you recommend?
W.
I don't think we have a good solution identified yet.
I don't know that either the Foundation or "Community" *can* solve the problem... acknowledging it's real and being in a position to actually change things are two very different things.
People expect the Foundation and/or Community to be things it isn't.
The link bans... might have helped. But I think it's worthwhile revisiting the underlying problem and review whether they really did any good at all.
I think it's clear that they were largely ineffective at slowing down or stifling the off-wiki abuse, which is where most of the problem seems to be. It may have reduced the harrassment on-wiki, but I don't know to what degree over and above blocking abusers just for being abusive does.
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Will Beback wrote:
The aim of creating some kind of policy or guideline to cover the issue is to give editors a road map of how to handle this type of problem to minimize the disruptions that have resulted from off-site harassment. Simply saying it doesn't exist doesn't help.
No one is claiming the off-site harassment doesn't exist or that off-site harassement is not disruptive. The observation being made is that this form of attempting to deal with it, by banning links, appears to be creating more disruption than it is stopping.
What form of dealing with it do you recommend?
W.
The same thing we've done for a long time with no problem. When someone links to something in an attempt to troll, block them and if necessary remove their comment just as one would remove a trolling remark. This applies to all forms of trolling and we don't need a special policy for it. But this shouldn't modifying what links are in article space or what links are used in good-faith discussions.
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Will Beback wrote:
The aim of creating some kind of policy or guideline to cover the issue is to give editors a road map of how to handle this type of problem to minimize the disruptions that have resulted from off-site harassment. Simply saying it doesn't exist doesn't help.
No one is claiming the off-site harassment doesn't exist or that off-site harassement is not disruptive. The observation being made is that this form of attempting to deal with it, by banning links, appears to be creating more disruption than it is stopping.
It's even worse if folks are saying that it does exist but that we shouldn't do anything about it. Again, I think that having a clear policy with bright lines will help us reduce the disruption caused by people who are trying to cause disruption by engaging in inappropriate harassment.
The "other forms" of dealing with the solution include private diplomacy, an ArbCom-maintained blacklist, and similar non-transparent procedures. Personally, I think a clear policy is better, but if we can't form one then then we'll have to continue to handle these issues on an ad hoc basis, even though those tends to be the most disruptive.
W
Will Beback wrote:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
The way I see it, there has been vastly more disruption to Wikipedia coming from attempts to suppress links to sites than has ever occurred by the presence of such links.
You won't see the all of the disruption since in some cases it involves editors leaving due to the harassment. The aim of creating some kind of policy or guideline to cover the issue is to give editors a road map of how to handle this type of problem to minimize the disruptions that have resulted from off-site harassment. Simply saying it doesn't exist doesn't help.
That would be a great point -- if anybody had said it doesn't exist.
Perhaps you could address some of the things we are saying, rather than the much larger number of things we haven't? I'd still welcome replies on a number of my points, for example.
Thanks,
William
William Pietri wrote:
Will Beback wrote:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
The way I see it, there has been vastly more disruption to Wikipedia coming from attempts to suppress links to sites than has ever occurred by the presence of such links.
You won't see the all of the disruption since in some cases it involves editors leaving due to the harassment. The aim of creating some kind of policy or guideline to cover the issue is to give editors a road map of how to handle this type of problem to minimize the disruptions that have resulted from off-site harassment. Simply saying it doesn't exist doesn't help.
That would be a great point -- if anybody had said it doesn't exist.
Perhaps you could address some of the things we are saying, rather than the much larger number of things we haven't? I'd still welcome replies on a number of my points, for example.
Thanks,
William
Could you restate the points you'd like addressed? This is a long thread and I'm not sure which points have or haven't been covered already. W.
Will Beback wrote:
Perhaps you could address some of the things we are saying, rather than the much larger number of things we haven't? I'd still welcome replies on a number of my points, for example.
Could you restate the points you'd like addressed? This is a long thread and I'm not sure which points have or haven't been covered already.
Frankly, having written them once and having equal access to the archives, I'm a little frustrated at the request. However, here they are in summary form:
* In terms of persons affected or behaviors changed, what specific benefits do you believe your proposed policy provides? And how does it achieve that? (E.g., "It will reduce harassment because..." or "It will make a harassed editor feel supported because... * How do you reconcile your suggested POV-driven content changes with the "absolute and non-negotiable" NPOV? * Why do editors alone benefit from your proposal? If we're protecting people, shouldn't we protect everybody? * Doesn't your proposed policy benefit editors while harming readers, thereby privileging one over the other? And can that really be squared with our mission? * How does somebody not liking Wikipedia reduce their value as a source in their area of expertise? * Even if your proposal isn't just a punitive measure against people who attack us, why wouldn't outsiders, including the persons whose sites we are de-linking, see it that way?
