So our "living persons" banner contains the following text:
"This article is about or directly concerns one or more living people and therefore must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy. Specifically, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should not be posted to this article *or its talk page(s)*. Such material must be removed without hesitation. " (emphasis in original)
I'm particularly concerned about the "or its talk page" bit. Is someone just confused, or should we actually *not* move material from the talk page like this:
I have removed the following text because it sounds defamatory and probably isn't true: "John B Smith was busted twice for frequenting prostitutes in the 1970s". Anyone have a source?
How can we realistically work with potentially defamatory statements - eg, requesting sources for them - if we can't even repeat them on talk pages?
Steve
On 18/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
So our "living persons" banner contains the following text:
"This article is about or directly concerns one or more living people and therefore must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy. Specifically, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should not be posted to this article *or its talk page(s)*. Such material must be removed without hesitation. " (emphasis in original)
I'm particularly concerned about the "or its talk page" bit. Is someone just confused, or should we actually *not* move material from the talk page like this:
I have removed the following text because it sounds defamatory and probably isn't true: "John B Smith was busted twice for frequenting prostitutes in the 1970s". Anyone have a source?
How can we realistically work with potentially defamatory statements - eg, requesting sources for them - if we can't even repeat them on talk pages?
The problem is, even though we consider it an "internal page", it's still visible to the public as a whole and people are just as able to read it and get upset. Writing around the claim is probably a good way to mark it as disbelieved, though, or you could go with something like "I've removed an unsourced claim about involvement with prostitution from the text - does anyone have a source for this? It seems unlikely..."
On 18/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
So our "living persons" banner contains the following text: "This article is about or directly concerns one or more living people and therefore must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy. Specifically, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should not be posted to this article *or its talk page(s)*. Such material must be removed without hesitation. " (emphasis in original) I'm particularly concerned about the "or its talk page" bit. Is someone just confused, or should we actually *not* move material from the talk page like this: I have removed the following text because it sounds defamatory and probably isn't true: "John B Smith was busted twice for frequenting prostitutes in the 1970s". Anyone have a source? How can we realistically work with potentially defamatory statements - eg, requesting sources for them - if we can't even repeat them on talk pages?
Who put that in, and what do they say?
(A lot of stupid stuff in the living bio and verification policies - and in a lot of other policies - is because someone edit warred it in and no-one could be bothered arguing in a querulous fashion. And then it stays because it's POLICY rather than because it makes sense.)
- d.
On 8/18/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Who put that in, and what do they say?
An anon changed "posted to articles or talk pages" to "this article or its talk page(s)". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Blp&diff=next&old...
SlimVirgin added the original text on 28 June: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Blp&direction=next&am...
I've hacked the text a bit. Who knows?
(A lot of stupid stuff in the living bio and verification policies - and in a lot of other policies - is because someone edit warred it in and no-one could be bothered arguing in a querulous fashion. And then it stays because it's POLICY rather than because it makes sense.)
I think in many cases you can replace "edit warred" with "tentatively added". !
Steve
On 8/18/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/18/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Who put that in, and what do they say?
An anon changed "posted to articles or talk pages" to "this article or its talk page(s)". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Blp&diff=next&old...
SlimVirgin added the original text on 28 June: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Blp&direction=next&am...
The BLP policy in essence is that Wikipedia must take care not to initiate or spread nonsense about living people, whether via our articles or posts on talk.
The requirement not to move potentially defamatory material to talk pages is because they're cached by Google (and even if they weren't, they're read by a lot of people), and the point is to stop the spread of the defamation. Editors who wanted to damage someone had begun to realize that getting the material onto a talk page was as useful as getting it into the article itself, and with no annoying restrictions like NPOV, V, and NOR. There was also an ArbCom ruling that material of that nature should be removed from a talk page, and I'm speaking from memory now, but I believe it was the CBerlet/Nobs01 case. Someone in that case was posting long screeds of damaging claims to the talk page because editors were resisting allowing it into the article.
There are lots of ways material can be discussed with directly referring to it, and people can ask for a reliable source for all edits without specifying the particular edit that's caused the problem. We don't need to say: "Do you have a source for the claim that Professor Sir John Doe was seen with a woman not his wife in a nightclub last night?"
Sarah
On 8/18/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
There are lots of ways material can be discussed with directly referring to it, and people can ask for a reliable source for all edits without specifying the particular edit that's caused the problem. We don't need to say: "Do you have a source for the claim that Professor Sir John Doe was seen with a woman not his wife in a nightclub last night?"
Sorry, a typo turned one of my sentences into nonsense. I meant to say that there are lots of ways material can be discussed *without* directly referring to it.
Sarah
--- Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
there are lots of ways material can be discussed *without* directly referring to it.
Like what?
- Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 8/18/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
there are lots of ways material can be discussed *without* directly referring to it.
Like what?
Like saying "the material I removed from the article" without saying "the claims about marital infidelity with person X that I removed from the article". There are lots of ways to talk around an issue without actually saying the defamatory thing.
Ian
Guettarda wrote:
On 8/18/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
there are lots of ways material can be discussed *without* directly referring to it.
Like what?
Like saying "the material I removed from the article" without saying "the claims about marital infidelity with person X that I removed from the article". There are lots of ways to talk around an issue without actually saying the defamatory thing.
But then how is anyone supposed to research it? If somebody requests information on "the claim about marital infidelity with person X", I can search Lexis-Nexis to see if any such claim has been made in the media, and source it if so. I can't search on Lexis-Nexis for claims that aren't specified.
-Mark
--- Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
Like saying "the material I removed from the article" without saying "the claims about marital infidelity with person X that I removed from the article". There are lots of ways to talk around an issue without actually saying the defamatory thing.
I dont follow. Could you give us a real example? For instance how would I refer on the talk page to the claim that Ann Coulter once gave a venereal disease to Clinton (on Festivus), without actually referring to it? You can hypothetical examples if you like.
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 20/08/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
Like saying "the material I removed from the article" without saying "the claims about marital infidelity with person X that I removed from the article". There are lots of ways to talk around an issue without actually saying the defamatory thing.
I dont follow. Could you give us a real example? For instance how would I refer on the talk page to the claim that Ann Coulter once gave a venereal disease to Clinton (on Festivus), without actually referring to it? You can hypothetical examples if you like.
Refer to the removed diff, as suggested? For claims that are new, provide the reference right there.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
I dont follow. Could you give us a real example? For instance how would I refer on the talk page to the claim that Ann Coulter once gave a venereal disease to Clinton (on Festivus), without actually referring to it? You can hypothetical examples if you like.
Refer to the removed diff, as suggested? For claims that are new, provide the reference right there.
A large part of the strength of Wikipedia is the ability to split work based on people's strengths, which requires the ability to openly communicate with other editors.
For example, questions along the following lines posted on talk pages are a relatively commonplace part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia: "I remember some sort of scandal involving [politician] in the mid-1990s that this article doesn't mention at all. As I recall, he was accused of hiring a prostitute with government funds. Does anybody know of a good source covering that story, or am I misremembering?"
The question can then be followed up with someone who has access to Lexis-Nexis or some other good way of researching the matter. The people who have good research resources and the people who notice omissions aren't always the same person, so communication between them makes things work much more nicely.
Of course, that isn't biography-specific: I've made comments on science-related articles where the article omitted something I had learned in a class, but for which I couldn't find a good reference (my class notes not being citeable), and I've followed up on such comments from other people. Coming up with a new rule that no negative information about a person can be even *discussed* without a solid reference being provided up front would systemically skew articles and hamper work on biographies, though.
