-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi all!
Given the recent Board Resolution on BLPs, I'm in the process of structuring a Biographies of Living Persons task force, to work together to come up with some firm recommendations and guidelines for dealing with the issue, to be made to the Wikipedia community, Foundation board and staff.
In that respect, I'd like to solicit members of the community to take part in this project. If you are interested, please send me a brief email summarizing what your involvement in BLPs in the past has been and your own opinion as to why BLPs are such a problematic area. You can email me direct at cary@wikimedia.org. Initially, this task force should focus on the English Wikipedia, but its recommendations may also be applicable for other projects; so anyone with an interest may be appropriate.
I'm putting this out there now, because my availability over the coming weeks before Wikimania will be somewhat limited, so forgive me if you respond with interest immediately and I don't get back to you right away. I expect development of this task force to go into high gear in September.
Thank you for your interest.
Very truly yours, Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Cary Basscary@wikimedia.org wrote:
Given the recent Board Resolution on BLPs, I'm in the process of structuring a Biographies of Living Persons task force,
Thanks for the info. It would be handy if you could tell us what the board resolutions are.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Bod Notbodbodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Cary Basscary@wikimedia.org wrote:
Given the recent Board Resolution on BLPs, I'm in the process of structuring a Biographies of Living Persons task force,
Thanks for the info. It would be handy if you could tell us what the board resolutions are.
I think it is this one:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people
Carcharoth
Cary suggests that it focus on enWP. As I see it, enWP has pretty clearly demonstrated its lack of support for any committees not either open to all who wish to participate, or else chosen by the enWP community as a whole. I accepted membership in a committee chosen by ArbCom, under the assumption it would be generally supported. Having found out my assumption was wrong, I can't say I'd want to repeat the embarrassing experience.
I urge those--like myself-- considering applying to do as I intend to do, which is to wait till the community has given its support.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Bod Notbodbodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Cary Basscary@wikimedia.org wrote:
Given the recent Board Resolution on BLPs, I'm in the process of structuring a Biographies of Living Persons task force,
Thanks for the info. It would be handy if you could tell us what the board resolutions are.
I think it is this one:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/8/5 David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
Cary suggests that it focus on enWP. As I see it, enWP has pretty clearly demonstrated its lack of support for any committees not either open to all who wish to participate, or else chosen by the enWP community as a whole. I accepted membership in a committee chosen by ArbCom, under the assumption it would be generally supported. Having found out my assumption was wrong, I can't say I'd want to repeat the embarrassing experience.
I urge those--like myself-- considering applying to do as I intend to do, which is to wait till the community has given its support.
The WMF has always had the power to do stuff like this, ArbCom hasn't and doesn't. I don't think there should be too much complaining about this group unless people don't like what they come up with.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/8/5 David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
Cary suggests that it focus on enWP. As I see it, enWP has pretty clearly demonstrated its lack of support for any committees not either open to all who wish to participate, or else chosen by the enWP community as a whole. I accepted membership in a committee chosen by ArbCom, under the assumption it would be generally supported. Having found out my assumption was wrong, I can't say I'd want to repeat the embarrassing experience.
I urge those--like myself-- considering applying to do as I intend to do, which is to wait till the community has given its support.
The WMF has always had the power to do stuff like this, ArbCom hasn't and doesn't. I don't think there should be too much complaining about this group unless people don't like what they come up with.
I appreciate what David has to say. I understand there is a good deal of frustration among community members who feel dis-empowered to do things because of past event. This task force will be encumbered with making recommendations regarding a single item of focus, BLP, not only to the community but to the board and staff as well, and will be doing so with my full faith and cooperation.
I'm sure you would be an asset to the group, David, and I'd be sorry if this experience prevented valuable people from giving me their name. I'm still going to put forth a great effort in getting this group together--and will do my damnedest to ensure that the group members' efforts are not wasted.
- -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/5 David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
Cary suggests that it focus on enWP. As I see it, enWP has pretty clearly demonstrated its lack of support for any committees not either open to all who wish to participate, or else chosen by the enWP community as a whole. I accepted membership in a committee chosen by ArbCom, under the assumption it would be generally supported. Having found out my assumption was wrong, I can't say I'd want to repeat the embarrassing experience.
I urge those--like myself-- considering applying to do as I intend to do, which is to wait till the community has given its support.
The WMF has always had the power to do stuff like this, ArbCom hasn't and doesn't. I don't think there should be too much complaining about this group unless people don't like what they come up with.
"I don't think there should be too much complaining about this group unless people don't like what they come up with."
I'm not being silly here, but couldn't that good-faith statement you just made apply to *any* group?
And just out of interest, if the WMF had proposed the group that DGG (David) is referring to (the ACPD), instead of ArbCom, what would the reaction have been then?
You *do* know that the WMF has proposed similar groups recently and in the past?
The recent one:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
I'm aware that there are major differences between the WMF's strategy wiki and the advisory council (ACPD) that was convened on en-Wikipedia (the main similarity being that they both had the laudable long-term aim of improving the encyclopedia, the main differences being the structure), but what struck me most was the differences in the reception both got.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Developme...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council...
As I've said there, what I hope to see one day is a variety of groups, using different mediums, composed of different people, operating to different timescales, all producing good ideas that can be proposed for community approval and implemented as needed. Long-term strategy planning. I don't care HOW such groups start - it is the RESULTS that matter.
Ultimately, the best such approaches will grow and flourish, while those that don't, will naturally wither and go inactive. The key is to have diversity to ensure that such groups are not restricted to any one model or system.
What I don't want to see is the sort of reaction-without-reasoned-discussion, and rapid spread of misunderstandings (and if people repeat those misunderstandings here, I will be very happy to correct them), that happened when the ACPD was convened. That reaction (best seen at the RfC I linked above), and the despair that reaction evoked in some people, is best summed up here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Developme...
The earlier group that the WMF came up with was this one, I think:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_Projects_Committee
There might be others, as I don't think this is the one Marc (Riddell) was referring to.
Oh, and I should finish this post with a plea to everyone to go back and read the original e-mail by Cary and to write to him if you are interested in the BLP taskforce that he is putting together. Please don't let any of the side-threads about these meta issues detract from that.
Carcharoth
2009/8/5 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
"I don't think there should be too much complaining about this group unless people don't like what they come up with."
I'm not being silly here, but couldn't that good-faith statement you just made apply to *any* group?
