I think this incident can be addressed constructively in part by fleshing out the privacy provisions of BLP. Right now Wikipedia has a more elaborate privacy policy for Wikipedia editors than it does for people who happen to be the topic of articles. BLP mostly seems to focus on neutrality, verifiability and no original research. Some additional privacy clauses might include:
(1) No publishing of personal contact information such as address or a phone number if there is any objection by the person profiled.
(2) A presumption against publishing articles on people who have been victims of stalking, in cases where publication of an article on Wikipedia might subject them to additional harassment.
(3) A non-absolute presumption against publishing articles on minors. By "non-absolute" I mean that this should be interpreted as one factor but not the only factor in determining whether an article should be published.
The code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists has some provisions that might adapted for Wikipedia's purposes:
Minimize Harm Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
Journalists should:
— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely bynews coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects. — Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief. — Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance. — Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy. — Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity. — Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes. — Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges. — Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.
-------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/cmd/shop/ custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1107 --------------------------------
On 6/5/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
I think this incident can be addressed constructively in part by fleshing out the privacy provisions of BLP. Right now Wikipedia has a more elaborate privacy policy for Wikipedia editors than it does for people who happen to be the topic of articles. BLP mostly seems to focus on neutrality, verifiability and no original research. Some additional privacy clauses might include:
(1) No publishing of personal contact information such as address or a phone number if there is any objection by the person profiled.
Why would an encyclopaedia be doing this anyway? I routinely remove such information from articles, regardless of whether they are about living people. Encyclopaedias are not directories or the Yellow Pages.
Johnleemk
1, Did we publish contact information in this instance? The media may have done so, but I don't think we did. Of course we would generally remove it. I do when i see it. 2. When have we published an article with identifiable information about a victim or stalking?--or published one at all? The recent concerns have been much more indirect, 3. We are careful about minors. And as someone pointed out, she's over 18. She's a prominent amateur athlete. We'd be doing wrong if we didn't cover it. I am ashamed of working with people who want to censor it. They aren't devoted to building an honest encyclopedia.
DGG
On 6/5/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
I think this incident can be addressed constructively in part by fleshing out the privacy provisions of BLP. Right now Wikipedia has a more elaborate privacy policy for Wikipedia editors than it does for people who happen to be the topic of articles. BLP mostly seems to focus on neutrality, verifiability and no original research. Some additional privacy clauses might include:
(1) No publishing of personal contact information such as address or a phone number if there is any objection by the person profiled.
Why would an encyclopaedia be doing this anyway? I routinely remove such information from articles, regardless of whether they are about living people. Encyclopaedias are not directories or the Yellow Pages.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Goodman wrote:
1, Did we publish contact information in this instance? The media may have done so, but I don't think we did. Of course we would generally remove it. I do when i see it. 2. When have we published an article with identifiable information about a victim or stalking?--or published one at all? The recent concerns have been much more indirect, 3. We are careful about minors. And as someone pointed out, she's over 18. She's a prominent amateur athlete. We'd be doing wrong if we didn't cover it. I am ashamed of working with people who want to censor it. They aren't devoted to building an honest encyclopedia.
I haven't seriously dug into the specifics of this issue, but I would believe that a national championship would pass the notability test. Simply being a minor should not be bar to having an article to outline her accomplishments, and give reasonable biographical. In some sports, especially women's gymnastics, Olympic champions can be less than 18. Would we have hesitated to write about Nadia Comenici just because of her age?
Ec
On 05/06/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
(1) No publishing of personal contact information such as address or a phone number if there is any objection by the person profiled.
I am really not convinced we should be publishing such details period - we don't do it in cases where the person doesn't object, and if they get added we generally remove them as veering over the line towards advertising.
(3) A non-absolute presumption against publishing articles on minors. By "non-absolute" I mean that this should be interpreted as one factor but not the only factor in determining whether an article should be published.
Incidentally, this person is not a minor - it's one of the details that makes the case more interesting, because we can't fall back on that as a cop-out to avoid facing the more fundamental questions...
...which are, can we really claim to write biographical articles about obscure non-public individuals with a passing and tenuous claim to fame?
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Sheldon Rampton wrote:
(2) A presumption against publishing articles on people who have been victims of stalking, in cases where publication of an article on Wikipedia might subject them to additional harassment.
For a while I've thought something like "Wikipedia is not the creator of news" should apply. (Probably badly worded; reword as you wish). If creating a Wikipedia article itself helps to spread or advance something described in the article, we shouldn't have it. (This only applies when that article specifically, not just Wikipedia in general, advances a cause. We wouldn't delete the article for Internet or the one for Wikipedia itself.)
This would cover publishing an article about anyone famous for being stalked. Creating a Wikipedia article inherently participates in the stalking, and so should be avoided. This would also cover GNAA; GNAA's name was deliberately chosen so that using it would offend, and for us to have a GNAA article would be assisting in GNAA activities. (And even if its name wasn't itself offensive, trolls want publicity. so having articles about them--thus publicizing them--would violate this proposed principle.)
This is not current policy, but maybe it should be.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Sheldon Rampton wrote:
(2) A presumption against publishing articles on people who have been victims of stalking, in cases where publication of an article on Wikipedia might subject them to additional harassment.
For a while I've thought something like "Wikipedia is not the creator of news" should apply. (Probably badly worded; reword as you wish). If creating a Wikipedia article itself helps to spread or advance something described in the article, we shouldn't have it. (This only applies when that article specifically, not just Wikipedia in general, advances a cause. We wouldn't delete the article for Internet or the one for Wikipedia itself.)
That's all Wikipedia articles, though. Having an article about Company Foo, even if it's already very famous, potentially further raises its fame, by making more information about it available on the internet. Having an article about Some Small City in Greece does the same... the latter (creation of geographical articles) even helps promote tourism. Of course, *overt* promotion beyond neutral reporting of what has been reported elsewhere is to be banned, but we shouldn't ban an neutral article on a city in Greece just because having the article promotes tourism to that city.
-Mark
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Delirium wrote:
That's all Wikipedia articles, though. Having an article about Company Foo, even if it's already very famous, potentially further raises its fame, by making more information about it available on the internet.
Well, I did say the rule needed to be reworded.
In an article about a stalked user or about a troll, the story is mostly about the stalking or the trolling. On the other hand, the fact that a company wants publicity is a fairly minor part of what the company does. Companies don't exist for the purpose of publicizing themselves; they exist for another purpose, and seek publicity as a means to that end. How wou;d you suggest this be incorporated into a rule?
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Delirium wrote:
That's all Wikipedia articles, though. Having an article about Company Foo, even if it's already very famous, potentially further raises its fame, by making more information about it available on the internet.
Well, I did say the rule needed to be reworded.
In an article about a stalked user or about a troll, the story is mostly about the stalking or the trolling. On the other hand, the fact that a company wants publicity is a fairly minor part of what the company does. Companies don't exist for the purpose of publicizing themselves; they exist for another purpose, and seek publicity as a means to that end. How wou;d you suggest this be incorporated into a rule?
While having an article on a company may provide them with incidental advertising I don't see the point for being concerned with this. If our article raises their fame, so what? By treating all companies in the same industry in the same way how can it be said that we are providing more advertising fo one over the other.
While I can respect the anti-advertising attitudes of some Wikipedians there is such a thing as taking an attitude too far.
Ec