-Mark
--- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Refer to the removed diff, as suggested? For claims that are new, provide the reference right there.
How does one refer to something that has been... removed?
-s
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 8/18/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
like NPOV, V, and NOR. There was also an ArbCom ruling that material of that nature should be removed from a talk page, and I'm speaking
Ok, in that case that should be part of a more general policy. I removed the reference to talk pages from template:blp because it's specifically designed for talk pages of living people articles. Whereas, defaming people is apparently out on all talk pages...
Though for that matter, defaming living people on articles about extinct frogs is just as bad, but we don't put the template on those talk pages. Hmm.
There are lots of ways material can be discussed with[out] directly referring to it, and people can ask for a reliable source for all edits without specifying the particular edit that's caused the problem. We don't need to say: "Do you have a source for the claim that Professor Sir John Doe was seen with a woman not his wife in a nightclub last night?"
Ouch. I don't like it. Can't we just tell google not to spider our talk pages? Would you expect the editors of a "real" encyclopaedia to have to talk in circumspect terms when discussing potentially libellous material? Do Mr and Mrs Britannica say "You know that claim about Mr Smith on page 878...you know...there's allegedly with an apparently non-married female person and a, uh, allegedly drinking establishment...with me?" when they're working on it? No. The solution should never be "don't discuss it", but rather "discuss it in a way which isn't going to spread the defamation".
Steve
--- Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The requirement not to move potentially defamatory material to talk pages is because they're cached by Google (and even if they weren't, they're read by a lot of people), and the point is to stop the spread of the defamation.
In the context of WP:OFFICE, as well as more recently, Jimbo and others have written somethings about "hurt feelings," as if it was a policy ( WP:CODDLE maybe) which could circumvent even important policy ( WP:NPOV maybe). Could you explain this?
I agree with the idea of treating bios with care, but that does not necessarily necessitate the use of an entirely different methodology than any other wiki page - including censoring talk pages. You may as well start a biowiki that operates under entirely different rules.
Your characterisation of "the point" as being "to stop the spread of the defamation" is interesting in that, as you have formulated it, its quite easy to attack. Are there higher values being employed here other than WP:TEDDYBEAR, WP:ANTIDEFAMATION, and WP:THRONE ?
- stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 8/18/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
In the context of WP:OFFICE, as well as more recently, Jimbo and others have written somethings about "hurt feelings," as if it was a policy ( WP:CODDLE maybe) which could circumvent even important policy ( WP:NPOV maybe). Could you explain this?
Here's my attempt to reconcile things: We all have different experiences at Wikipedia and think various things are more or less important depending on what part of the system we're in contact with. Some of us think fighting vandalism is very important because we see a lot of it. Some of us think it's really important to reduce bias in articles regarding the Middle East. Some of us think it's really important to avoid hurting the feelings of people who might be written about in Wikipedia.
However: Some things are so important that everyone needs to take them seriously, whether you find them personally interesting or not. Concrete legal advice like "do not allow unsourced defamatory statements about living individuals to remain or we will get our arses sued off" are like that.
Steve
On 8/18/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
In the context of WP:OFFICE, as well as more recently, Jimbo and others have written somethings about "hurt feelings," as if it was a policy ( WP:CODDLE maybe) which could circumvent even important policy ( WP:NPOV maybe). Could you explain this?
No. No no no no no. That is not the aim at all. NPOV can never be compromised. All that is different between a biography of a living person and, for example, an article on the geography of southern Brazil is that it is more likely that the article on the living person will have potentially defamatory information added. This may or may not lead to legal action, but it most certainly is likely to lead to bad press for Wikipedia.
All that is required is a more *rigourous* application of our verifibility policy for these more sensitive articles. That is not a bad thing; indeed it is the real essence of NPOV.
We don't live in some cloud-cuckoo land where our mistakes don't have consequences. They do. The answer is to make sure that our mistakes are quickly corrected and that the damage does not continue.
I agree with the idea of treating bios with care, but that does not necessarily necessitate the use of an entirely different methodology than any other wiki page - including censoring talk pages.
No, an "entirely different methodology" is not needed. All that is needed is a more rigourous application of our current policies. These rely upon (yes, rely upon, not just use as a bonus) the use of common sense. Most unsourced claims do not need to be blitzed into oblivion. Yet some do, and it is this balance that WP:LIVING must attempt to measure. It is better to be cautious in this area, because it is reckless and thoroughly unacceptable to say "Oh, don't blame us that our encylopaedia accuses you of being a repeat sex offender, it just happens because of the wiki process. It's your problem you're getting so upset."
On 18/08/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
No. No no no no no. That is not the aim at all. NPOV can never be compromised. All that is different between a biography of a living person and, for example, an article on the geography of southern Brazil is that it is more likely that the article on the living person will have potentially defamatory information added. This may or may not lead to legal action, but it most certainly is likely to lead to bad press for Wikipedia. All that is required is a more *rigourous* application of our verifibility policy for these more sensitive articles. That is not a bad thing; indeed it is the real essence of NPOV.
Then please, please use your arbitrational powers to hack those policy pages into a shape that is actually usable by editors.
No, an "entirely different methodology" is not needed. All that is needed is a more rigourous application of our current policies. These
Well, yes. Now we need to get overreaching specific cases out of the policy document. You can't legislate clue, but by God that doesn't stop some people trying.
- d.
Sam's comments surely invite the question around which, relative to BLP, we often dance: ought ethical or moral impulses ever to affect our editing?
I'd appended a hypothetical at the end of my post but, realizing that any sane individual won't reach the end of my comments, I have moved it here; an expanded argument follows...
Consider a situation in which unsourced criticism appears in a biography. Assume arguendo that we can be certain that the subject will not essay a legal claim against the Foundation and that we can be relatively certain that bad press will not entail (an issue that, for the purposes of this discussion, we set aside in any case). Should, then, we treat that unsourced negativity in a fashion different from that in which we'd treat unsourced comments in, to pick the first three random articles I find, [[Mancor de la Vall]], [[Sherston Software]], or [[Danzig III: How the Gods Kill]]? I imagine that there are those who will say "yes", and I suppose I can appreciate their justifcations; I rather think, though, that an exceedingly large portion of the community would say "no", although I am less-than-confident that a meta-discussion that might bear out such view might be undertaken.
Concerns w/r/to prospective legal liability and bad press aside (which concerns can be, I think, persuasively allayed), a certain "do no harm" motivation tends to underline BLP. In view of the failure to command a consensus of either [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] or [[WP:NOT EVIL]], and of the disfavoring by the community of Jimbo's "human dignity" formulation with respect to deletion, I cannot abide the suggestion that the community writ large truly believe, legal/publicity concerns aside, that we ever ought to concern ourselves with the external consequences of our editing.
Such consideration is plainly, IMHO, unencyclopedic; not only ought we to edit with dispassion (NPOV), but so too ought we to edit with disinterest, such that we ought not to care whether the Googling of a biographical subject returns results that contain inaccurate and defamatory material (I, fof course, cannot comprehend why any individual editor, in view of other-than-project-related concerns, would ever care).
To say that BLP is necessary because, even as it may infrequently forcelose an editor's adding encyclopedic information, it prevents the project from incurring costs related to defending the Foundation against legal action or helps the project to avoid bad publicity, from which might follow the departure of editors, the departure of readers, and/or the departure of donors, is one thing; to say that the moral concerns of editors, legal/bad publicity concerns notwithstanding, is quite another.