Evidently not. I meant "should" as in what I think is likely to happen, not what I think it would be best to happen, perhaps you misunderstood. (Really, it was a 50/50 chance - I'll try and choose my words more precisely in future!)
on 8/5/09 4:33 PM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
enWP has pretty clearly demonstrated its lack of support for any committees not either open to all who wish to participate, or else chosen by the enWP community as a whole.
Yes, that is quite clear.
I accepted membership in a committee chosen by ArbCom, under the assumption it would be generally supported. Having found out my assumption was wrong, I can't say I'd want to repeat the embarrassing experience.
I had a similar experience where the committee was chosen at the Foundation level, and I regret it to this day.
I urge those--like myself-- considering applying to do as I intend to do, which is to wait till the community has given its support.
Excellent advice, David.
Marc Riddell
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Bod Notbodbodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Cary Basscary@wikimedia.org wrote:
Given the recent Board Resolution on BLPs, I'm in the process of structuring a Biographies of Living Persons task force,
Thanks for the info. It would be handy if you could tell us what the board resolutions are.
I think it is this one:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/8/5 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
on 8/5/09 4:33 PM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I accepted membership in a committee chosen by ArbCom, under the assumption it would be generally supported. Having found out my assumption was wrong, I can't say I'd want to repeat the embarrassing experience.
I had a similar experience where the committee was chosen at the Foundation level, and I regret it to this day.
Do tell.
- d.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
I think it is this one:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people
Aha! Thank you.
Hmm, well I can see a way I could help out with the Task Force, but it would depend on some adjustments to 'Huggle' which I use to observe and make quick edits to stuff on Recent Changes: if the people that update the application could make it so that BLPs were highlighted somehow, given precedence in the application, that would help me and other Huggle users out.
For those not familiar with Huggle see, WP:HUGGLE.
I guess it would also be feasible and helpful if BLPs were highlighted on the usual Watchlist interface too? (Turn on and off-able in preferences, perhaps?)
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
I think it is this one:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people
Aha! Thank you.
Hmm, well I can see a way I could help out with the Task Force, but it would depend on some adjustments to 'Huggle' which I use to observe and make quick edits to stuff on Recent Changes: if the people that update the application could make it so that BLPs were highlighted somehow, given precedence in the application, that would help me and other Huggle users out.
For those not familiar with Huggle see, WP:HUGGLE.
I guess it would also be feasible and helpful if BLPs were highlighted on the usual Watchlist interface too? (Turn on and off-able in preferences, perhaps?)
That would not be feasible, because any edit to any article can have [[WP:BLP]] consequences; consider, for example, an addition to [[Watermelon]] that said "<name of schoolmate> of <smalltown, Kansas> is allergic to melons because they turn him into a pedophile"; certainly vandalism but probably not oversightable; and certainly a BLP violation. But we wouldn't tag [[Watermelon]] as a BLP on that basis.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Phil Nashpn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
I guess it would also be feasible and helpful if BLPs were highlighted on the usual Watchlist interface too? (Turn on and off-able in preferences, perhaps?)
That would not be feasible, because any edit to any article can have [[WP:BLP]] consequences; consider, for example, an addition to [[Watermelon]] that said "<name of schoolmate> of <smalltown, Kansas> is allergic to melons because they turn him into a pedophile";
Ha ha, I like the way you think :o)
However, we do have [[Category:Living people]], so if we had those highlighted on Watchlists and in editing tools, that would surely help the cause, no? And it could be a choice in prefs or in the tool whether you want that function?
It can't catch all BLP problems as you've so wonderfully illustrated. But it can show us a worthwhile subset, don't you reckon?
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Phil Nashpn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
I guess it would also be feasible and helpful if BLPs were highlighted on the usual Watchlist interface too? (Turn on and off-able in preferences, perhaps?)
That would not be feasible, because any edit to any article can have [[WP:BLP]] consequences; consider, for example, an addition to [[Watermelon]] that said "<name of schoolmate> of <smalltown, Kansas> is allergic to melons because they turn him into a pedophile";
Ha ha, I like the way you think :o)
However, we do have [[Category:Living people]], so if we had those highlighted on Watchlists and in editing tools, that would surely help the cause, no? And it could be a choice in prefs or in the tool whether you want that function?
It can't catch all BLP problems as you've so wonderfully illustrated. But it can show us a worthwhile subset, don't you reckon?
That would be one way forward; we now have abuse filters which detect and revert the more gross edits, but as far as I know, there is no feasible way of monitoring articles within a category wholesale, so we are no further forward. Certainly, major targets of BLP vandalism tend to be already well-known and they are usually caught quite quickly; beyond that, it depends on monitoring [[Special:RecentChanges]], which some editors already do; however, given the volume of incoming edits, some slip through that net too. There was a proposal what seems like a long time ago for "Flagged Revisions", which was somewhat controversial but was intended to be introduced as a test, at least for a while; that would have meant that BLP violations could have been filtered, but nothing seems to have happened practically- however, Cary Bass has recently proposed a working party on BLPs and I look forward to the outcome of that. Meanwhile, we are stuck with pure human (and some semi-automated), and therefore error-prone intervention. Not perfect, perhaps, but better than nothing.
Cheers
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.44/2283 - Release Date: 08/05/09 05:57:00
2009/8/6 Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk:
It can't catch all BLP problems as you've so wonderfully illustrated. But it can show us a worthwhile subset, don't you reckon?
That would be one way forward; we now have abuse filters which detect and revert the more gross edits, but as far as I know, there is no feasible way of monitoring articles within a category wholesale, so we are no further forward.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Living_peo...
This won't catch edits which remove the category, and it won't catch the 5-10% of BLPs which aren't in the category to start with, but it's otherwise mostly what you want, I think.
The language of the board resolution doesn't come down hard enough on the side of verifiable information. That is, if something is verifiable, even a direct quote from the subject themself, then that information should be allowed to be included, and should not be forcibly stopped from inclusion by aggressive article patrollers-with-tools. It seems to me that the way the language is worded, the board is going to continue to allow harassment of those editors conscientious to the evidence, at the expense of verifiable evidence already broadcast widely across the net.
So I have strong doubts that anyone who like I, has spoken out forcibly for the inclusion of any verifiable information, would even be selected for a committee like this one. If I gave a published interview ten years ago where I admitted that I was once a male hooker, well that's the bed I made I made and now I have to sleep in it. Our job should not be to suppress what's already been published, and the board should make a strong statement that any tool-user who acts to suppress published information should be de-sysopped, so the playing field can be levelled. It's hard enough to fight a billy club using only a bullhorn.