I look forward to your replies.
William
William Pietri wrote:
Frankly, having written them once and having equal access to the archives, I'm a little frustrated at the request. However, here they are in summary form:
Sorry for asking you to summarize your questions. This is a long thread and it takes a lot of time away from Wikipedia to read and reply to emails. Sinec we all use the same subject lines, it's doubly hard to find anything.
To restate my proposal: "Self-published sites that are actively harassing Wikipedia editors should not be considered reliable sources or suitable external links for articles. " There are also some very different new proposals now on the table that I also think are interesting, but these replies are based only on my original proposal.
* In terms of persons affected or behaviors changed, what specific benefits do you believe your proposed policy provides? And how does it achieve that? (E.g., "It will reduce harassment because..." or "It will make a harassed editor feel supported because...
Harassment of Wikipedia editors should not be advertised or promoted. A link to a harassing website is likely to make the harassed editor more aware of the harassment, meaning that it will have more effect on the editor and make the harassment more likely to succeed in driving him away from Wikipedia or at least avoiding the topic.
* How do you reconcile your suggested POV-driven content changes with the "absolute and non-negotiable" NPOV
This isn't a POV-driven content change. It's a determination that the writers of self-puiblished websites that engage in harassment of encyclopedia editors are not suitable sources for an encyclopedia. They are trying to inappropriately affect Wikipedia through harassment, so we can presume that they are also interested in affecting Wikipedia content. NPOV does not require that we include fringe ideas in articles, in fact it discourages them. Concepts or facts that can only be sourced to self-published websites actively engaged in harassing Wikipedia editors are going to be those that are only held by a tiny minority.
* Why do editors alone benefit from your proposal? If we're protecting people, shouldn't we protect everybody?
Everyone benefits from having articles that aren't based on poor sources. I assume you mean why shouldn't we give the same treatment to self-published websties that actively harass others? I'd hope we don't link to those very often. But there is an important difference. The websites are trying to affect the encyclopedia inappropriately, so we need to preempt that effort.
* Doesn't your proposed policy benefit editors while harming readers, thereby privileging one over the other? And can that really be squared with our mission?
Again, the policy is intended to benefit everybody, by giving us better content and happier editors. I don't believe that readers would be harmed in any way.
* How does somebody not liking Wikipedia reduce their value as a source in their area of expertise?
We've been over this one several times. "Not liking" or "criticizing" Wikipedia is fine. I'm sure we've all criticized Wikipedia for one reason or another. Harassment is not fine. Why would an expert choose to engage in harassment of an encyclopedia editor? The best reason I can think of is that they aren't thinking straight. t is very likely that whatever dispute led to the harassment will be connected to the field of expertise so, as I wrote above, the "expert" is putting himself into conflict with Wikipedia. His integrity and neutrality can't be taken for granted any longer.
* Even if your proposal isn't just a punitive measure against people who attack us, why wouldn't outsiders, including the persons whose sites we are de-linking, see it that way?
It is not punitive because linking to a site is not a reward, nor is removing a link a punishment. If someone is actively engaged in harassing a Wikipedia editor, are we really concerned with his opinion of Wikipedia policies? As for the rest of the world, we remove hundreds of links from articles every day and the outsiders don't seem to be too upset.
I look forward to your replies.
William
Thanks for the opportunity to answer your questions. Will
On 18/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
To restate my proposal: "Self-published sites that are actively harassing Wikipedia editors should not be considered reliable sources or suitable external links for articles. "
Does that give us anything beyond what we already have in [[WP:SPS]]?
James Farrar wrote:
On 18/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
To restate my proposal: "Self-published sites that are actively harassing Wikipedia editors should not be considered reliable sources or suitable external links for articles. "
Does that give us anything beyond what we already have in [[WP:SPS]]?
[[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper)]] (AKA WP:SPS) prohibits most uses of self-published sources. It allows two exceptions: we may use the self-published material from previously-published individual who are recognized experts in the field (a contrversial addition) and we may use self-published sources in articles about the subjects themselves provided a number of criteria are met. My proposal would add another limitation to the existing exceptions.
W.
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
James Farrar wrote:
On 18/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
To restate my proposal: "Self-published sites that are actively harassing Wikipedia editors should not be considered reliable sources or suitable external links for articles. "
Does that give us anything beyond what we already have in [[WP:SPS]]?