Cordially,
Joe [[User:Jahiegel]]
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Korn" smoddy@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Defamation policy
On 8/18/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
In the context of WP:OFFICE, as well as more recently, Jimbo and others have written somethings about "hurt feelings," as if it was a policy ( WP:CODDLE maybe) which could circumvent even important policy ( WP:NPOV maybe). Could you explain this?
No. No no no no no. That is not the aim at all. NPOV can never be compromised. All that is different between a biography of a living person and, for example, an article on the geography of southern Brazil is that it is more likely that the article on the living person will have potentially defamatory information added. This may or may not lead to legal action, but it most certainly is likely to lead to bad press for Wikipedia.
All that is required is a more *rigourous* application of our verifibility policy for these more sensitive articles. That is not a bad thing; indeed it is the real essence of NPOV.
We don't live in some cloud-cuckoo land where our mistakes don't have consequences. They do. The answer is to make sure that our mistakes are quickly corrected and that the damage does not continue.
I agree with the idea of treating bios with care, but that does not necessarily necessitate the use of an entirely different methodology than any other wiki page - including censoring talk pages.
No, an "entirely different methodology" is not needed. All that is needed is a more rigourous application of our current policies. These rely upon (yes, rely upon, not just use as a bonus) the use of common sense. Most unsourced claims do not need to be blitzed into oblivion. Yet some do, and it is this balance that WP:LIVING must attempt to measure. It is better to be cautious in this area, because it is reckless and thoroughly unacceptable to say "Oh, don't blame us that our encylopaedia accuses you of being a repeat sex offender, it just happens because of the wiki process. It's your problem you're getting so upset."
-- Sam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/18/06, jahiegel jahiegel@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Sam's comments surely invite the question around which, relative to BLP, we often dance: ought ethical or moral impulses ever to affect our editing?
I'd argue that the only reasons I edit Wikipedia are ethical and moral, so a resounding yes :-)
Consider a situation in which unsourced criticism appears in a biography. Assume arguendo that we can be certain that the subject will not essay a legal claim against the Foundation and that we can be relatively certain that bad press will not entail (an issue that, for the purposes of this discussion, we set aside in any case). Should, then, we treat that unsourced negativity in a fashion different from that in which we'd treat unsourced comments in, to pick the first three random articles I find, [[Mancor de la Vall]], [[Sherston Software]], or [[Danzig III: How the Gods Kill]]?
Ideally, no, we should not. Ideally, we apply WP:V and WP:NPOV equally to every edit. What's more, we'd ideally apply WP:AGF equally to every edit. *However*, living people are significantly different to your example by the very fact that people are more likely to insert damaging and embarassing "facts" about them than about your examples.
From a purely pragmatic approach, it is not difficult to see that
articles concerning living individuals are a high target for vandals and thus need to be scrutinised especially carefully.
Concerns w/r/to prospective legal liability and bad press aside (which concerns can be, I think, persuasively allayed), a certain "do no harm" motivation tends to underline BLP. In view of the failure to command a consensus of either [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] or [[WP:NOT EVIL]], and of the disfavoring by the community of Jimbo's "human dignity" formulation with respect to deletion, I cannot abide the suggestion that the community writ large truly believe, legal/publicity concerns aside, that we ever ought to concern ourselves with the external consequences of our editing.
I have outlined my pragmatic reasoning for taking special considerations above. I also feel there is a very powerful moral argument.
We don't ask people if they want a Wikipedia biography about them. They have no say in the matter (ask, for example, Daniel Brandt or Angela). They get them, like it or not. I believe that, in writing articles about them, we have a duty to get our facts right. This applies across the encyclopaedia for the sake of editors, but especially on articles about living people for the sake of the subjects themselves.
Such consideration is plainly, IMHO, unencyclopedic; not only ought we to edit with dispassion (NPOV), but so too ought we to edit with disinterest, such that we ought not to care whether the Googling of a biographical subject returns results that contain inaccurate and defamatory material (I, fof course, cannot comprehend why any individual editor, in view of other-than-project-related concerns, would ever care).
To say that BLP is necessary because, even as it may infrequently forcelose an editor's adding encyclopedic information, it prevents the project from incurring costs related to defending the Foundation against legal action or helps the project to avoid bad publicity, from which might follow the departure of editors, the departure of readers, and/or the departure of donors, is one thing; to say that the moral concerns of editors, legal/bad publicity concerns notwithstanding, is quite another.
Cordially,
Joe [[User:Jahiegel]]
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Korn" smoddy@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Defamation policy
On 8/18/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
In the context of WP:OFFICE, as well as more recently, Jimbo and others have written somethings about "hurt feelings," as if it was a policy ( WP:CODDLE maybe) which could circumvent even important policy ( WP:NPOV maybe). Could you explain this?
No. No no no no no. That is not the aim at all. NPOV can never be compromised. All that is different between a biography of a living person and, for example, an article on the geography of southern Brazil is that it is more likely that the article on the living person will have potentially defamatory information added. This may or may not lead to legal action, but it most certainly is likely to lead to bad press for Wikipedia.
All that is required is a more *rigourous* application of our verifibility policy for these more sensitive articles. That is not a bad thing; indeed it is the real essence of NPOV.
We don't live in some cloud-cuckoo land where our mistakes don't have consequences. They do. The answer is to make sure that our mistakes are quickly corrected and that the damage does not continue.
I agree with the idea of treating bios with care, but that does not necessarily necessitate the use of an entirely different methodology than any other wiki page - including censoring talk pages.
No, an "entirely different methodology" is not needed. All that is needed is a more rigourous application of our current policies. These rely upon (yes, rely upon, not just use as a bonus) the use of common sense. Most unsourced claims do not need to be blitzed into oblivion. Yet some do, and it is this balance that WP:LIVING must attempt to measure. It is better to be cautious in this area, because it is reckless and thoroughly unacceptable to say "Oh, don't blame us that our encylopaedia accuses you of being a repeat sex offender, it just happens because of the wiki process. It's your problem you're getting so upset."
-- Sam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/18/06, jahiegel jahiegel@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Sam's comments surely invite the question around which, relative to BLP, we often dance: ought ethical or moral impulses ever to affect our editing? ...
Concerns w/r/to prospective legal liability and bad press aside (which concerns can be, I think, persuasively allayed), a certain "do no harm" motivation tends to underline BLP. In view of the failure to command a consensus of either [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] or [[WP:NOT EVIL]], and of the disfavoring by the community of Jimbo's "human dignity" formulation with respect to deletion, I cannot abide the suggestion that the community writ large truly believe, legal/publicity concerns aside, that we ever ought to concern ourselves with the external consequences of our editing.
Of course we should "concern ourselves with the ... consequences of our editing." No responsible publication operates a "publish-and-be-damned" policy. I agree with Sam that BLP, in effect, simply emphasizes the need to stick to NPOV, NOR, and V in the case of living persons, and the reasons for this aren't only legal. They're also based on issues of morality and fairness, and pride in our own work. I don't want a mistake on Wikipedia to have a negative impact on a real person, with or without a legal consequence. Most frequent contributors believe strongly in the moral basis of this project, so of course ethical concerns are going to kick in. You make it sound like a bad thing to care about whether we cause harm, but this would be a horrible project if we didn't care.
Sarah
--- Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Of course we should "concern ourselves with the ... consequences of our editing." No responsible publication operates a "publish-and-be-damned" policy.
Um... "publish and be damned" is um... exactly "why wiki works."
The philosophical understanding of Wikipedia has always been "dont trust anything you read on the web, but then you shouldnt trust anything you read in print either anyway."