Will Johnson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Living_peo...
This won't catch edits which remove the category, and it won't catch
the 5-10% of BLPs which aren't in the category to start with, but it's otherwise mostly what you want, I think.
Well done Andrew, that looks exactly the sort of thing Casy needs to know about for the Task Force.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:38 AM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
The language of the board resolution doesn't come down hard enough on the side of verifiable information. That is, if something is verifiable, even a direct quote from the subject themself, then that information should be allowed to be included, and should not be forcibly stopped from inclusion by aggressive article patrollers-with-tools. It seems to me that the way the language is worded, the board is going to continue to allow harassment of those editors conscientious to the evidence, at the expense of verifiable evidence already broadcast widely across the net.
Can you give us a real world example? I use an editing tool but where a citation is provided I would always check it before removing 'dubious' material.
If I gave a published interview ten years ago where I admitted that I was once a male hooker, well that's the bed I made I made and now I have to sleep in it.
Well, to a degree. But what if they later say, in an equally verifiable source, that that was a joke? Or if a verifiable source says it isn't true? But yes, I wouldn't object to seeing that in an article provided policy is adhered to.
Our job should not be to suppress what's already been published, and the board should make a strong statement that any tool-user who acts to suppress published information should be de-sysopped, so the playing field can be levelled. It's hard enough to fight a billy club using only a bullhorn.
I agree suppression is bad. Again, I'm interested to know of an article where info has been removed even though it meets 'verifiability' and 'reliable sources'.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Bod Notbodbodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
Well, to a degree. But what if they later say, in an equally verifiable source, that that was a joke? Or if a verifiable source says it isn't true? But yes, I wouldn't object to seeing that in an article provided policy is adhered to.
More to the point, is it relevant?
There is a difference between: In August 2009, a nationwide controversy erupted concerning allegations that John Smith had previously been a prostitute. Smith himself appeared to confirm this in 1999 in an article published in the Podunck Weekly[1].
And: John Smith is an engineer best known for his award winning [[John Smith Bridge]]. In 1999 he admitted to being a prostitute.[1] {{bio-stub}}
Steve
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Steve Bennettstevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
And: John Smith is an engineer best known for his award winning [[John Smith Bridge]]. In 1999 he admitted to being a prostitute.[1] {{bio-stub}}
Well, I guess you could invoke Wikipedia:UNDUE at that point :o)
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Steve Bennettstevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
And: John Smith is an engineer best known for his award winning [[John Smith Bridge]]. In 1999 he admitted to being a prostitute.[1] {{bio-stub}}
Well, I guess you could invoke Wikipedia:UNDUE at that point :o)
Sorry about injecting real examples to such a wonderful discussion of hypotheticals, but how would you each deal with an article like [[Leslie Fish]]?
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
The language of the board resolution doesn't come down hard enough on the side of verifiable information. That is, if something is verifiable, even a direct quote from the subject themself, then that information should be allowed to be included, and should not be forcibly stopped from inclusion by aggressive article patrollers-with-tools. It seems to me that the way the language is worded, the board is going to continue to allow harassment of those editors conscientious to the evidence, at the expense of verifiable evidence already broadcast widely across the net.
I think that this is exactly why we need people working on BLP. Wikipedia has put so much emphasis on rules such as verifiability that some people think that the rules trump everything else. Worse yet, the system is set up so that the rules *do* trump everything else; in a conflict between someone with a rule and someone who's trying to use judgment, the rule always wins, because you can always argue with someone's personal judgment, but the rule's right there in print.
BLP is sort of a hack to the system which says "we're going to force you to ignore the rules in this particular situation, because they *really* don't work". It by no means covers every situation where the rules cause problems, but it's better than nothing and right now it's all we've got.
Not everything which is verifiable should be included in Wikipedia.
Of course, and that's why we have other rules which moderate the other rules. And the BLP policy itself is a rule. However if a piece of evidence is both verifiable, and widely reported and yet negative about a person, and that person vociferously objects to it's inclusion... than what? That is the problem here. We should not white-wash a piece of negative, verifiable, widely reported bit simply because it might affect a person, or even if they claim it does or has. We're not the nicey-nice patrol and shouldn't be forced to become it. We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was bad.
Will Johnson
<<Not everything which is verifiable should be included in Wikipedia.>>
-----Original Message----- From: Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 5, 2009 10:30 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
The language of the board resolution doesn't come down hard enough on the side of verifiable information. That is, if something is verifiable, even a direct quote from the subject themself, then that information should be allowed to be included, and should not be forcibly stopped from inclusion by aggressive article patrollers-with-tools. It seems to me that the way the language is worded, the board is going to continue to allow harassment of those editors conscientious to the evidence, at the expense of verifiable evidence already broadcast widely across the net.
I think that this is exactly why we need people working on BLP. Wikipedia has put so much emphasis on rules such as verifiability that some people think that the rules trump everything else. Worse yet, the system is set up so that the rules *do* trump everything else; in a conflict between someone with a rule and someone who's trying to use judgment, the rule always wins, because you can always argue with someone's personal judgment, but the rule's right there in print.
BLP is sort of a hack to the system which says "we're going to force you to ignore the rules in this particular situation, because they *really* don't work". It by no means covers every situation where the rules cause problems, but it's better than nothing and right now it's all we've got.
Not everything which is verifiable should be included in Wikipedia.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:38 AM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
Of course, and that's why we have other rules which moderate the other rules. And the BLP policy itself is a rule. However if a piece of evidence is both verifiable, and widely reported and yet negative about a person, and that person vociferously objects to it's inclusion... than what? That is the problem here. We should not white-wash a piece of negative, verifiable, widely reported bit simply because it might affect a person, or even if they claim it does or has. We're not the nicey-nice patrol and shouldn't be forced to become it. We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was bad.
Hitler's a BLP?
Man, my education sucks.
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:38 AM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
Of course, and that's why we have other rules which moderate the other rules. And the BLP policy itself is a rule. However if a piece of evidence is both verifiable, and widely reported and yet negative about a person, and that person vociferously objects to it's inclusion... than what? That is the problem here. We should not white-wash a piece of negative, verifiable, widely reported bit simply because it might affect a person, or even if they claim it does or has. We're not the nicey-nice patrol and shouldn't be forced to become it. We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was bad.