[[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper)]] (AKA WP:SPS) prohibits most uses of self-published sources. It allows two exceptions: we may use the self-published material from previously-published individual who are recognized experts in the field (a contrversial addition) and we may use self-published sources in articles about the subjects themselves provided a number of criteria are met. My proposal would add another limitation to the existing exceptions.
W.
I really don't think we're getting anywhere. It seems like no one is being convinced in either direction. At minimum it seems clear that there's no consensus for this or a similar proposal.
On 10/17/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
On 18/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
To restate my proposal: "Self-published sites that are actively harassing Wikipedia editors should not be considered reliable sources or suitable external links for articles. "
Does that give us anything beyond what we already have in [[WP:SPS]]?
[[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper)]] (AKA WP:SPS) prohibits most uses of self-published sources. It allows two exceptions: we may use the self-published material from previously-published individual who are recognized experts in the field (a contrversial addition) and we may use self-published sources in articles about the subjects themselves provided a number of criteria are met. My proposal would add another limitation to the existing exceptions.
W.
But we're not linking to it as a reference. KP
Will Beback wrote:
[[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper)]] (AKA WP:SPS) prohibits most uses of self-published sources. It allows two exceptions: we may use the self-published material from previously-published individual who are recognized experts in the field (a contrversial addition) and we may use self-published sources in articles about the subjects themselves provided a number of criteria are met. My proposal would add another limitation to the existing exceptions.
The problem is that the limitation isn't particularly coherent, because whether a source is reliable or not is a completely orthogonal issue. If michaelmoore.com had never harrassed Wikipedians, it would not have been any more or less reliable as a source about Michael Moore's views---that incident has precisely no effect on its reliability (or unreliability) as a source.
It sounds like what you want is a rule that certain types of sources should not be used due to concerns *other* than their reliability. So why not say that?
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
It sounds like what you want is a rule that certain types of sources should not be used due to concerns *other* than their reliability. So why not say that?
-Mark
Folks often say that removing links violates NPOV. But a much larger effect on POV comes when editors are harassed off of Wikipedia because of content-related edits or decisions. When a coherent group (gang, religious sect, etc) succeeds in driving away all interested editors who disagree with them then the NPOV of the topic suffer tremendously, far more than from the mere absence of a single hot link.
We say "comment on the edits, not the editors", which is always a good idea,, but of course it's editors who create and modify the content. If the editors on one side of an issue are harassed off the project unfairly then the project's content will become less neutral. It's gaming the system from the outside, just like tilting the pinball machine. Even though it's "outside" of Wikipedia, external harassment still affects the contents, potentially very profoundly.
Is the project poorer without a hotlink to MichaelMoore.com, or without the contributions of THF? For all his faults, I'd say THF has contributed infinitely more content than an external link does and if it were a matter of THF vs the link then I'd go with THF anyday. We can always add the link back after THF leaves (as all editors eventually do) or the harassment ends.
W.
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
Delirium wrote:
It sounds like what you want is a rule that certain types of sources should not be used due to concerns *other* than their reliability. So why not say that?
-Mark
Folks often say that removing links violates NPOV. But a much larger effect on POV comes when editors are harassed off of Wikipedia because of content-related edits or decisions. When a coherent group (gang, religious sect, etc) succeeds in driving away all interested editors who disagree with them then the NPOV of the topic suffer tremendously, far more than from the mere absence of a single hot link.
We say "comment on the edits, not the editors", which is always a good idea,, but of course it's editors who create and modify the content. If the editors on one side of an issue are harassed off the project unfairly then the project's content will become less neutral.
It's gaming the system from the outside, just like tilting the pinball machine. Even though it's "outside" of Wikipedia, external harassment still affects the contents, potentially very profoundly.
Is the project poorer without a hotlink to MichaelMoore.com, or without the contributions of THF? For all his faults, I'd say THF has contributed infinitely more content than an external link does and if it were a matter of THF vs the link then I'd go with THF anyday. We can always add the link back after THF leaves (as all editors eventually do) or the harassment ends.
