The AP has now latched onto the COO story, I caught this when checking out Fox News.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317887,00.html
Now, I have previously argued that Doran wasn't notable on the talk page of the article (both article and talk page are currently deleted and, I presume, salted) and I will leave it to brighter minds than mine whether or not major media reports make a difference to her notability or the notability of the story. Nonetheless, people might want to put their thinking caps on because somebody is much more likely to take the deletion to DRV now. I'm posting this to the list as opposed to AN to reduce the signal to noise ratio, knowing that there are many people moderated here right now but that a range of opinions is still available and the list is publicly accessible.
I feel kind of sad to be posting this, but given that the first round of deletions and other actions led to some hard feelings all around, it's probably better to develop an action plan before someone does something that leads to unnecessary drama. I am AFK for the next 8 hours so won't be involving myself in any discussion.
Risker
On 21/12/2007, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
The AP has now latched onto the COO story, I caught this when checking out Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317887,00.html Now, I have previously argued that Doran wasn't notable on the talk page of the article (both article and talk page are currently deleted and, I presume, salted) and I will leave it to brighter minds than mine whether or not major media reports make a difference to her notability or the notability of the story. Nonetheless, people might want to put their thinking caps on because somebody is much more likely to take the deletion to DRV now.
It's a pretty clear single-incident bio - [[WP:BLP1E]].
"When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.
"Coverage in Reliable sources may at times be extensive and may expand upon the person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy or sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event. In that case, the discussion of the person should be broken out from the event article in summary style."
- d.
It's a pretty clear single-incident bio - [[WP:BLP1E]].
Is it, though? What is the single-incident? The story breaking? In which case, we end up with news coverage being the story rather than covering the story, and everything goes haywire (we only have primary sources, for a start, which suggests it's not notable). If she's notable, it's for a series of crimes and a spell as COO of WMF, not for a single incident, thus she should get her own article, rather than there being an article on the story.
Viewed in that light, I'd say she probably isn't notable. Consider the "Will anyone care in X amount of time?" approach - I'd say the answer is "no" for quite small values of X (6 months, or so).
On 21/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It's a pretty clear single-incident bio - [[WP:BLP1E]].
Is it, though? What is the single-incident? The story breaking? In which case, we end up with news coverage being the story rather than covering the story, and everything goes haywire (we only have primary sources, for a start, which suggests it's not notable). If she's notable, it's for a series of crimes and a spell as COO of WMF, not for a single incident, thus she should get her own article, rather than there being an article on the story. Viewed in that light, I'd say she probably isn't notable. Consider the "Will anyone care in X amount of time?" approach - I'd say the answer is "no" for quite small values of X (6 months, or so).
It would belong in [[Wikimedia Foundation]], then, as a notable incident. If anyone cares down the track (they obviously care now).
- d.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
It's a pretty clear single-incident bio - [[WP:BLP1E]].
Is it, though? What is the single-incident? The story breaking? In which case, we end up with news coverage being the story rather than covering the story, and everything goes haywire (we only have primary sources, for a start, which suggests it's not notable). If she's notable, it's for a series of crimes and a spell as COO of WMF, not for a single incident, thus she should get her own article, rather than there being an article on the story.
Viewed in that light, I'd say she probably isn't notable. Consider the "Will anyone care in X amount of time?" approach - I'd say the answer is "no" for quite small values of X (6 months, or so).
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'd say she's worth two or three lines on the Wikimedia Foundation article at most. A bio? No chance. Not unless she turn out to be Jimbo's long-lost sister and goes on to cure cancer.
Other than the fact she has a criminal record she's not notable - the notability (if any) is in what the Foundation did (or failed to do), and the media commentary is all on that. The media are not even interested in her, but in WMF, there's little chance of her autobiography becoming a mini-series.
However, having said all of that, do we really need the publicity and the crappy calls of 'censorship' that a DRV entails. Let the bio be created, and then merge it with WMF in a month or two.
Doc
I created the original article, and while I agree that it was problematic (in that the only reference to the claim of convictions was, originally, the Register article) I think there are sufficient other sources to allay BLP concerns - and now sufficient other coverage to allay notability concerns. I also believe that the attempts by some to deal with the perceived urgent issues were hasty, in particular the desysop. I'll wait on the DRV to hear what others on this list believe is the appropriate next step. As an aside, how does Charles Ainsworth (Cla68, I believe) end up commenting in every news article? Sheesh.