I don't want a mistake on Wikipedia to have a negative impact on a real person, with or without a legal consequence.
I dont think anyone is in disagreement with the basics of being fair to people. But we do of course sense the slippery slope that Wikipedia should be influenced, through offsite and non-NPOV means, to change its content.
-- stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 8/19/06, jahiegel jahiegel@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Consider a situation in which unsourced criticism appears in a biography. Assume arguendo that we can be certain that the subject will not essay a legal claim against the Foundation and that we can be relatively certain that bad press will not entail (an issue that, for the purposes of this discussion, we set aside in any case). Should, then, we treat that unsourced negativity in a fashion different from that in which we'd treat unsourced comments in, to pick the first three random articles I find, [[Mancor de la Vall]], [[Sherston Software]], or [[Danzig III: How the Gods Kill]]? I imagine that there are those who will say "yes", and I suppose I
If by "unsourced criticism" you mean "unsourced defamatory accusations" then, yes, I think we should make more of an effort to keep the articles of likely suers clean than other articles.
I don't think we're ever justified in adding trashy accusations about anyone without a source, but it makes sense to focus our effort wherever it's most needed.
motivation tends to underline BLP. In view of the failure to command a consensus of either [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] or [[WP:NOT EVIL]], and of the disfavoring by the community of Jimbo's "human dignity" formulation with respect to deletion, I cannot abide the suggestion that the community writ large truly believe, legal/publicity concerns aside, that we ever ought to concern ourselves with the external consequences of our editing.
I do. For barely notable people, information in Wikipedia could have a disproportionate effect on their life. We should be aware of that, and behave accordingly.
Steve
On 19/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I do. For barely notable people, information in Wikipedia could have a disproportionate effect on their life. We should be aware of that, and behave accordingly.
That should be a consequence of doing a good editorial job, not a driver of it - that way lies Sympathetic Point of View, not Neutral Point of View. We must *avoid* implying SPOV.
A useful heuristic is to take notability down to the detail level, i.e. is this fact really notable? The example in one of the many versions of WP:LIVING was a minorly notable scientist who happens to have had a messy divorce. Unless the messiness was itself notable, it's not likely to make it a better article for the reader.
- d.
On 8/19/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
A useful heuristic is to take notability down to the detail level, i.e. is this fact really notable? The example in one of the many versions of WP:LIVING was a minorly notable scientist who happens to have had a messy divorce. Unless the messiness was itself notable, it's not likely to make it a better article for the reader.
Notability at the fact level is even harder to determine than notability at the subject level. Ask a republican whether Bush's alleged administrative adventures in the National Guard were "notable". Ask a Democrat the same.
I agree with your basic point, but what would you do in the case of a mathematician of whom we have 200 words on his career and publications, and 200 words on him getting sacked for molesting a student? We might easily find 30 news stories on the latter, and very few news stories on the rest of his career. Applying our basic "if it's verifiable, it's includable" guideline might distort the overall impression we give...
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/19/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
A useful heuristic is to take notability down to the detail level, i.e. is this fact really notable? The example in one of the many versions of WP:LIVING was a minorly notable scientist who happens to have had a messy divorce. Unless the messiness was itself notable, it's not likely to make it a better article for the reader.
Notability at the fact level is even harder to determine than notability at the subject level. Ask a republican whether Bush's alleged administrative adventures in the National Guard were "notable". Ask a Democrat the same.
Here's a question: would a judge allow it to be raised in court?
I agree with your basic point, but what would you do in the case of a mathematician of whom we have 200 words on his career and publications, and 200 words on him getting sacked for molesting a student? We might easily find 30 news stories on the latter, and very few news stories on the rest of his career. Applying our basic "if it's verifiable, it's includable" guideline might distort the overall impression we give...
It comes down to a question of balance. See above.
On 19/08/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
I agree with your basic point, but what would you do in the case of a mathematician of whom we have 200 words on his career and publications, and 200 words on him getting sacked for molesting a student? We might easily find 30 news stories on the latter, and very few news stories on the rest of his career. Applying our basic "if it's verifiable, it's includable" guideline might distort the overall impression we give...
It comes down to a question of balance. See above.
More than that - and this is an important point that tends to sail over the heads of those didactic about guidelines - it's a question of *editorial judgement*. All these rules of thumb are only useful exactly as far as they are applied with a clue.
I do so wish people would stop trying to legislate cluefulness. Read [[m:Instruction creep]] until you understand why.
- d.
On 8/19/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
More than that - and this is an important point that tends to sail over the heads of those didactic about guidelines - it's a question of *editorial judgement*. All these rules of thumb are only useful exactly as far as they are applied with a clue.
I wish we had editorial judgment. Specifically, I wish we had a way of determining which of our editors had good judgment, and empowered them to do so.
There are lots of issues that come down to "editorial judgment", but good judgment is really hard to apply by committee.
Steve
G'day Steve,
I wish we had editorial judgment. Specifically, I wish we had a way of determining which of our editors had good judgment, and empowered them to do so.
I was going to suggest that we do. Those with good editorial judgment are the ones who don't follow the rules anyway, and so the system sorts itself out by making those who need the rules most being the only ones who follow them. However, I thought about it a bit too much, and that led to this post.
Bear with me for a moment, we're talking about a matrix in words again. There are four possibilities:
1. Those with good judgment who follow the rules 2. Those with good judgment who Ignore All Rules(TM) 3. Those with poor judgment who follow the rules 4. Those with poor judgment who Ignore All Rules(TM)
Now, of these, the process wonks with good judgment tend to become less wonky as time goes on, promoting the worthwhile aspects of process but acknowledging that when it leads to an absurdity one should never follow process to the letter.
Those with good judgment who do what they think is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia tend to get away with it. Boo-yah!
Those with poor judgment who ignore the rules get blocked, because the rules would be all that keeps them from being dickheads. I don't intend to cry too much over them.
Finally, we get to those with poor judgment who follow the rules. These people are a *problem*. They don't seem to care about doing the Right Thing or the Wrong Thing, they don't seem to know what's appropriate behaviour and what isn't, they don't seem to be capable of saving their grandmothers from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal without ... you get the idea. This is a problem for five reasons:
a) They get upset at those of us who are willing to make editorial or administrative decisions even though we *haven't* received orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queries, lost, found, subjected to public enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.
b) They can make some really rather shit decisions, because of that "process can lead to absurdity" thing mentioned above.
c) They refuse to accept that there's anything at all silly about their behaviour, becuase the rules say such-and-such, and how can it be wrong if they're following the rules? This same point of view leads to the famous "instruction creep", as they to make more rules, subconsciously trying (I reckon) to provide enough guidelines to blindly follow that they can never be held responsible for anything.
d) THEY CORRUPT THE YOUTH!!!!! In more sensible terms, what I mean is that new users tend to assume that Wikipedia, given its size and status and their own experience with the Real World(TM), must be a bureaucracy. Process wonks are only too happy to oblige. I recall one anonymous user told he couldn't copyedit an article on a video game character without discussing it on the talkpage first!
e) Which leads me to my biggest complaint: they get the rules *wrong*. It's bad enough to insist that we all follow the rules regardless of the end result, but when *they don't even know what the rules are*, they become a menace. This is my current hobbyhorse: the "Chinese Whispers Effect". It means that someone with the wrong idea about policy but who thinks he knows what he's talking about will attempt to impose his view of policy on other editors, who will misunderstand and take an even more corrupted view ... and so on.