Hitler's a BLP?
Man, my education sucks.
I know there are those who would claim that even Elvis is dead. ;-)
No matter, Wikipedia knows. (taps nose)
"[...]Hitler was in Shambhala, an underground centre in Antarctica (formerly at the North Pole and Tibet), where he was in contact with the Hyperborean gods and from whence he would someday emerge with a fleet of UFOs to lead the forces of light (the Hyperboreans, sometimes associated with Vril) over the forces of darkness (inevitably including, for Serrano, the Jews who follow Jehovah) in a last battle and thus inaugurating a Fourth Reich."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_Nazism#Miguel_Serrano
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was bad.
I agree.
But what if the only verifiable information in the article is the negative stuff, in spite of having other, less widely-reported information available? If I had ran across that as a new page patroller, I'd probably tag it as an attack page if it was severe enough, but what about less severe, and/or older pages? Do we delete and start over, or do we merely add the positive information?
Hitler is an extreme example. Everybody in the mainstream knows Hitler was bad. We just state why.
Emily On Aug 6, 2009, at 12:38 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Of course, and that's why we have other rules which moderate the other rules. And the BLP policy itself is a rule. However if a piece of evidence is both verifiable, and widely reported and yet negative about a person, and that person vociferously objects to it's inclusion... than what? That is the problem here. We should not white-wash a piece of negative, verifiable, widely reported bit simply because it might affect a person, or even if they claim it does or has. We're not the nicey-nice patrol and shouldn't be forced to become it. We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was bad.
Will Johnson
<<Not everything which is verifiable should be included in Wikipedia.>>
-----Original Message----- From: Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 5, 2009 10:30 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
The language of the board resolution doesn't come down hard enough on the side of verifiable information. That is, if something is verifiable, even a direct quote from the subject themself, then that information should be allowed to be included, and should not be forcibly stopped from inclusion by aggressive article patrollers-with-tools. It seems to me that the way the language is worded, the board is going to continue to allow harassment of those editors conscientious to the evidence, at the expense of verifiable evidence already broadcast widely across the net.
I think that this is exactly why we need people working on BLP. Wikipedia has put so much emphasis on rules such as verifiability that some people think that the rules trump everything else. Worse yet, the system is set up so that the rules *do* trump everything else; in a conflict between someone with a rule and someone who's trying to use judgment, the rule always wins, because you can always argue with someone's personal judgment, but the rule's right there in print.
BLP is sort of a hack to the system which says "we're going to force you to ignore the rules in this particular situation, because they *really* don't work". It by no means covers every situation where the rules cause problems, but it's better than nothing and right now it's all we've got.
Not everything which is verifiable should be included in Wikipedia.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Emily Monroe wrote:
We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was bad.
I agree.
But what if the only verifiable information in the article is the negative stuff, in spite of having other, less widely-reported information available? If I had ran across that as a new page patroller, I'd probably tag it as an attack page if it was severe enough, but what about less severe, and/or older pages? Do we delete and start over, or do we merely add the positive information?
Hitler is an extreme example. Everybody in the mainstream knows Hitler was bad. We just state why.
I agree. I've seen attempts to introduce claimed NPOV into [[Adolf Hitler]] by saying, for example, that he revitalised the German economy, was a dog-lover, loved [[Eva Braun]], was a fair watercolourist, for example, but this is not what NPOV is about since they fail the test of comparative relevance. He is known for what he is known for, and there's no getting over that. Contrariwise, I've not seen attempts to amplify [[Stalin]]'s training for the priesthood, as if that would mitigate his later actions. Common-sense balance should suggest that we should report the major thrusts of a person's life and career, without seeking such mitigation simply to satisfy NPOV.
As you say, Hitler and Stalin are extreme examples. When it comes, for example, to [[O J Simpson]], it becomes more moot, although I could suggest others, such as [[Gary Glitter]] and [[Phil Spector]].
What you're really saying is, "Isn't there a way to be nice even to people who aren't nice?". If the only verifiable information on a BLP is negative, then that is what the article should contain. We shouldn't add unverifiable information simply for balance. That sort of action would be untrue to our principles and policies.
"Starting over" won't change that.
-----Original Message----- From: Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2009 4:52 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was bad.
I agree.
But what if the only verifiable information in the article is the negative stuff, in spite of having other, less widely-reported information available? If I had ran across that as a new page patroller, I'd probably tag it as an attack page if it was severe enough, but what about less severe, and/or older pages? Do we delete and start over, or do we merely add the positive information?
Hitler is an extreme example. Everybody in the mainstream knows Hitler was bad. We just state why.
Emily On Aug 6, 2009, at 12:38 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Of course, and that's why we have other rules which moderate the other rules. And the BLP policy itself is a rule. However if a piece of evidence is both verifiable, and widely reported and yet negative about a person, and that person vociferously objects to it's inclusion... than what? That is the problem here. We should not white-wash a piece of negative, verifiable, widely reported bit simply because it might affect a person, or even if they claim it does or has. We're not the nicey-nice patrol and shouldn't be forced to become it. We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was bad.
Will Johnson
<<Not everything which is verifiable should be included in Wikipedia.>>
-----Original Message----- From: Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 5, 2009 10:30 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
The language of the board resolution doesn't come down hard enough on the side of verifiable information. That is, if something is verifiable, even a direct quote from the subject themself, then that information should be allowed to be included, and should not be forcibly stopped from inclusion by aggressive article patrollers-with-tools. It seems to me that the way the language is worded, the board is going to continue to allow harassment of those editors conscientious to the evidence, at the expense of verifiable evidence already broadcast widely across the net.
I think that this is exactly why we need people working on BLP. Wikipedia has put so much emphasis on rules such as verifiability that some people think that the rules trump everything else. Worse yet, the system is set up so that the rules *do* trump everything else; in a conflict between someone with a rule and someone who's trying to use judgment, the rule always wins, because you can always argue with someone's personal judgment, but the rule's right there in print.
BLP is sort of a hack to the system which says "we're going to force you to ignore the rules in this particular situation, because they *really* don't work". It by no means covers every situation where the rules cause problems, but it's better than nothing and right now it's all we've got.
Not everything which is verifiable should be included in Wikipedia.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What you're really saying is, "Isn't there a way to be nice even to people who aren't nice?".