Nathan
On Dec 21, 2007 4:10 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
The AP has now latched onto the COO story, I caught this when checking out Fox News.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317887,00.html
Now, I have previously argued that Doran wasn't notable on the talk page of the article (both article and talk page are currently deleted and, I presume, salted) and I will leave it to brighter minds than mine whether or not major media reports make a difference to her notability or the notability of the story. Nonetheless, people might want to put their thinking caps on because somebody is much more likely to take the deletion to DRV now. I'm posting this to the list as opposed to AN to reduce the signal to noise ratio, knowing that there are many people moderated here right now but that a range of opinions is still available and the list is publicly accessible.
I feel kind of sad to be posting this, but given that the first round of deletions and other actions led to some hard feelings all around, it's probably better to develop an action plan before someone does something that leads to unnecessary drama. I am AFK for the next 8 hours so won't be involving myself in any discussion.
Risker _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 21/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
As an aside, how does Charles Ainsworth (Cla68, I believe) end up commenting in every news article? Sheesh.
The AP reporter was contacting donors and fishing for quotes; after they all told him to bugger off, I expect he went wherever he could find the quote he was looking for. Why report the news when you can go out of your way to make it?
- d.
The AP reporter was contacting donors and fishing for quotes; after they all told him to bugger off, I expect he went wherever he could find the quote he was looking for. Why report the news when you can go out of your way to make it?
Oh, come on. There are plenty of people talking about how they won't give money to wikipedia because of this -- just go to digg or reddit and you'll see far harsher slams voted into the stratosphere. Plus, the AP article also closes with an opposing view:
"So far, the project's core supporters appear forgiving.
Philip Greenspun, a computer scientist who recently gave the foundation $20,000, said he wasn't surprised the foundation would stumble on a background check, something that "isn't core to their mission."
"I would be more dismayed," he said, "by a lengthy server outage.""
WP:BLP1E
There is no problem with covering the situation in appropriate places, but normal consensus about BLP's is that we don't have articles about people who have had some new coverage only due to a single negative event. It may seem like Wikipedia is the center of the universe, but it actually isn't. :)
Random sample found by searching in google for "coo scandal": http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/7813032
A brief search of Wikipedia shows that in this case of a fraud alleged by the SEC to have involved $8.2 million profit to the CFO and COO of this company, we have nothing on either person, nor on the company, nor on the scandal.
http://www.cnet.com/8301-13555_1-9805001-34.html
This story talks about the same event as a $200 million fraud. The CEO, about whom we do not have an article, is charged.
I am not arguing that we should or should not have an article on this other case (but please let's not have my use of this example trigger an idiotic war about it!).
I am just arguing that there is absolutely no way in hell we would have an article in the case of Carolyn Doran, were it not for Wikipedia navel-gazing. There was no fraud (that we know of), nothing bad happened to us (that we know of), it is just an embarassment and for this poor woman, her rather sad life story is now in the Associated Press. But this whole thing is still amply covered by BLP1E and non-Wikipedia precedent and tradition.
Nathan Awrich wrote:
I created the original article, and while I agree that it was problematic (in that the only reference to the claim of convictions was, originally, the Register article) I think there are sufficient other sources to allay BLP concerns - and now sufficient other coverage to allay notability concerns. I also believe that the attempts by some to deal with the perceived urgent issues were hasty, in particular the desysop. I'll wait on the DRV to hear what others on this list believe is the appropriate next step. As an aside, how does Charles Ainsworth (Cla68, I believe) end up commenting in every news article? Sheesh.
Nathan
On Dec 21, 2007 4:10 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
The AP has now latched onto the COO story, I caught this when checking out Fox News.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317887,00.html
Now, I have previously argued that Doran wasn't notable on the talk page of the article (both article and talk page are currently deleted and, I presume, salted) and I will leave it to brighter minds than mine whether or not major media reports make a difference to her notability or the notability of the story. Nonetheless, people might want to put their thinking caps on because somebody is much more likely to take the deletion to DRV now. I'm posting this to the list as opposed to AN to reduce the signal to noise ratio, knowing that there are many people moderated here right now but that a range of opinions is still available and the list is publicly accessible.