Examples include: the video game talkpage thing above; someone on DRV who attempted to use the definition at [[Rough consensus]] (mainspace article!) to argue that my satirical Administrator Discretion Zone really did exist (!!!); the fellow who opposed an RfA because "there is no excuse, *ever*, for not using the {{testN}} templates to warn someone"; the people replacing removed {{prod}} tags because the article author isn't allow to remove it (or because the reason for removal wasn't considered sufficient); the people insisting articles must be speedied because "it fails WP:CORP"; and ... well, how long do we want this list to *get*?
The more intelligent actions (not to say there haven't been some blindingly stupid actions too) of Wikipedians like Lar and to a lesser extent Aaron Brenneman and Xoloz have convinced me that people who espouse a "process is important" view can be worth listening to at times. Process wonkism is not necessarily the enemy of Clue, but Cluelessness when combined with wonkism is a bloody menace.
There are some Clueful editors --- see "corrupted youth" --- who merely hung out with the wrong crowd and are salvageable. However, there are others out there who are too ignorant to bear; too arrogant to teach[0]; too bossy to ignore. What's the answer?
<snip/>
[0] I'm the first to admit I can be an arrogant prick at times, too. Arguably, I have taken on such a persona to write this post. I like to think, though, that in comparison with the people who've inflicted their stupidity on this community in the guise of upholding policy, I've earned it.
Hi Mark, Very interesting post. The logical conclusion of all that would seem to be that we must avoid specifying rules for certain parts of our code of behaviour. That is, we should leave certain areas deliberately vague, in order to stop these "rule-followers with poor judgment" from having any rules to follow.
The classic one I see again and again is people trying to put numbers on "consensus". I recently noticed that at FPC, "Consensus in Featured picture candidates is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support." WTF? I mean, really, "what the fuck?" Anyone incapable of determining genuine consensus should *not* be given a crutch to lean on. Any decision that can only be justified on the basis of a numerical count is not a good decision...
Steve
(Yes, I top posted. I didn't have any specific remarks to make wrt any particular section of the post).
On 8/20/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Steve,
I wish we had editorial judgment. Specifically, I wish we had a way of determining which of our editors had good judgment, and empowered them to do so.
I was going to suggest that we do. Those with good editorial judgment are the ones who don't follow the rules anyway, and so the system sorts itself out by making those who need the rules most being the only ones who follow them. However, I thought about it a bit too much, and that led to this post.
Bear with me for a moment, we're talking about a matrix in words again. There are four possibilities:
- Those with good judgment who follow the rules
- Those with good judgment who Ignore All Rules(TM)
- Those with poor judgment who follow the rules
- Those with poor judgment who Ignore All Rules(TM)
Now, of these, the process wonks with good judgment tend to become less wonky as time goes on, promoting the worthwhile aspects of process but acknowledging that when it leads to an absurdity one should never follow process to the letter.
Those with good judgment who do what they think is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia tend to get away with it. Boo-yah!
Those with poor judgment who ignore the rules get blocked, because the rules would be all that keeps them from being dickheads. I don't intend to cry too much over them.
Finally, we get to those with poor judgment who follow the rules. These people are a *problem*. They don't seem to care about doing the Right Thing or the Wrong Thing, they don't seem to know what's appropriate behaviour and what isn't, they don't seem to be capable of saving their grandmothers from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal without ... you get the idea. This is a problem for five reasons:
a) They get upset at those of us who are willing to make editorial or administrative decisions even though we *haven't* received orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queries, lost, found, subjected to public enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.
b) They can make some really rather shit decisions, because of that "process can lead to absurdity" thing mentioned above.
c) They refuse to accept that there's anything at all silly about their behaviour, becuase the rules say such-and-such, and how can it be wrong if they're following the rules? This same point of view leads to the famous "instruction creep", as they to make more rules, subconsciously trying (I reckon) to provide enough guidelines to blindly follow that they can never be held responsible for anything.
d) THEY CORRUPT THE YOUTH!!!!! In more sensible terms, what I mean is that new users tend to assume that Wikipedia, given its size and status and their own experience with the Real World(TM), must be a bureaucracy. Process wonks are only too happy to oblige. I recall one anonymous user told he couldn't copyedit an article on a video game character without discussing it on the talkpage first!
e) Which leads me to my biggest complaint: they get the rules *wrong*. It's bad enough to insist that we all follow the rules regardless of the end result, but when *they don't even know what the rules are*, they become a menace. This is my current hobbyhorse: the "Chinese Whispers Effect". It means that someone with the wrong idea about policy but who thinks he knows what he's talking about will attempt to impose his view of policy on other editors, who will misunderstand and take an even more corrupted view ... and so on.
Examples include: the video game talkpage thing above; someone on DRV who attempted to use the definition at [[Rough consensus]] (mainspace article!) to argue that my satirical Administrator Discretion Zone really did exist (!!!); the fellow who opposed an RfA because "there is no excuse, *ever*, for not using the {{testN}} templates to warn someone"; the people replacing removed {{prod}} tags because the article author isn't allow to remove it (or because the reason for removal wasn't considered sufficient); the people insisting articles must be speedied because "it fails WP:CORP"; and ... well, how long do we want this list to *get*?The more intelligent actions (not to say there haven't been some blindingly stupid actions too) of Wikipedians like Lar and to a lesser extent Aaron Brenneman and Xoloz have convinced me that people who espouse a "process is important" view can be worth listening to at times. Process wonkism is not necessarily the enemy of Clue, but Cluelessness when combined with wonkism is a bloody menace.
There are some Clueful editors --- see "corrupted youth" --- who merely hung out with the wrong crowd and are salvageable. However, there are others out there who are too ignorant to bear; too arrogant to teach[0]; too bossy to ignore. What's the answer?
<snip/>
[0] I'm the first to admit I can be an arrogant prick at times, too. Arguably, I have taken on such a persona to write this post. I like to think, though, that in comparison with the people who've inflicted their stupidity on this community in the guise of upholding policy, I've earned it.
-- Mark Gallagher "You shit-lover! Off-brusher! Jaded, bitter joy-crusher! Failure has made you so cruel!" (Never get Amanda Palmer angry)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/21/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
The classic one I see again and again is people trying to put numbers on "consensus". I recently noticed that at FPC, "Consensus in Featured picture candidates is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support." WTF? I mean, really, "what the fuck?" Anyone incapable of determining genuine consensus should *not* be given a crutch to lean on. Any decision that can only be justified on the basis of a numerical count is not a good decision...
Steve
Who in this case are you asking to do the "determining genuine consensus"?
Why should I accept their resoning over that of someone else? You see the problem.
On 8/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Who in this case are you asking to do the "determining genuine consensus"?
Why should I accept their resoning over that of someone else? You see the problem.
I see the problem in *theory* but not in *practice*. In practice there are very few disputes over consensus. The people who close these discussions tend to be clueful and have been around a while. They're not just random people - they deserve some respect.
When your friend says "hey I asked around and everyone wants to go bowling", do you say "what do you mean, 'everyone'? Did you get at least 75%?" No, you accept that they're not out to screw you over, and a good result will be achieved...
Steve
On 8/21/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I see the problem in *theory* but not in *practice*. In practice there are very few disputes over consensus. The people who close these discussions tend to be clueful and have been around a while. They're not just random people - they deserve some respect.
There are few dissputes over consensus these days because generaly it is defined. Or do you want to see what would happen if a buracrat passed an admin at 69% or failed them at 81%?
When your friend says "hey I asked around and everyone wants to go bowling", do you say "what do you mean, 'everyone'? Did you get at least 75%?" No, you accept that they're not out to screw you over, and a good result will be achieved...