No, I didn't. You misunderstood me. Let me explain.
I'm more worried about uneven reporting. If, say, there's one hundred blog posts and fifty newsletter articles about how horrible a person is, and twenty blog posts, ten newsletter articles, and a somewhat notable book saying "Hey, this person is actually pretty decent.", of course these sources containing positive information being somewhat more hard to find, being the minority, then the wikipedia article will focus ALL on the negative aspects on the person with a glossed over paragraph or two about "Some people disagree with this".
I wasn't talking about violating WP:UNDUE. I wasn't talking about featured articles which has 150 inline citations, with an extensive bibliography besides. I was talking about long-forgotten articles which gets maybe more edits from the article creator (stereotypically somebody who isn't very experienced in "Wikipedia Ways") and the new page patroller, who notices the statement of notability, assumes good faith, tries to make it NPOV, tags the page, marks the page patrolled, and moves on, than anyone else who's human.
Humans tend to unconsciously focus on the negative. This is something we do automatically. It probably makes sense in terms of evolutionary history. It's better to avoid fire than get burned. It's better to avoid water than to drown. In modern history, it gets you more attention from a medical laymen, and so you are more likely to get attention from a medical expert (via getting means of transportation, peer pressure, etc.). It increases the ability to survive, but not write Wikipedia articles.
Perhaps I'm thinking in black and white, or using the filter of "I have read way too many stub-to-start class articles which only the author and the new page patroller [me] has read and yet have not enough experience or ability to self-express to even participate in this discussion" improperly.
If the only verifiable information on a BLP is negative, then that is what the article should contain.
We shouldn't add unverifiable information simply for balance. That sort of action would be untrue to our principles and policies.
You're right.
"Starting over" won't change that.
To interpret what you said literally, no, starting over an article doesn't usually change policy.
To respond to what I think you were saying, I thought that was we achieve, to a lesser degree, when we userfy an article that could be speedied and yet appears to be made in good faith? On the other hand, with BLP, there's a point when the whole ethical question of "Should this even be in Wikipedia at all?" needs to be asked. In that case, the answer I would give is "Unless and until somebody can provide a WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, BLP compliant article, then the article doesn't belong in Wikipedia."
Emily
On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:37 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
What you're really saying is, "Isn't there a way to be nice even to people who aren't nice?". If the only verifiable information on a BLP is negative, then that is what the article should contain. We shouldn't add unverifiable information simply for balance. That sort of action would be untrue to our principles and policies.
"Starting over" won't change that.
-----Original Message----- From: Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2009 4:52 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was bad.
I agree.
But what if the only verifiable information in the article is the negative stuff, in spite of having other, less widely-reported information available? If I had ran across that as a new page patroller, I'd probably tag it as an attack page if it was severe enough, but what about less severe, and/or older pages? Do we delete and start over, or do we merely add the positive information?
Hitler is an extreme example. Everybody in the mainstream knows Hitler was bad. We just state why.
Emily On Aug 6, 2009, at 12:38 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Of course, and that's why we have other rules which moderate the other rules. And the BLP policy itself is a rule. However if a piece of evidence is both verifiable, and widely reported and yet negative about a person, and that person vociferously objects to it's inclusion... than what? That is the problem here. We should not white-wash a piece of negative, verifiable, widely reported bit simply because it might affect a person, or even if they claim it does or has. We're not the nicey-nice patrol and shouldn't be forced to become it. We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was bad.
Will Johnson
<<Not everything which is verifiable should be included in Wikipedia.>>
-----Original Message----- From: Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 5, 2009 10:30 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
The language of the board resolution doesn't come down hard enough on the side of verifiable information. That is, if something is verifiable, even a direct quote from the subject themself, then that information should be allowed to be included, and should not be forcibly stopped from inclusion by aggressive article patrollers-with-tools. It seems to me that the way the language is worded, the board is going to continue to allow harassment of those editors conscientious to the evidence, at the expense of verifiable evidence already broadcast widely across the net.
I think that this is exactly why we need people working on BLP. Wikipedia has put so much emphasis on rules such as verifiability that some people think that the rules trump everything else. Worse yet, the system is set up so that the rules *do* trump everything else; in a conflict between someone with a rule and someone who's trying to use judgment, the rule always wins, because you can always argue with someone's personal judgment, but the rule's right there in print.
BLP is sort of a hack to the system which says "we're going to force you to ignore the rules in this particular situation, because they *really* don't work". It by no means covers every situation where the rules cause problems, but it's better than nothing and right now it's all we've got.
Not everything which is verifiable should be included in Wikipedia.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Blog posts fail our requirement that an author of a piece be previously published by a third-party publisher. Blog posts are almost always by amateur writers, regardless of how long they've been blogging. A true writer, has true writing credits by reputable publishing houses.
Similarly newsletter articles have little to no valid editorial oversight. Generally what you write, is what they print, and sometimes there is a too-close relationship between the writer and the publisher which we would want to avoid. True writers, have true writings, published by actual third-party reputable publishing houses. Newsletters would fail.
Now discarding those sort of sources, let's say we have five newspaper articles, and two mentions in books about this person positively, and 245 newspaper articles and 18 mentions negative. What would you do?
What I would do, is try to distill the essence of those contributions into an article. Obviously nobody, not even Barack warrants 270 footnotes. So we have to narrow it somewhat. The way we should narrow it however wouldn't be to balance the positive with the negative in this case. The weight is clearly on the negative and that's how we should write the article.
Will Johnson
-----Original Message----- From: Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2009 8:20 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
What you're really saying is, "Isn't there a way to be nice even to people who aren't nice?".
No, I didn't. You misunderstood me. Let me explain.
I'm more worried about uneven reporting. If, say, there's one hundred blog posts and fifty newsletter articles about how horrible a person is, and twenty blog posts, ten newsletter articles, and a somewhat notable book saying "Hey, this person is actually pretty decent.", of course these sources containing positive information being somewhat more hard to find, being the minority, then the wikipedia article will focus ALL on the negative aspects on the person with a glossed over paragraph or two about "Some people disagree with this".
I wasn't talking about violating WP:UNDUE. I wasn't talking about featured articles which has 150 inline citations, with an extensive bibliography besides. I was talking about long-forgotten articles which gets maybe more edits from the article creator (stereotypically somebody who isn't very experienced in "Wikipedia Ways") and the new page patroller, who notices the statement of notability, assumes good faith, tries to make it NPOV, tags the page, marks the page patrolled, and moves on, than anyone else who's human.