I feel kind of sad to be posting this, but given that the first round of deletions and other actions led to some hard feelings all around, it's probably better to develop an action plan before someone does something that leads to unnecessary drama. I am AFK for the next 8 hours so won't be involving myself in any discussion.
Risker _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 21/12/2007, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
WP:BLP1E
There is no problem with covering the situation in appropriate places, but normal consensus about BLP's is that we don't have articles about people who have had some new coverage only due to a single negative event. It may seem like Wikipedia is the center of the universe, but it actually isn't. :)
Random sample found by searching in google for "coo scandal": http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/7813032
A brief search of Wikipedia shows that in this case of a fraud alleged by the SEC to have involved $8.2 million profit to the CFO and COO of this company, we have nothing on either person, nor on the company, nor on the scandal.
http://www.cnet.com/8301-13555_1-9805001-34.html
This story talks about the same event as a $200 million fraud. The CEO, about whom we do not have an article, is charged.
I am not arguing that we should or should not have an article on this other case (but please let's not have my use of this example trigger an idiotic war about it!).
I am just arguing that there is absolutely no way in hell we would have an article in the case of Carolyn Doran, were it not for Wikipedia navel-gazing. There was no fraud (that we know of), nothing bad happened to us (that we know of), it is just an embarassment and for this poor woman, her rather sad life story is now in the Associated Press. But this whole thing is still amply covered by BLP1E and non-Wikipedia precedent and tradition.
I don't see how this falls under BLP1E, since it doesn't boil down to a single event in any way that I can see. That policy isn't critical to your point, though, so you're still absolutely correct in your conclusions.
On 21/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I am just arguing that there is absolutely no way in hell we would have an article in the case of Carolyn Doran, were it not for Wikipedia navel-gazing. There was no fraud (that we know of), nothing bad happened to us (that we know of), it is just an embarassment and for this poor woman, her rather sad life story is now in the Associated Press. But this whole thing is still amply covered by BLP1E and non-Wikipedia precedent and tradition.
I don't see how this falls under BLP1E, since it doesn't boil down to a single event in any way that I can see.
The single "notable" event is this massive fuss. It stems from a series of independent events, none of which are independently notable - we wouldn't write an article about someone who did one or another or even all of her various past misdemeanours.
The single "notable" event is this massive fuss.
In that case, it most certainly isn't notable. You can argue that the story is notable, but the fact that newspapers have reported the news certainly is not. There hasn't been any response to this that hasn't been perfectly routine for the media.
On 21/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see how this falls under BLP1E, since it doesn't boil down to a single event in any way that I can see. That policy isn't critical to your point, though, so you're still absolutely correct in your conclusions.
Just out of curioaity, what are the multiple significant events?
On 23/12/2007, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see how this falls under BLP1E, since it doesn't boil down to a single event in any way that I can see. That policy isn't critical to your point, though, so you're still absolutely correct in your conclusions.
Just out of curioaity, what are the multiple significant events?
I'm not sure there are any significant events, but if shooting her boyfriend is significant, then so is the hit and run, for example. I don't think you can really have the The Register story as the event, because that's just a newspaper publishing news, it's the news which is interesting, not the publishing of it.
On 23/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/12/2007, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Just out of curioaity, what are the multiple significant events?
I'm not sure there are any significant events, but if shooting her boyfriend is significant, then so is the hit and run, for example. I don't think you can really have the The Register story as the event, because that's just a newspaper publishing news, it's the news which is interesting, not the publishing of it.
I thought you might be thinking along those lines. I don't think we'd normally consider hit-and-runs, shootings and the like as meriting an article. There are a lot of convicted felons around. The story here seems to me to pertain at most to the Foundation's lapses of governance, so a biographical article wouldn't normally be merited.
On 24/12/2007, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/12/2007, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Just out of curioaity, what are the multiple significant events?
I'm not sure there are any significant events, but if shooting her boyfriend is significant, then so is the hit and run, for example. I don't think you can really have the The Register story as the event, because that's just a newspaper publishing news, it's the news which is interesting, not the publishing of it.