Steve
Except of course in this case I know what the percentage is and the arguments used and in theory at least I am in a position to draw my own judgement.
On 8/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
There are few dissputes over consensus these days because generaly it is defined. Or do you want to see what would happen if a buracrat passed an admin at 69% or failed them at 81%?
Dammit, it's not a vote. Or if it is, let's call it that. I would be perfectly happy to see someone with 90% fail it was 9 pokemon newbies in favour and Jimbo Wales against. Similarly in the reverse case.
It happens that in most cases the result of treating a discussion as a consensus-finding matter is similar to treating it as a vote - but that does not mean it's a vote. Sigh.
Except of course in this case I know what the percentage is and the arguments used and in theory at least I am in a position to draw my own judgement.
And if you don't like the decision made by the discussion closer, there should be a mechanism to reopen the discussion. Administrator discretion zones my arse, if there is genuine dissent with the outcome, then it should be discussed until an agreement is reached.
Steve
On 8/21/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
There are few dissputes over consensus these days because generaly it is defined. Or do you want to see what would happen if a buracrat passed an admin at 69% or failed them at 81%?
Dammit, it's not a vote. Or if it is, let's call it that. I would be perfectly happy to see someone with 90% fail it was 9 pokemon newbies in favour and Jimbo Wales against. Similarly in the reverse case.
Doesn't seem to happen on WP:RFA so nothinbg something we need concern ourselves with in this case
And if you don't like the decision made by the discussion closer, there should be a mechanism to reopen the discussion. Administrator discretion zones my arse, if there is genuine dissent with the outcome, then it should be discussed until an agreement is reached.
Steve
First I'm being told that long running debate is a bad idea and now I'm being told we should keep reopening discussions. It would appear there is a lack of consensus on this issue (which is just the way I like it but no matter).
On 8/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't seem to happen on WP:RFA so nothinbg something we need concern ourselves with in this case
Is there *anything* about WP:RFA which we can either be proud of or want to apply elsewhere on Wikipedia?
Steve
On 8/22/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Is there *anything* about WP:RFA which we can either be proud of or want to apply elsewhere on Wikipedia?
Steve
Yes it suceeds in keeping almost all the moaning localised.
On 22/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't seem to happen on WP:RFA so nothinbg something we need concern ourselves with in this case
Is there *anything* about WP:RFA which we can either be proud of or want to apply elsewhere on Wikipedia?
[[Horrible Example]]
- d.
G'day David,
On 22/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't seem to happen on WP:RFA so nothinbg something we need concern ourselves with in this case
Is there *anything* about WP:RFA which we can either be proud of or want to apply elsewhere on Wikipedia?
[[Horrible Example]]
That reminds me of a quotation you may have heard before (I know Tony has):
If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Who in this case are you asking to do the "determining genuine consensus"?
Why should I accept their resoning over that of someone else? You see the problem.
I see the problem in *theory* but not in *practice*. In practice there are very few disputes over consensus. The people who close these discussions tend to be clueful and have been around a while. They're not just random people - they deserve some respect.
When your friend says "hey I asked around and everyone wants to go bowling", do you say "what do you mean, 'everyone'? Did you get at least 75%?" No, you accept that they're not out to screw you over, and a good result will be achieved...
... except that sometimes, you need to put your foot down and say "There is no way that we're going bowling; you guys /always/ suggest we go bowling, and it's a dumb idea, because we always end up complaining how boring and stupid it is. We're going ice skating" and everyone realises "Oh yeah, you're right, how stupid of us" and you end up going ice skating, which is a far better idea than going bowling.
I forget who said it (probably David Gerard), but it's incredibly true: Wikipedia doesn't scale. "Consensus" works when you're confident that everyone who's involved Has A Clue. When you've got a thousand wolves in sheep's clothing, and you can't tell who is which (because there are so bloody many of them! ever tried counting sheep?), that's when "consensus" falls flat on its face.
On 21/08/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
I forget who said it (probably David Gerard), but it's incredibly true: Wikipedia doesn't scale.
Wasn't me, that I recall ...
"Consensus" works when you're confident that everyone who's involved Has A Clue. When you've got a thousand wolves in sheep's clothing, and you can't tell who is which (because there are so bloody many of them! ever tried counting sheep?), that's when "consensus" falls flat on its face.
It fails when you can no longer assume everyone isn't stupid.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 21/08/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
I forget who said it (probably David Gerard), but it's incredibly true: Wikipedia doesn't scale.
Wasn't me, that I recall ...
Oh well :)
"Consensus" works when you're confident that everyone who's involved Has A Clue. When you've got a thousand wolves in sheep's clothing, and you can't tell who is which (because there are so bloody many of them! ever tried counting sheep?), that's when "consensus" falls flat on its face.
It fails when you can no longer assume everyone isn't stupid.
That's kinda what I meant by using the term "sheep"; the "wolves" are the malicious nutters thrown into the mix... :-/
Steve Bennett wrote:
Notability at the fact level is even harder to determine than notability at the subject level. Ask a republican whether Bush's alleged administrative adventures in the National Guard were "notable". Ask a Democrat the same.
Hmm, I might be convinced by what you are saying here, but this example does not seem compelling to me. I think, based on my limited recollection of this case, that it more or less turned out that the "alleged administrative adventures" were more or less cooked up, i.e. that this was a non-scandal. But I would suspect that reasonable Republicans would take the same view that I do: the overall incident is still notable, of course.
But I still might agree with your basic point, that notability at the fact level is harder to determine that notability at the subject level.
Steve Bennett wrote:
Notability at the fact level is even harder to determine than notability at the subject level. Ask a republican whether Bush's alleged administrative adventures in the National Guard were "notable". Ask a Democrat the same.
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
But I still might agree with your basic point, that notability at the fact level is harder to determine that notability at the subject level.
Or to put it another way: Should there be a WP:FAME policy? Not to be too much of a smart alec, but this thread is about "defamation" after all. To be fair, in my criticism I may have been confusing WP:OFFICE, WP:LIBEL, and WP:BIO, and wound up somehow blending all of these together.
So its good IMHO to see that people here have *finally* been able to re-spin WP:BIO in terms of NPOV, rather than making all of these references to LAWSUIT and CUDDLE, which were entirely confusing.
Once again the criticism has helped to clarify the message.
- Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 8/20/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Hmm, I might be convinced by what you are saying here, but this example does not seem compelling to me. I think, based on my limited recollection of this case, that it more or less turned out that the "alleged administrative adventures" were more or less cooked up, i.e. that this was a non-scandal. But I would suspect that reasonable Republicans would take the same view that I do: the overall incident is still notable, of course.
Yes, it was a bad example :) A better example might be a scientific study which is criticised by a religious group. Science-minded editors would probably consider that criticism of little interest. Others might find it relevant. Similarly, a scientific evaluation of a paranormal claim might not be considered worth much of a mention by most editors of the paranormal article (presumably those interested in such things...)
Now, to really let my biases show, I would probably be a bad offender in these cases. I tend to consider scientific studies of paranormal or pseudoscience claims *not* to be relevant, as the mere fact of the study lends too much credence to the field. Probably why I keep well away from such articles :)
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
Yes, it was a bad example :) A better example might be a scientific
study which is criticised by a religious group. Science-minded editors would probably consider that criticism of little interest. Others might find it relevant. Similarly, a scientific evaluation of a paranormal claim might not be considered worth much of a mention by most editors of the paranormal article (presumably those interested in such things...)