Humans tend to unconsciously focus on the negative. This is something we do automatically. It probably makes sense in terms of evolutionary history. It's better to avoid fire than get burned. It's better to avoid water than to drown. In modern history, it gets you more attention from a medical laymen, and so you are more likely to get attention from a medical expert (via getting means of transportation, peer pressure, etc.). It increases the ability to survive, but not write Wikipedia articles.
Perhaps I'm thinking in black and white, or using the filter of "I have read way too many stub-to-start class articles which only the author and the new page patroller [me] has read and yet have not enough experience or ability to self-express to even participate in this discussion" improperly.
If the only verifiable information on a BLP is negative, then that is what the article should contain.
We shouldn't add unverifiable information simply for balance. That sort of action would be untrue to our principles and policies.
You're right.
"Starting over" won't change that.
To interpret what you said literally, no, starting over an article doesn't usually change policy.
To respond to what I think you were saying, I thought that was we achieve, to a lesser degree, when we userfy an article that could be speedied and yet appears to be made in good faith? On the other hand, with BLP, there's a point when the whole ethical question of "Should this even be in Wikipedia at all?" needs to be asked. In that case, the answer I would give is "Unless and until somebody can provide a WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, BLP compliant article, then the article doesn't belong in Wikipedia."
Emily
On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:37 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
What you're really saying is, "Isn't there a way to be nice even to people who aren't nice?". If the only verifiable information on a BLP is negative, then that is what the article should contain. We shouldn't add unverifiable information simply for balance. That sort of action would be untrue to our principles and policies.
"Starting over" won't change that.
-----Original Message----- From: Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2009 4:52 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was bad.
I agree.
But what if the only verifiable information in the article is the negative stuff, in spite of having other, less widely-reported information available? If I had ran across that as a new page patroller, I'd probably tag it as an attack page if it was severe enough, but what about less severe, and/or older pages? Do we delete and start over, or do we merely add the positive information?
Hitler is an extreme example. Everybody in the mainstream knows Hitler was bad. We just state why.
Emily On Aug 6, 2009, at 12:38 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Of course, and that's why we have other rules which moderate the other rules. And the BLP policy itself is a rule. However if a piece of evidence is both verifiable, and widely reported and yet negative about a person, and that person vociferously objects to it's inclusion... than what? That is the problem here. We should not white-wash a piece of negative, verifiable, widely reported bit simply because it might affect a person, or even if they claim it does or has. We're not the nicey-nice patrol and shouldn't be forced to become it. We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was bad.
Will Johnson
<<Not everything which is verifiable should be included in Wikipedia.>>
-----Original Message----- From: Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 5, 2009 10:30 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
The language of the board resolution doesn't come down hard enough on the side of verifiable information. That is, if something is verifiable, even a direct quote from the subject themself, then that information should be allowed to be included, and should not be forcibly stopped from inclusion by aggressive article patrollers-with-tools. It seems to me that the way the language is worded, the board is going to continue to allow harassment of those editors conscientious to the evidence, at the expense of verifiable evidence already broadcast widely across the net.
I think that this is exactly why we need people working on BLP. Wikipedia has put so much emphasis on rules such as verifiability that some people think that the rules trump everything else. Worse yet, the system is set up so that the rules *do* trump everything else; in a conflict between someone with a rule and someone who's trying to use judgment, the rule always wins, because you can always argue with someone's personal judgment, but the rule's right there in print.
BLP is sort of a hack to the system which says "we're going to force you to ignore the rules in this particular situation, because they *really* don't work". It by no means covers every situation where the rules cause problems, but it's better than nothing and right now it's all we've got.
Not everything which is verifiable should be included in Wikipedia.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Now discarding those sort of sources, let's say we have five newspaper articles, and two mentions in books about this person positively, and 245 newspaper articles and 18 mentions negative. What would you do?
I would put the weight on the negative. I just realized this.
The weight is clearly on the negative and that's how we should write the article.
I think I was wrong, at least on some counts. I don't have experience citing articles, just making sure it isn't construed in a way that isn't an attack or full of WP:WEASELS, or WP:PEACOCKS. Sorry about that.
I hope this sidetrack was beneficial anyway.
Emily On Aug 6, 2009, at 10:32 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Blog posts fail our requirement that an author of a piece be previously published by a third-party publisher. Blog posts are almost always by amateur writers, regardless of how long they've been blogging. A true writer, has true writing credits by reputable publishing houses.
Similarly newsletter articles have little to no valid editorial oversight. Generally what you write, is what they print, and sometimes there is a too-close relationship between the writer and the publisher which we would want to avoid. True writers, have true writings, published by actual third-party reputable publishing houses. Newsletters would fail.
Now discarding those sort of sources, let's say we have five newspaper articles, and two mentions in books about this person positively, and 245 newspaper articles and 18 mentions negative. What would you do?
What I would do, is try to distill the essence of those contributions into an article. Obviously nobody, not even Barack warrants 270 footnotes. So we have to narrow it somewhat. The way we should narrow it however wouldn't be to balance the positive with the negative in this case. The weight is clearly on the negative and that's how we should write the article.
Will Johnson
-----Original Message----- From: Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2009 8:20 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
What you're really saying is, "Isn't there a way to be nice even to people who aren't nice?".
No, I didn't. You misunderstood me. Let me explain.
I'm more worried about uneven reporting. If, say, there's one hundred blog posts and fifty newsletter articles about how horrible a person is, and twenty blog posts, ten newsletter articles, and a somewhat notable book saying "Hey, this person is actually pretty decent.", of course these sources containing positive information being somewhat more hard to find, being the minority, then the wikipedia article will focus ALL on the negative aspects on the person with a glossed over paragraph or two about "Some people disagree with this".
I wasn't talking about violating WP:UNDUE. I wasn't talking about featured articles which has 150 inline citations, with an extensive bibliography besides. I was talking about long-forgotten articles which gets maybe more edits from the article creator (stereotypically somebody who isn't very experienced in "Wikipedia Ways") and the new page patroller, who notices the statement of notability, assumes good faith, tries to make it NPOV, tags the page, marks the page patrolled, and moves on, than anyone else who's human.