I thought you might be thinking along those lines. I don't think we'd normally consider hit-and-runs, shootings and the like as meriting an article. There are a lot of convicted felons around. The story here seems to me to pertain at most to the Foundation's lapses of governance, so a biographical article wouldn't normally be merited.
I wouldn't consider hit-and-runs etc. as meriting an article either, that's why I said I wasn't sure there was *any* significant events. So you're suggesting the "single event" is her being hired by the foundation?
On 24/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't consider hit-and-runs etc. as meriting an article either, that's why I said I wasn't sure there was *any* significant events. So you're suggesting the "single event" is her being hired by the foundation?
Yes, it's the only thing that might force us to catalog the appalling events of this person's life in an encyclopedia. We're not Facebook. Being in Wikipedia can *hurt*, it can *kill*. We need to be sure that we really need to interfere with somebody's life that much. This applies to *every single living person* documented by Wikipedia, not just this former employee. It's why we have a "Biographies of living persons" (BLP) policy. We owe a duty to humanity, and specifically to our subjecs, not to make things worse. We're here to nmake things BETTER. Did you forget that?
Merry Christmas!
On 25/12/2007, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, it's the only thing that might force us to catalog the appalling events of this person's life in an encyclopedia. We're not Facebook.
What has facebook got to do with anything.
Being in Wikipedia can *hurt*, it can *kill*.
So can many things.
We need to be sure that we really need to interfere with somebody's life that much.
"that much" umm compared to the extent the US authorities appear to be prepared to interfere nothing wikipedia could do is very significant.
This applies to *every single living person* documented by Wikipedia, not just this former employee. It's why we have a "Biographies of living persons" (BLP) policy. We owe a duty to humanity, and specifically to our subjecs, not to make things worse.
Worse is a subjective judgment and in any case is impossible to certain of with sub infinite data sets (see chaos theory).
We're here to nmake things BETTER. Did you forget that?
No we are here to build an encyclopedia.
From: Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com
We owe a duty to humanity, and specifically to our subjecs, not to make things worse. We're here to nmake things BETTER. Did you forget that?
Humanity _first_, our subjects _second_, IMO. We're not in the business of publishing Haigographies. I see BLP as a lawsuit-avoidance mechanism, not some grand statement of fundamental ideals like NPOV or Verifiability are.
"Making things better" is a subjective goal, please don't assume that people who disagree with your particular interpretation of what would accomplish it aren't actually striving to make things better in their own way. Assume good faith.
On Dec 24, 2007 8:27 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't consider hit-and-runs etc. as meriting an article either, that's why I said I wasn't sure there was *any* significant events. So you're suggesting the "single event" is her being hired by the foundation?
Yes, it's the only thing that might force us to catalog the appalling events of this person's life in an encyclopedia. We're not Facebook. Being in Wikipedia can *hurt*, it can *kill*.
And so can *not* being in Wikipedia.
I'm sorry, the idea that Wikipedia shouldn't include information about people convicted of serious crimes (*) because it might hurt their feelings doesn't strike me as valid. Unless, I guess, you're suggesting that Wikipedia shouldn't have biographies about anyone at all.
(*) Don't bring up some strawman about victimless or petty crimes. We're talking about someone who recklessly caused the death of one person and who intentionally shot another in the chest.
On 25/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
(*) Don't bring up some strawman about victimless or petty crimes. We're talking about someone who recklessly caused the death of one person and who intentionally shot another in the chest.
It's not a strawman. We would never have an article on someone who did that, normally.
We're an *encyclopedia*; I myself spent hours some time ago digging through categories of people listed as criminals to try to get rid of the ones who were there as some kind of proxy for a court record or a sex offender registry. I never saw a single complaint about it in the general case, just bickering over individual instances being 'notable' or not.
"Commiting a serious crime" - short of something famously scandalous, or mass murder, or something that caused changes in jurisprudence - is not and has never been accepted by the community as a reasonable basis for inclusion of a biography. I don't see why it should change just because we know of them.
On Dec 25, 2007 3:15 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
(*) Don't bring up some strawman about victimless or petty crimes. We're talking about someone who recklessly caused the death of one person and who intentionally shot another in the chest.