Now, to really let my biases show, I would probably be a bad offender in these cases. I tend to consider scientific studies of paranormal or pseudoscience claims *not* to be relevant, as the mere fact of the study lends too much credence to the field. Probably why I keep well away from such articles :)
Sigh! I am clearly more likely to give credence to paranormal matters than you, but distinct and separate from the doctrine of religious groups. I have no reason to object to scientific evaluations of the paranormal. If, as you suggest, both sides of this divide avoid scientific evaluation, it is dificult to see how any progress can be made. It doesn't help that most scientific evaluation in this area tend to be remarkably inconclusive, and fail to give a knockout blow for either side.
Ec
On 8/21/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
made. It doesn't help that most scientific evaluation in this area tend to be remarkably inconclusive, and fail to give a knockout blow for either side.
Which is kind of the problem, and articles end up falling into the trap of "is it real, is it not", with lots of material debating whether proof exists either way. Whereas often these things are just best treated as social phenomenons, like "for some reason, people have decided to believe that X". It would be like filling [[Jesus]] with material debating his existence or attempting to debunk his miracles - to me, it would just be missing the point.
Steve
On 8/22/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
made. It doesn't help that most scientific evaluation in this area tend to be remarkably inconclusive, and fail to give a knockout blow for either side.
Which is kind of the problem, and articles end up falling into the trap of "is it real, is it not", with lots of material debating whether proof exists either way. Whereas often these things are just best treated as social phenomenons, like "for some reason, people have decided to believe that X".
The people who have decided to believe that X would probably object.
It would be like filling [[Jesus]] with material debating his existence or attempting to debunk his miracles - to me, it would just be missing the point.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/22/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The people who have decided to believe that X would probably object.
Here's a concrete example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_Cross
The article, by an large, doesn't attempt to assess whether this is "really" a cross or not. It just focuses on the people's response to it. Isn't that an example?
Steve
On 8/22/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/22/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The people who have decided to believe that X would probably object.
Here's a concrete example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_Cross
The article, by an large, doesn't attempt to assess whether this is "really" a cross or not. It just focuses on the people's response to it. Isn't that an example?
Steve
Fails to mention a simular phernomermon at coventry cathedral after it got bombed.
I doubt you would getr very far applying that aproach to [[9/11 conspiracy theories]] , [[homeopathy]] and [[Uri Geller]]
The example is compelling when one is aware of the facts and not merely a single well publicized even in mass media spin. This may be a useful example for your PR issues also. http://www.prwatch.org/node/2921 http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/20/bush_guard_records/index.html http://www.prwatch.org/node/2916
Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote: Steve Bennett wrote:
Notability at the fact level is even harder to determine than notability at the subject level. Ask a republican whether Bush's alleged administrative adventures in the National Guard were "notable". Ask a Democrat the same.
Hmm, I might be convinced by what you are saying here, but this example does not seem compelling to me. I think, based on my limited recollection of this case, that it more or less turned out that the "alleged administrative adventures" were more or less cooked up, i.e. that this was a non-scandal. But I would suspect that reasonable Republicans would take the same view that I do: the overall incident is still notable, of course.
But I still might agree with your basic point, that notability at the fact level is harder to determine that notability at the subject level.
--------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
On 19/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
respect to deletion, I cannot abide the suggestion that the community writ large truly believe, legal/publicity concerns aside, that we ever ought to concern ourselves with the external consequences of our editing.
I do. For barely notable people, information in Wikipedia could have a disproportionate effect on their life. We should be aware of that, and behave accordingly.
Incidentally, one of the arguments occasionally surfacing wrt notability is "if the Wikipedia article is going to help make this organisation famous, they're not notable"
Perhaps a corrolary is "if the Wikipedia article can significantly influence its subject compared to anything else written about them, should we have it?"
On 19/08/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, one of the arguments occasionally surfacing wrt notability is "if the Wikipedia article is going to help make this organisation famous, they're not notable" Perhaps a corrolary is "if the Wikipedia article can significantly influence its subject compared to anything else written about them, should we have it?"
That sounds useful as a rule of thumb, though I wouldn't like to make it a solid rule. I'm thinking of articles that are more on the synthesis side than the restated list of facts side. Though no examples spring to my mind. Hmm ...
- d.
On 8/19/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps a corrolary is "if the Wikipedia article can significantly influence its subject compared to anything else written about them, should we have it?"
If a Wikipedia article can't influence the public's perception of a subject, why bother having it?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/19/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps a corrolary is "if the Wikipedia article can significantly influence its subject compared to anything else written about them, should we have it?"
If a Wikipedia article can't influence the public's perception of a subject, why bother having it?
I'm sorry, I must be hearing things. For a moment I thought you said "Why do we have this stupid thing called NPOV?"
[apologies to Steve, who gets this twice]
On 19/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/19/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps a corrolary is "if the Wikipedia article can significantly influence its subject compared to anything else written about them, should we have it?"
If a Wikipedia article can't influence the public's perception of a subject, why bother having it?
Ah, now, I didn't say that. Note "compared to anything else written about them". We should have good, informative articles; so should the newspaper which mentions the organisation, or the biographical dictionary which has a paragraph on the person.
But we shouldn't be the only ones publishing the story about so-and-so's messy divorce. We shouldn't be the only ones pulling together this court record and that advertisment and another press release to say that the company has systematically defrauded its customers.
If we can influence people to think, that's good. But if we can influence them to think where no other published source would influence them to think... are we really being an encyclopedia, republishing knowledge, or is this a sign we're getting into original research?
It applies disproportionately to less-notable people, and I feel it ought to. Just because we can write a factual article doesn't mean we *should*...
jahiegel wrote:
and of the disfavoring by the community of Jimbo's "human dignity" formulation with respect to deletion,
??? I rather think that my proposal met with overwhelming support from the community, after some clarifications were made.
I cannot abide the suggestion that the community writ large truly believe, legal/publicity concerns aside, that we ever ought to concern ourselves with the external consequences of our editing.
You are in the extreme minority on this issue. Most of us do care passionately about the ethics of what we are doing, and how it affects people. Indeed, for most of us, it is part of the very fabric of the reasons we participate. We are human beings, trying to do something good, not automatons puking out soulless "content".
Your position seems to grudgingly admit that we ought not to libel people, since it might cost the project money or put it at risk. Most of us take a different view: we ought not to libel people because we are good, we are ethical, we are trying to produce something important in the world that matters to the world, and we want to do it the right way.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
jahiegel wrote:
I cannot abide the suggestion that the community writ large truly believe, legal/publicity concerns aside, that we ever ought to concern ourselves with the external consequences of our editing.
You are in the extreme minority on this issue. Most of us do care passionately about the ethics of what we are doing, and how it affects people. Indeed, for most of us, it is part of the very fabric of the reasons we participate. We are human beings, trying to do something good, not automatons puking out soulless "content".
Your position seems to grudgingly admit that we ought not to libel people, since it might cost the project money or put it at risk. Most of us take a different view: we ought not to libel people because we are good, we are ethical, we are trying to produce something important in the world that matters to the world, and we want to do it the right way.
You're preaching to the enlightened! Those of us who believe in this probably all did so before we ever heard of Wikipedia, and mostly gained it through life experience. Reading Aristotle's ethics would not change this, just as reading Aristotle would by itself not produce an ethical person.
Regret it as I may, I have to admit that the vast majority of society have a great deal of difficulty coping without rules. When you want to build on ethics it can be painful watching those who can't get it, and tempting to take over and give them the rules they want. But doing that comes with a price. The same contrast exists between a person with a fifth grade education that builds a successful business empire and an MBA that can't seem to rise above middle management.