Humans tend to unconsciously focus on the negative. This is something we do automatically. It probably makes sense in terms of evolutionary history. It's better to avoid fire than get burned. It's better to avoid water than to drown. In modern history, it gets you more attention from a medical laymen, and so you are more likely to get attention from a medical expert (via getting means of transportation, peer pressure, etc.). It increases the ability to survive, but not write Wikipedia articles.
Perhaps I'm thinking in black and white, or using the filter of "I have read way too many stub-to-start class articles which only the author and the new page patroller [me] has read and yet have not enough experience or ability to self-express to even participate in this discussion" improperly.
If the only verifiable information on a BLP is negative, then that is what the article should contain.
We shouldn't add unverifiable information simply for balance. That sort of action would be untrue to our principles and policies.
You're right.
"Starting over" won't change that.
To interpret what you said literally, no, starting over an article doesn't usually change policy.
To respond to what I think you were saying, I thought that was we achieve, to a lesser degree, when we userfy an article that could be speedied and yet appears to be made in good faith? On the other hand, with BLP, there's a point when the whole ethical question of "Should this even be in Wikipedia at all?" needs to be asked. In that case, the answer I would give is "Unless and until somebody can provide a WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, BLP compliant article, then the article doesn't belong in Wikipedia."
Emily
On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:37 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
What you're really saying is, "Isn't there a way to be nice even to people who aren't nice?". If the only verifiable information on a BLP is negative, then that is what the article should contain. We shouldn't add unverifiable information simply for balance. That sort of action would be untrue to our principles and policies.
"Starting over" won't change that.
-----Original Message----- From: Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2009 4:52 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was bad.
I agree.
But what if the only verifiable information in the article is the negative stuff, in spite of having other, less widely-reported information available? If I had ran across that as a new page patroller, I'd probably tag it as an attack page if it was severe enough, but what about less severe, and/or older pages? Do we delete and start over, or do we merely add the positive information?
Hitler is an extreme example. Everybody in the mainstream knows Hitler was bad. We just state why.
Emily On Aug 6, 2009, at 12:38 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Of course, and that's why we have other rules which moderate the other rules. And the BLP policy itself is a rule. However if a piece of evidence is both verifiable, and widely reported and yet negative about a person, and that person vociferously objects to it's inclusion... than what? That is the problem here. We should not white-wash a piece of negative, verifiable, widely reported bit simply because it might affect a person, or even if they claim it does or has. We're not the nicey-nice patrol and shouldn't be forced to become it. We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was bad.
Will Johnson
<<Not everything which is verifiable should be included in Wikipedia.>>
-----Original Message----- From: Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 5, 2009 10:30 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
The language of the board resolution doesn't come down hard enough on the side of verifiable information. That is, if something is verifiable, even a direct quote from the subject themself, then that information should be allowed to be included, and should not be forcibly stopped from inclusion by aggressive article patrollers-with-tools. It seems to me that the way the language is worded, the board is going to continue to allow harassment of those editors conscientious to the evidence, at the expense of verifiable evidence already broadcast widely across the net.
I think that this is exactly why we need people working on BLP. Wikipedia has put so much emphasis on rules such as verifiability that some people think that the rules trump everything else. Worse yet, the system is set up so that the rules *do* trump everything else; in a conflict between someone with a rule and someone who's trying to use judgment, the rule always wins, because you can always argue with someone's personal judgment, but the rule's right there in print.
BLP is sort of a hack to the system which says "we're going to force you to ignore the rules in this particular situation, because they *really* don't work". It by no means covers every situation where the rules cause problems, but it's better than nothing and right now it's all we've got.
Not everything which is verifiable should be included in Wikipedia.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I agree with the problem of writing in this style. It's not an easy thing to do. We are creating a creature which has never before existed. An encyclopedia which cites its sources in-line for each controversial statement (at least). And trying to do it with a minimum of bloodshed.
-----Original Message----- From: Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2009 8:38 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
Now discarding those sort of sources, let's say we have five newspaper articles, and two mentions in books about this person positively, and 245 newspaper articles and 18 mentions negative. What would you do?
I would put the weight on the negative. I just realized this.
The weight is clearly on the negative and that's how we should write the article.
I think I was wrong, at least on some counts. I don't have experience citing articles, just making sure it isn't construed in a way that isn't an attack or full of WP:WEASELS, or WP:PEACOCKS. Sorry about that.
I hope this sidetrack was beneficial anyway.
Emily On Aug 6, 2009, at 10:32 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Blog posts fail our requirement that an author of a piece be previously published by a third-party publisher. Blog posts are almost always by amateur writers, regardless of how long they've been blogging. A true writer, has true writing credits by reputable publishing houses.
Similarly newsletter articles have little to no valid editorial oversight. Generally what you write, is what they print, and sometimes there is a too-close relationship between the writer and the publisher which we would want to avoid. True writers, have true writings, published by actual third-party reputable publishing houses. Newsletters would fail.
Now discarding those sort of sources, let's say we have five newspaper articles, and two mentions in books about this person positively, and 245 newspaper articles and 18 mentions negative. What would you do?
What I would do, is try to distill the essence of those contributions into an article. Obviously nobody, not even Barack warrants 270 footnotes. So we have to narrow it somewhat. The way we should narrow it however wouldn't be to balance the positive with the negative in this case. The weight is clearly on the negative and that's how we should write the article.
Will Johnson
-----Original Message----- From: Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2009 8:20 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
What you're really saying is, "Isn't there a way to be nice even to people who aren't nice?".
No, I didn't. You misunderstood me. Let me explain.
I'm more worried about uneven reporting. If, say, there's one hundred blog posts and fifty newsletter articles about how horrible a person is, and twenty blog posts, ten newsletter articles, and a somewhat notable book saying "Hey, this person is actually pretty decent.", of course these sources containing positive information being somewhat more hard to find, being the minority, then the wikipedia article will focus ALL on the negative aspects on the person with a glossed over paragraph or two about "Some people disagree with this".
I wasn't talking about violating WP:UNDUE. I wasn't talking about featured articles which has 150 inline citations, with an extensive bibliography besides. I was talking about long-forgotten articles which gets maybe more edits from the article creator (stereotypically somebody who isn't very experienced in "Wikipedia Ways") and the new page patroller, who notices the statement of notability, assumes good faith, tries to make it NPOV, tags the page, marks the page patrolled, and moves on, than anyone else who's human.