It's not a strawman. We would never have an article on someone who did that, normally.
Sure it's a strawman, because no one is arguing about victimless or petty crimes.
We're an *encyclopedia*; I myself spent hours some time ago digging through categories of people listed as criminals to try to get rid of the ones who were there as some kind of proxy for a court record or a sex offender registry. I never saw a single complaint about it in the general case, just bickering over individual instances being 'notable' or not.
"Commiting a serious crime" - short of something famously scandalous, or mass murder, or something that caused changes in jurisprudence - is not and has never been accepted by the community as a reasonable basis for inclusion of a biography.
Well, FWIW, I never said it was.
I don't see why it should change just because we know of them.
I don't even know that I agree with that. The fact that "we know of them" means there's likely a greater interest in the information.
That said, I'd probably vote to delete this particular biography, on the grounds that while she's someone people should be writing about, she's not someone Wikipedia should be writing about.
On 25/12/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
"Commiting a serious crime" - short of something famously scandalous, or mass murder, or something that caused changes in jurisprudence - is not and has never been accepted by the community as a reasonable basis for inclusion of a biography. I don't see why it should change just because we know of them.
Historically sport and crime have probably been the easiest ways to get into wikipedia. In terms of the energy you would need to expend crime is almost certainly the simplest way to get into wikipedia.
On Jan 1, 2008 11:23 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Historically sport and crime have probably been the easiest ways to get into wikipedia. In terms of the energy you would need to expend crime is almost certainly the simplest way to get into wikipedia.
I do wonder how soon we'll have someone committing a major crime for the *stated* aim of earning a Wikipedia entry.
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
On Jan 1, 2008 11:23 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Historically sport and crime have probably been the easiest ways to get into wikipedia. In terms of the energy you would need to expend crime is almost certainly the simplest way to get into wikipedia.
I do wonder how soon we'll have someone committing a major crime for the *stated* aim of earning a Wikipedia entry.
-Matt
What about John Mark Karr falsely confessing to murdering JonBenét Ramsey? Sure he probably didn't do it with the specific reason of getting into wikipedia, but he did do it for the fame.
It won't be long before people start doing things to get into wikipedia. But that's just my .02c
ILovePlankton
On 01/01/2008, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I do wonder how soon we'll have someone committing a major crime for the
BEANS!
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 01/01/2008, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I do wonder how soon we'll have someone committing a major crime for the
BEANS!
Would that be WP:BEANS or the regular kind?
ILovePlankton
On Jan 1, 2008 7:55 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
BEANS!
I suspect those beans are already out there cooking.
-Matt
On 25/12/2007, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't consider hit-and-runs etc. as meriting an article either, that's why I said I wasn't sure there was *any* significant events. So you're suggesting the "single event" is her being hired by the foundation?
Yes, it's the only thing that might force us to catalog the appalling events of this person's life in an encyclopedia.
Just being COO of WMF isn't enough to even be considered for a Wikipedia article. Just being involved in a hit and run (etc) isn't enough to even be considered for a Wikipedia article. The two together, however, are clearly enough that people are considering it. That means we can't reduce everything to a single event, since no single event gives the correct conclusion.
On 26/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/12/2007, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't consider hit-and-runs etc. as meriting an article either, that's why I said I wasn't sure there was *any* significant events. So you're suggesting the "single event" is her being hired by the foundation?
Yes, it's the only thing that might force us to catalog the appalling events of this person's life in an encyclopedia.
Just being COO of WMF isn't enough to even be considered for a Wikipedia article. Just being involved in a hit and run (etc) isn't enough to even be considered for a Wikipedia article. The two together, however, are clearly enough that people are considering it. That means we can't reduce everything to a single event, since no single event gives the correct conclusion.
I don't think we're in disagreement here. The term "event" is perhaps misleading, and what we're talking about is a conjunction of events. It's the context that matters.
Jimmy Wales wrote: it is just an embarassment and for
this poor woman, her rather sad life story is now in the Associated Press. But this whole thing is still amply covered by BLP1E and non-Wikipedia precedent and tradition.
I could not agree more. Indeed all mention of this incident can probably be expunged from wikipedia in about twelve months time.