An ethical person not only avoids putting others at risk, but he accepts the personal risk of his own actions. He knows enough to take the risk of breaking rules for a good cause.
Ec
On 8/20/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
jahiegel wrote:
I cannot abide the suggestion that the community writ large truly believe, legal/publicity concerns aside, that we ever ought to concern ourselves with the external consequences of our editing.
You are in the extreme minority on this issue. Most of us do care passionately about the ethics of what we are doing, and how it affects people. Indeed, for most of us, it is part of the very fabric of the reasons we participate. We are human beings, trying to do something good, not automatons puking out soulless "content".
Your position seems to grudgingly admit that we ought not to libel people, since it might cost the project money or put it at risk. Most of us take a different view: we ought not to libel people because we are good, we are ethical, we are trying to produce something important in the world that matters to the world, and we want to do it the right way.
You're preaching to the enlightened! Those of us who believe in this probably all did so before we ever heard of Wikipedia, and mostly gained it through life experience. Reading Aristotle's ethics would not change this, just as reading Aristotle would by itself not produce an ethical person.
Regret it as I may, I have to admit that the vast majority of society have a great deal of difficulty coping without rules. When you want to build on ethics it can be painful watching those who can't get it, and tempting to take over and give them the rules they want. But doing that comes with a price. The same contrast exists between a person with a fifth grade education that builds a successful business empire and an MBA that can't seem to rise above middle management.
An ethical person not only avoids putting others at risk, but he accepts the personal risk of his own actions. He knows enough to take the risk of breaking rules for a good cause.
Ec
See also the [[Milgram experiment]]. It certainly seems to be the case that a large portion of society has difficulty making ethical decisions when rules are lacking. More specifically, perhaps, when rules are taken away.
As an obligatory on-topic remark, I agree 100% with what Jimbo has just said. Libel laws or none, Wikipedia shouldn't be spreading unsubstantiated rumors. Fortunately US libel laws don't seem to preclude any speech that we should be making in the first place. Unfortunately, my understanding is that some foreign laws may, specifically when quoting another party's defamatory statement (with citation and attribution).
Anthony
Sam is a great wikipedian, with a very keen mind. I think his explanation of this point here is marvelous.
Sam Korn wrote:
On 8/18/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
In the context of WP:OFFICE, as well as more recently, Jimbo and others have written somethings about "hurt feelings," as if it was a policy ( WP:CODDLE maybe) which could circumvent even important policy ( WP:NPOV maybe). Could you explain this?
No. No no no no no. That is not the aim at all. NPOV can never be compromised. All that is different between a biography of a living person and, for example, an article on the geography of southern Brazil is that it is more likely that the article on the living person will have potentially defamatory information added. This may or may not lead to legal action, but it most certainly is likely to lead to bad press for Wikipedia.
All that is required is a more *rigourous* application of our verifibility policy for these more sensitive articles. That is not a bad thing; indeed it is the real essence of NPOV.
We don't live in some cloud-cuckoo land where our mistakes don't have consequences. They do. The answer is to make sure that our mistakes are quickly corrected and that the damage does not continue.
I agree with the idea of treating bios with care, but that does not necessarily necessitate the use of an entirely different methodology than any other wiki page - including censoring talk pages.
No, an "entirely different methodology" is not needed. All that is needed is a more rigourous application of our current policies. These rely upon (yes, rely upon, not just use as a bonus) the use of common sense. Most unsourced claims do not need to be blitzed into oblivion. Yet some do, and it is this balance that WP:LIVING must attempt to measure. It is better to be cautious in this area, because it is reckless and thoroughly unacceptable to say "Oh, don't blame us that our encylopaedia accuses you of being a repeat sex offender, it just happens because of the wiki process. It's your problem you're getting so upset."
On 8/18/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The requirement not to move potentially defamatory material to talk pages is because they're cached by Google (and even if they weren't, they're read by a lot of people), and the point is to stop the spread of the defamation. [snip]
There are lots of ways material can be discussed with directly referring to it, and people can ask for a reliable source for all edits without specifying the particular edit that's caused the problem. We don't need to say: "Do you have a source for the claim that Professor Sir John Doe was seen with a woman not his wife in a nightclub last night?"
I'm sorry, but I don't see how that question is "potentially defamatory", assuming that someone actually did make such a claim.
Anthony
On 8/18/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
... Someone in that case was posting long screeds of damaging claims to the talk page because editors were resisting allowing it into the article.
There are lots of ways material can be discussed with directly referring to it, and people can ask for a reliable source for all edits....
For the record, the "screeds" were in fact direct quotes with proper cites
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_El...
added without comment
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&oldid=2899231...
In sum, a proper cite was deemed a "personal attack" on a "privileged expert".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability&d...
On Aug 18, 2006, at 1:40 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
I'm particularly concerned about the "or its talk page" bit.
What about doing some "transposing" here, and put ourselves in the shoes of that living person about which unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is posted in an article or talk page? Would we still be having this conversation?
Jimbo's comment about "Most of us do care passionately about the ethics of what we are doing, and how it affects people" is worthy of being featured prominently somewhere in our policy pages.
-- Jossi
Jossi Fresco wrote:
Jimbo's comment about "Most of us do care passionately about the ethics of what we are doing, and how it affects people" is worthy of being featured prominently somewhere in our policy pages.
Ethics, as always, is a complex subject. There are many people that are potentially affected by Wikipedia. Jimbo correctly points out that the subjects of biographical articles are among them. However also among them are readers or potential readers of content. At least some subset of us participate in Wikipedia out of an ethical concern that information availability should be levelled. Therefore some of us are worried that competing ethical concerns that others place higher will compromise that one that I at least consider primary.
Of course, some concerns are complementary---information is no good if it's disinformation, and so strongly promoting a culture of citing sources serves both ends at the same time. Some suggestions that we leave out "unimportant" but true facts are a little more problematic, though, and suggestions that we shouldn't be able to have open discussions during the article-writing process are even more problematic.
-Mark
On Aug 20, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Delirium wrote:
Some suggestions that we leave out "unimportant" but true facts are a little more problematic, though, and suggestions that we shouldn't be able to have open discussions during the article-writing process are even more problematic.
No one is asserting that, Mark.
We can discuss such issues in talk pages by removing content and using diffs (that are not spidered by Google). All the discussion needs to be in these cases could be as simple as: "I have removed your comment as per [[WP:BLP]]. You can see it [http://Diff_URL here]. Please provide a reliable source that describe this viewpoint. Thanks."
-- Jossi
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Aug 20, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Delirium wrote:
Some suggestions that we leave out "unimportant" but true facts are a little more problematic, though, and suggestions that we shouldn't be able to have open discussions during the article-writing process are even more problematic.
No one is asserting that, Mark.
We can discuss such issues in talk pages by removing content and using diffs (that are not spidered by Google). All the discussion needs to be in these cases could be as simple as: "I have removed your comment as per [[WP:BLP]]. You can see it [http://Diff_URL here]. Please provide a reliable source that describe this viewpoint. Thanks."
I'm discussing the case where the content wasn't added in the first place, but is first brought up on the talk page. For example, I might recall something about a politicians' scandal that isn't currently in the article, and ask if anyone who has access to a better research database can find any references. People are proposing that I shouldn't be allowed to post this---even on the talk page---unless I've first dug up solid references myself, because it's unsourced information that would be libelous if false.
-Mark