You make some good points above. Certainly editors being harrassed off the project is a more serious problem by orders of magnitude than the external linking matter. And the community as a whole is not doing nearly enough to deal with that. I'm not however convinced that this is would help substantially and even if it would help, I see a distinction in NPOV problems created by a dearth of editors and NPOV problems that we willfully engage in. The first is more or less natural and inevitable since we are an imperfect group composed of imperfect people. The second however in many ways is potentially much worse. We will likely never achieve perfect NPOV and I question whether perfect NPOV is even meaningful. However, if we do not strive for the goal of NPOV, then we will almost certainly fail at it and likely fall much worse than we would otherwise. NPOV isn't just a goal, it is the glue that binds us together as a community. NPOV is what allows editors with radically different views to work together and write articles that they are both satisfied with. Look for example at [[Abortion]]. While there are frequent disputes there, by and large the pro-choice and pro-life editors work together cordially and have made an article that they are together happy with. Once we start compromising NPOV there's little reason for that sort of communal cooperation.
On 10/18/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Folks often say that removing links violates NPOV.
That's an over-simplification. Folks actually say that making content decisions based upon a subject's behavior toward the project, or upon any other internal politics, violates NPOV.
In this case we'd be left with an article which is, so to speak, self-referential by omission.
But a much larger effect on POV comes when editors are harassed off of Wikipedia because of content-related edits or decisions.
There are more circuit hops than you've acknowledged. More like harassment -> drama -> RFAR -> psuedo-policies -> unrevertable article edits (lest ye be banned) -> POV problems. Over-simplified again. Not all of these things always happen.
We can always add the link back after THF leaves (as all editors eventually do) or the harassment ends.
Good lord. I hope you meant to say "and" rather than "or".
—C.W.
Quoting Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com:
On 10/18/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Folks often say that removing links violates NPOV.
That's an over-simplification. Folks actually say that making content decisions based upon a subject's behavior toward the project, or upon any other internal politics, violates NPOV.
In this case we'd be left with an article which is, so to speak, self-referential by omission.
But a much larger effect on POV comes when editors are harassed off of Wikipedia because of content-related edits or decisions.
There are more circuit hops than you've acknowledged. More like harassment -> drama -> RFAR -> psuedo-policies -> unrevertable article edits (lest ye be banned) -> POV problems. Over-simplified again. Not all of these things always happen.
We can always add the link back after THF leaves (as all editors eventually do) or the harassment ends.
Good lord. I hope you meant to say "and" rather than "or".
I think by using "or" he meant to say that the harassement might end prior to THF leaving.
On 10/18/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
We can always add the link back after THF leaves (as all editors eventually do) or the harassment ends.
Good lord. I hope you meant to say "and" rather than "or".
I think by using "or" he meant to say that the harassement might end prior to THF leaving.
Hmm, for a second I thought he was saying that it would be o.k. to link to the site if THF stopped editing (for this or any other reason), but the harassment of THF by Moore continued[1].
Surely, the harassment on the site is either too offensive to link to, or it isn't!
Whether or not the "victim" of said harassment actively edits Wikipedia is a moot point, and I don't think it's appropriate to break the fifth wall in article space based on this distinction.
—C.W.
[1] This is hardly implausible, as people who harass others generally enjoy it so much that they don't stop when they get what they want (cf. Daniel Brandt).
Charlotte Webb wrote:
Whether or not the "victim" of said harassment actively edits Wikipedia is a moot point, and I don't think it's appropriate to break the fifth wall in article space based on this distinction.
I have been avoiding suggesting it for fear of a WP:BEANS violation, but it occurs to me that if a public figure wishes to have links to sites critical of them removed from his or her Wikipedia article he or she could simply start editing other Wikipedia articles in a generic, ordinary, non-COI way. That would magically convert those sites into "attack sites" since they're now critical of an active Wikipedia editor.
Stephen Colbert, are you subscribed to this mailing list by any chance...?
Thanks for the more detailed replies. My answers follow.
Will Beback wrote:
* In terms of persons affected or behaviors changed, what specific benefits do you believe your proposed policy provides? And how does it achieve that? (E.g., "It will reduce harassment because..." or "It will make a harassed editor feel supported because...
Harassment of Wikipedia editors should not be advertised or promoted. A link to a harassing website is likely to make the harassed editor more aware of the harassment, meaning that it will have more effect on the editor and make the harassment more likely to succeed in driving him away from Wikipedia or at least avoiding the topic.
Is there a particular reason to think that people will think linking to a website is advertising or promoting it? We link to the KKK and SLORC without people worrying about that.
Second, it's not obvious to me that linking to the website would make all editors feel worse. I and others have discussed occasions where linking to malefactors made us feel better, not worse.
Third, once the editor is aware of the harassment, would continued existence of a link really make them feel worse?
Fourth, wouldn't this apply to entire topics, not just links? By your logic, it seems better to delete the entire Michael Moore article.
Fifth, if a harassed editor opens the Michael Moore page and scrolls down to the EL section, would them not having a link to click on really prevent them from feeling bad?