However, and this is the catch 22, if our concern is that a "poor woman with a sad life story" be left alone then trying to prevent a bio may be completely counterproductive. As mush as I hate it, if someone in the community forces the issue (and I hope they don't), our only means for preventing such bio (and enforcing BLP1E, is either to have a wiki-drama and a high profile DRV or Jimmy publicly intervening. The is the real danger that either scenario will end up in another press run for trash like the Register.
Doc
When the press talks about us, they do so because the things here are not important. When they talk about people who work here, they're doing so because nobody cares to know about them. NPOV, N, and RS for V don't apply to us, because nothing about us can be verified, nothing written about us by the press can be reliable, we know we're never going to be notable, and NPOV means we need to protect ourselves against visibility.
On 12/21/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote: it is just an embarassment and for
this poor woman, her rather sad life story is now in the Associated Press. But this whole thing is still amply covered by BLP1E and non-Wikipedia precedent and tradition.
I could not agree more. Indeed all mention of this incident can probably be expunged from wikipedia in about twelve months time.
However, and this is the catch 22, if our concern is that a "poor woman with a sad life story" be left alone then trying to prevent a bio may be completely counterproductive. As mush as I hate it, if someone in the community forces the issue (and I hope they don't), our only means for preventing such bio (and enforcing BLP1E, is either to have a wiki-drama and a high profile DRV or Jimmy publicly intervening. The is the real danger that either scenario will end up in another press run for trash like the Register.
Doc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 22/12/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
When the press talks about us, they do so because the things here are not important. When they talk about people who work here, they're doing so because nobody cares to know about them. NPOV, N, and RS for V don't apply to us, because nothing about us can be verified, nothing written about us by the press can be reliable, we know we're never going to be notable, and NPOV means we need to protect ourselves against visibility.
The above was clearly written without reference to the actual observed behaviour, i.e. every media fart and puff involving Wikipedia getting noted in Wikipedia.
- d.
If we don't have an article on Doran, it'll look like we're censoring it for PR reasons. That's the last thing we need right now. Wikipedia looks *best* when it extensively covers subjects that make it look bad.
On Dec 21, 2007 8:53 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/12/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
When the press talks about us, they do so because the things here are not important. When they talk about people who work here, they're doing so because nobody cares to know about them. NPOV, N, and RS for V don't apply to us, because nothing about us can be verified, nothing written about us by the press can be reliable, we know we're never going to be notable, and NPOV means we need to protect ourselves against visibility.
The above was clearly written without reference to the actual observed behaviour, i.e. every media fart and puff involving Wikipedia getting noted in Wikipedia.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Dec 22, 2007 6:48 PM, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
If we don't have an article on Doran, it'll look like we're censoring it for PR reasons. That's the last thing we need right now. Wikipedia looks *best* when it extensively covers subjects that make it look bad.
There is Wikinews coverage, which is more appropriate. Coverage in Wikipedia may be warranted, but the story is all about the Foundation, and any coverage belongs in the article on the Foundation.
I assume David intended to provide an opportune illustration of the typical ways in which prejudice defeats NPOV: the ordinarily reliable sources are not reliable in this particular instance, or the coverage is not substantial. Such views from our friends would lead to the destruction of the encyclopedia more than anything which our declared enemies could say.
On 12/21/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/12/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
When the press talks about us, they do so because the things here are not important. When they talk about people who work here, they're doing so because nobody cares to know about them. NPOV, N, and RS for V don't apply to us, because nothing about us can be verified, nothing written about us by the press can be reliable, we know we're never going to be notable, and NPOV means we need to protect ourselves against visibility.
The above was clearly written without reference to the actual observed behaviour, i.e. every media fart and puff involving Wikipedia getting noted in Wikipedia.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
While I would be the first to argue that one can't have a page on every petty criminal in the world, it is going to be very odd if a page on this woman is forbidden. When the page happens, and it will happen, it might be best if it is actually written by Jimbo. No-one can accuse anyone of cover ups then.
Giacomo
On Dec 22, 2007 10:25 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I assume David intended to provide an opportune illustration of the typical ways in which prejudice defeats NPOV: the ordinarily reliable sources are not reliable in this particular instance, or the coverage is not substantial. Such views from our friends would lead to the destruction of the encyclopedia more than anything which our declared enemies could say.