Humans tend to unconsciously focus on the negative. This is something we do automatically. It probably makes sense in terms of evolutionary history. It's better to avoid fire than get burned. It's better to avoid water than to drown. In modern history, it gets you more attention from a medical laymen, and so you are more likely to get attention from a medical expert (via getting means of transportation, peer pressure, etc.). It increases the ability to survive, but not write Wikipedia articles.
Perhaps I'm thinking in black and white, or using the filter of "I have read way too many stub-to-start class articles which only the author and the new page patroller [me] has read and yet have not enough experience or ability to self-express to even participate in this discussion" improperly.
If the only verifiable information on a BLP is negative, then that is what the article should contain.
We shouldn't add unverifiable information simply for balance. That sort of action would be untrue to our principles and policies.
You're right.
"Starting over" won't change that.
To interpret what you said literally, no, starting over an article doesn't usually change policy.
To respond to what I think you were saying, I thought that was we achieve, to a lesser degree, when we userfy an article that could be speedied and yet appears to be made in good faith? On the other hand, with BLP, there's a point when the whole ethical question of "Should this even be in Wikipedia at all?" needs to be asked. In that case, the answer I would give is "Unless and until somebody can provide a WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, BLP compliant article, then the article doesn't belong in Wikipedia."
Emily
On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:37 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
What you're really saying is, "Isn't there a way to be nice even to people who aren't nice?". If the only verifiable information on a BLP is negative, then that is what the article should contain. We shouldn't add unverifiable information simply for balance. That sort of action would be untrue to our principles and policies.
"Starting over" won't change that.
-----Original Message----- From: Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2009 4:52 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was bad.
I agree.
But what if the only verifiable information in the article is the negative stuff, in spite of having other, less widely-reported information available? If I had ran across that as a new page patroller, I'd probably tag it as an attack page if it was severe enough, but what about less severe, and/or older pages? Do we delete and start over, or do we merely add the positive information?
Hitler is an extreme example. Everybody in the mainstream knows Hitler was bad. We just state why.
Emily On Aug 6, 2009, at 12:38 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Of course, and that's why we have other rules which moderate the other rules. And the BLP policy itself is a rule. However if a piece of evidence is both verifiable, and widely reported and yet negative about a person, and that person vociferously objects to it's inclusion... than what? That is the problem here. We should not white-wash a piece of negative, verifiable, widely reported bit simply because it might affect a person, or even if they claim it does or has. We're not the nicey-nice patrol and shouldn't be forced to become it. We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was bad.
Will Johnson
<<Not everything which is verifiable should be included in Wikipedia.>>
-----Original Message----- From: Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 5, 2009 10:30 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
The language of the board resolution doesn't come down hard enough on the side of verifiable information. That is, if something is verifiable, even a direct quote from the subject themself, then that information should be allowed to be included, and should not be forcibly stopped from inclusion by aggressive article patrollers-with-tools. It seems to me that the way the language is worded, the board is going to continue to allow harassment of those editors conscientious to the evidence, at the expense of verifiable evidence already broadcast widely across the net.
I think that this is exactly why we need people working on BLP. Wikipedia has put so much emphasis on rules such as verifiability that some people think that the rules trump everything else. Worse yet, the system is set up so that the rules *do* trump everything else; in a conflict between someone with a rule and someone who's trying to use judgment, the rule always wins, because you can always argue with someone's personal judgment, but the rule's right there in print.
BLP is sort of a hack to the system which says "we're going to force you to ignore the rules in this particular situation, because they *really* don't work". It by no means covers every situation where the rules cause problems, but it's better than nothing and right now it's all we've got.
Not everything which is verifiable should be included in Wikipedia.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:20 AM, Emily Monroebluecaliocean@me.com wrote:
Humans tend to unconsciously focus on the negative. This is something we do automatically. It probably makes sense in terms of evolutionary history. It's better to avoid fire than get burned. It's better to avoid water than to drown. In modern history, it gets you more attention from a medical laymen, and so you are more likely to get attention from a medical expert (via getting means of transportation, peer pressure, etc.). It increases the ability to survive, but not write Wikipedia articles.
{{citation needed}}
I could equally argue the opposite. I could argue that many Wikipedia articles, especially BLPs are written by *fans* or supporters of the person in question and that this may tend towards hagiography. But I have no citations for my claim either.
The community also seems to have decided that criticism *sections* are undesirable and that criticism should be spread throughout an article. I agree with this as an ideal. But I think a criticism section is quite useful in the earlier stages of an article's development simply because, when an article is still being built, it is easier to compartmentalise areas for ease of adding new facts. But, y'know, I guess that argument's already been had at some stage, so I'm not about to try and overthrow consensus.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Cary Basscary@wikimedia.org wrote:
In that respect, I'd like to solicit members of the community to take part in this project. If you are interested, please send me a brief email summarizing what your involvement in BLPs in the past has been and your own opinion as to why BLPs are such a problematic area.
2009/8/6 wjhonson@aol.com
So I have strong doubts that anyone who like I, has spoken out forcibly for the inclusion of any verifiable information, would even be selected for a committee like this one.
This is a problem. From Cary's email it sounds like this task force will only be composed of people with similar views on BLP, in fact that will be the main selection criteria. Regardless of the merits of these views, such a task force will be prone to groupthink. I would recommend the selection of some community members with different opinions (and encourage those members to put themselves forward in the first place)
Pete / the wub
Peter Coombe wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Cary Basscary@wikimedia.org wrote:
In that respect, I'd like to solicit members of the community to take part in this project. If you are interested, please send me a brief email summarizing what your involvement in BLPs in the past has been and your own opinion as to why BLPs are such a problematic area.
2009/8/6 wjhonson@aol.com
So I have strong doubts that anyone who like I, has spoken out forcibly for the inclusion of any verifiable information, would even be selected for a committee like this one.
This is a problem. From Cary's email it sounds like this task force will only be composed of people with similar views on BLP, in fact that will be the main selection criteria. Regardless of the merits of these views, such a task force will be prone to groupthink.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand how you come up with this conclusion. I'm asking the questions precisely because I believe we should have different perspectives.
Cary
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Phil Nashpn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
There was a proposal what seems like a long time ago for "Flagged Revisions", which was somewhat controversial but was intended to be introduced as a test
They're coming! They're coming!
There's a Jimbo speech linked to in this week's Signpost where he mentions them again, in the context of their imminent introduction. And I'm sure I've read somewhere that they'll be introduced in the not too distant future.
{{citation needed}} : I know. But I can't remember where I read that.