* How do you reconcile your suggested POV-driven content changes with the "absolute and non-negotiable" NPOV
This isn't a POV-driven content change.
If you don't have reliable sources saying it's harassment, then it is your (or perhaps our collective) point of view that these people are engaged in harassment. And it is certainly your point of view that harassment of Wikipedians is the one bad act that merits this. Encarta is unlikely to adopt a "delete links to people who harass Wikipedia" policy.
That's why I consider it a POV-driven content change.
It's a determination that the writers of self-puiblished websites that engage in harassment of encyclopedia editors are not suitable sources for an encyclopedia. They are trying to inappropriately affect Wikipedia through harassment, so we can presume that they are also interested in affecting Wikipedia content.
There is no way we can presume that. And if we did presume it, so what? For somebody who is trying to learn about Michael Moore, the value of his website is entirely unaffected by how he treats our editors.
The only time I'd consider this of merit is if the article were on Wikipedia. If some scholarly source in our article on Wikipedia were to start prank-calling Jimmy Wales at night, I'd say maybe they aren't such a reliable source anymore.
* Why do editors alone benefit from your proposal? If we're protecting people, shouldn't we protect everybody?
Everyone benefits from having articles that aren't based on poor sources. I assume you mean why shouldn't we give the same treatment to self-published websties that actively harass others? I'd hope we don't link to those very often. But there is an important difference. The websites are trying to affect the encyclopedia inappropriately, so we need to preempt that effort.
Deleting links is not preventing them from affecting encyclopedic content. It's actively altering articles in response to their behavior. The best way to prevent them from affecting encyclopedic content is to ignore them and treat them like any other web site in the world.
* Doesn't your proposed policy benefit editors while harming readers, thereby privileging one over the other? And can that really be squared with our mission?
Again, the policy is intended to benefit everybody, by giving us better content and happier editors. I don't believe that readers would be harmed in any way.
Ok. I and a number of other people have tried to explain why articles would indeed be harmed. If you don't get our point, I'm willing to accept that.
Harassment is not fine. Why would an expert choose to engage in harassment of an encyclopedia editor? The best reason I can think of is that they aren't thinking straight. t is very likely that whatever dispute led to the harassment will be connected to the field of expertise so, as I wrote above, the "expert" is putting himself into conflict with Wikipedia. His integrity and neutrality can't be taken for granted any longer.
This would be true with any person who engages in harassment. And it wouldn't be true just for harassment, it would be true of any behavior that would indicate that someone isn't thinking straight. I'm sure I could name fifty, so just fill in the blanks here.
To privilege not just encyclopedia editors, but only the editors of the encyclopedia you happen to work on strikes me as a pretty obvious bias. If you don't see that, well, ok, you don't see that.
* Even if your proposal isn't just a punitive measure against people who attack us, why wouldn't outsiders, including the persons whose sites we are de-linking, see it that way?
It is not punitive because linking to a site is not a reward, nor is removing a link a punishment. If someone is actively engaged in harassing a Wikipedia editor, are we really concerned with his opinion of Wikipedia policies? As for the rest of the world, we remove hundreds of links from articles every day and the outsiders don't seem to be too upset.
I understand you believe it is not punitive. However, it will appear punitive and petty to the general public.
People accept our removing of links because they generally believe it serves them as readers. But if Michael Moore sees us de-linking his web site in reaction to what he could well see as the most minor of innocent errors, he will likely take it as retribution. And he will probably say so to a couple hundred thousand people, who will take it the same way. And then maybe it will appear in 50 blogs for a similar readership.
So yes, we are concerned with everybody's opinion of Wikipedia, even people who are currently a little around the bend about us. Because how we treat them is an important criterion in how people judge us.
William
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 15 Oct 2007 at 14:34:44 -0700, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Doing so won't punish those sites, or even make them stop the harassment, but it will reduce the disruption to Wikipedia that those sites cause. If there's a better way to do that then please suggest it.
The way I see it, there has been vastly more disruption to Wikipedia coming from attempts to suppress links to sites than has ever occurred by the presence of such links.
Opinions obviously differ, but I think a well-crafted policy will give us the tools to handle future problems without causing so much disruption. Much of the disruption has been because, in my opinion, there have been no clear paths for dealing with harassment in linked sites. Even a guideline that says, "anyone who edits Wikipedia nmay be harassed with phone calls to their home and business by disgruntled encyclopedia readers, and the Wikipedia community won't give a damn" would be clearer than the existing situation. While I'd like to think we can do better than that, any policy would be better than none.
W.