On 12/21/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/12/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
When the press talks about us, they do so because the things here are not important. When they talk about people who work here, they're doing so because nobody cares to know about them. NPOV, N, and RS for V don't apply to us, because nothing about us can be verified, nothing written about us by the press can be reliable, we know we're never going to be notable, and NPOV means we need to protect ourselves against visibility.
The above was clearly written without reference to the actual observed behaviour, i.e. every media fart and puff involving Wikipedia getting noted in Wikipedia.
- d.
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, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G MZ wrote:
While I would be the first to argue that one can't have a page on every petty criminal in the world, it is going to be very odd if a page on this woman is forbidden. When the page happens, and it will happen, it might be best if it is actually written by Jimbo. No-one can accuse anyone of cover ups then.
I don't think it is very odd at all if we follow our normal editorial policies. Writing an article... or failing to write an article... for PR reasons is not the Wikipedia way. NPOV is non-negotiable.
And following our normal policies, particular WP:BLP1E, there is just no way in hell we would have an article about her if it weren't for naval gazing, trolling, or some kind of attempt to manage PR.
Normal Wikipedia policy would firmly forbid it.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
G MZ wrote:
While I would be the first to argue that one can't have a page on every petty criminal in the world, it is going to be very odd if a page on this woman is forbidden. When the page happens, and it will happen, it might be best if it is actually written by Jimbo. No-one can accuse anyone of cover ups then.
I don't think it is very odd at all if we follow our normal editorial policies. Writing an article... or failing to write an article... for PR reasons is not the Wikipedia way. NPOV is non-negotiable.
And following our normal policies, particular WP:BLP1E, there is just no way in hell we would have an article about her if it weren't for naval gazing, trolling, or some kind of attempt to manage PR.
Normal Wikipedia policy would firmly forbid it.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Whilst we rightly avoid a bio, can I strongly suggest that a sentence or two be inserted into [[Wikimedia Foundation]]. That it simply states:"That same month, Carolyn Doran left as COO [1]" - and is locked from further edits /does/ look like censorship (I know it's not) and may attract negative PR.
I'd suggest something simple like: "..some months after her departure, it emerged that Doran had convictions for DUI prior to her hiring [refs]. The Foundation was criticised in the media for failing to perform adequate background checks.[refs]" (not sure accurate that is)
Doc
Jimbo, you are one of the few people I know, who never learns from your own mistakes. I don't particularly want to see a page on the woman either, bit if you prevent one, the press will slaughter you and the project.
Giacomo
On Dec 22, 2007 4:05 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
G MZ wrote:
While I would be the first to argue that one can't have a page on every petty criminal in the world, it is going to be very odd if a page on
this
woman is forbidden. When the page happens, and it will happen, it might
be
best if it is actually written by Jimbo. No-one can accuse anyone of
cover
ups then.
I don't think it is very odd at all if we follow our normal editorial policies. Writing an article... or failing to write an article... for PR reasons is not the Wikipedia way. NPOV is non-negotiable.
And following our normal policies, particular WP:BLP1E, there is just no way in hell we would have an article about her if it weren't for naval gazing, trolling, or some kind of attempt to manage PR.
Normal Wikipedia policy would firmly forbid it.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There needs to be some mention, somewhere. SALTing the page isn't a positive message either. People are going to hear the story from another news source, and then will come to Wikipedia to read more, and when they search for Carolyn Doran, and get "*This page has been protected to prevent creation"*, they will have their own thoughts of Wikipedia and the WMF, which aren't going to be positive.
On Dec 22, 2007 11:38 AM, G MZ solebaciato@googlemail.com wrote:
Jimbo, you are one of the few people I know, who never learns from your own mistakes. I don't particularly want to see a page on the woman either, bit if you prevent one, the press will slaughter you and the project.
Giacomo
On Dec 22, 2007 4:05 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
G MZ wrote:
While I would be the first to argue that one can't have a page on
every
petty criminal in the world, it is going to be very odd if a page on
this
woman is forbidden. When the page happens, and it will happen, it
might
be
best if it is actually written by Jimbo. No-one can accuse anyone of
cover
ups then.
I don't think it is very odd at all if we follow our normal editorial policies. Writing an article... or failing to write an article... for PR reasons is not the Wikipedia way. NPOV is non-negotiable.
And following our normal policies, particular WP:BLP1E, there is just no way in hell we would have an article about her if it weren't for naval gazing, trolling, or some kind of attempt to manage PR.
Normal Wikipedia policy would firmly forbid it.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Rjd0060 - wrote:
There needs to be some mention, somewhere. SALTing the page isn't a positive message either. People are going to hear the story from another news source, and then will come to Wikipedia to read more, and when they search for Carolyn Doran, and get "*This page has been protected to prevent creation"*, they will have their own thoughts of Wikipedia and the WMF, which aren't going to be positive.
Indeed. If we can't have an article about the woman herself, insert a paragraph into the foundation article and then redirect [[Carolyn Doran]] to the section that it's in.
The point of the encyclopedia is to provide people with the information that they want. If they're here looking for information on "Carolyn Doran", we should send them to the place where we have the most information about her.
Yes, a soft redirect to the WMF article may be best, as long as there is mention of this in there.
On Dec 22, 2007 2:01 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Rjd0060 - wrote:
There needs to be some mention, somewhere. SALTing the page isn't a positive message either. People are going to hear the story from
another
news source, and then will come to Wikipedia to read more, and when they search for Carolyn Doran, and get "*This page has been protected to
prevent
creation"*, they will have their own thoughts of Wikipedia and the WMF, which aren't going to be positive.
Indeed. If we can't have an article about the woman herself, insert a paragraph into the foundation article and then redirect [[Carolyn Doran]] to the section that it's in.
The point of the encyclopedia is to provide people with the information that they want. If they're here looking for information on "Carolyn Doran", we should send them to the place where we have the most information about her.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Dec 22, 2007 2:14 PM, Rjd0060 - rjd0060.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, a soft redirect to the WMF article may be best, as long as there is mention of this in there.
A redirect makes perfect sense, I agree. Only one problem - that article is currently protected due to an edit war on the founder/co-founder issue. So first the section would have to be written on the talk page, then achieve consensus, then be placed by an uninvolved admin...any volunteers?
Risker
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carolyn_Doran&action=edit...
*So we begin discussing this on the talk page, and somebody deletes it. If that isn't counter productive, I don't know what is.
On Dec 22, 2007 3:24 PM, jwales@imap.wikia.com wrote:
I agree with the redirect notion. --sent from sidekick
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Rjd0060 - wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carolyn_Doran&action=edit...
*So we begin discussing this on the talk page, and somebody deletes it. If that isn't counter productive, I don't know what is.
Looks like just a misunderstanding from an admin routinely deleting orphaned talk pages. I've asked him to restore it. It looks like we are reaching a consensus of no bio, but a redirect to WMF. The talk page was a good place to hammer out the details.
Doc
On Dec 23, 2007 3:38 AM, G MZ solebaciato@googlemail.com wrote:
Jimbo, you are one of the few people I know, who never learns from your own mistakes. I don't particularly want to see a page on the woman either, bit if you prevent one, the press will slaughter you and the project.
We can point everyone to Wikinews' coverage. It would be a good opportunity to advertise that project:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Former_Chief_Operating_Officer_of_Wikimedia_Foun...
G MZ wrote:
Jimbo, you are one of the few people I know, who never learns from your own mistakes. I don't particularly want to see a page on the woman either, bit if you prevent one, the press will slaughter you and the project.
If standing on the principle of NPOV is a mistake, I plead guilty and await my sentence.
I don't have such a dim view of the press as you do, perhaps.
--Jimbo
<shameless self-promotion>
This was recently talked about in the most recent Wikipedia Weekly episode, which came out on Monday. Also talked about, was the new Google Knol project.
http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/12/18/episode-39-knol-pointer/
</shameless self-promotion>
On 12/21/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I will leave it to brighter minds than mine whether or not major media reports make a difference to her notability or the notability of the story.
Not that it would matter. If the text of an deleted article contains "[Ww]iki[pm]edia", people make up their minds early on, and are exceedingly loathe to change them.
—C.W.