Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I'm making a point of replying to this before
I read any of the other
responses to avoid being tainted by them.
Since I think you make several insightful observations
well worth focusing on, I hope you will in return not
mind me replying in several messages to your one, just
so I don't create a huge long message, but can focus on
each point with the detail and consideration it deserves.
(I may take some time between each partial reply, just so
I don't give a quick and shallow reply.)
I concur and thank you. Even though I had already trimmed down Sue's
comments to isolate the ones that I wanted to address, I should know by
now about the problem of having long and thoughtful responses that
exhaust the attention of some.
Sue Gardner
wrote:
* Do we think the current complaints resolution
systems are working? Is it
easy enough for article subjects to report problems? Are we courteous and
serious in our handling of complaints? Do the people handling complaints
need training/support/resources to help them resolve the problem (if there
is one)? Are there intractable problems, and if so, what can we do to solve
them?
Training accomplishes very little if we don't know what we want that
training to accomplish. At some level it is important, but it is not in
itself THE problem. Courtesy is a personal quality that is most often
not amenable to training. Discourtesies need to be handled with an even
hand. If courtesy is shown to the subject, but not to the apparently
offending writer, the problem is exacerbated when the writer feels
pushed to defend his actions. An intervenor who takes an unnecessarily
aggressive approach to fixing an article is as much a part of the
problem. The intractable problems are rooted in human nature.
I have always believed that the subjects of BLPs should have a right of
reply. To some extent they should have the right to publicly rebut what
is said about them. Such rebuttals need to be clearly identified and
attributed, and, unless they launch a clear personal attack on some
other person, even an outrageous reply needs to be added without content
editing.
Personally, (and I admit, this inflames me no end, and I *do*
lose sleep over it) BDP's should have a right of reply too, from
beneath the grave (yes, I am referring to Biographies of
Dead Persons), but they rarely get an even shake. There are
various Biographies of specific Swedish nobles from the late
18th century whose portrayal is clearly libelous, if it were said
of a living person, as it was written in the 1911 edition of EB -
and largely unedited, incorporated into the English language
wikipedia. (I wish I had the historiographical/biographical
know-how and energy to rectify that, but I have to admit I
don't.)
Not that I know anything of 18th century Swedish nobility. There is an
important point to be made in what you say. If the only reason for
being more rigid about BLPs is the fear that we might get sued, or that
our reputation might otherwise suffer, our actions are rooted in a false
premise. The ethical approach is to have all biographies brought to a
high degree of accuracy. We may begin with certain preconceptions about
the accuracy of the 1911EB, but we should never be shy about questioning
those preconceptions when warranted by alternative evidence. Most of us
lack not only the know-how and energy, but the resources as well. It's
very easy to underestimate the magnitude of the tasks.
And I am not claiming outrage at a systemic bias, but
just
flagrant bias as per the author of the specific entry.
The systemic bias in your examples is not one of our creation.
Sure, the persons themselves can not be harmed, but
our
deep understanding of the forces of history, and what force
personality, heredity, cultural context and up-bringing play
within it, is immeasurably impoverished by getting a view that
is faulty.
In the preface to the 1971 printing of the 14th edition of the EB editor
Warren E. Preece notes: "The world before the war of 1914-18 was no more
'normal' than the world after it; the series of battles fought between
1455 and 1487 had hardly lost some of their importance and all of their
immediacy before man's historians had named them; there is a danger that
in looking back over what has been, what has most recently been will
assume an importancethat is in large part only apparent." Looking at
the first 10 articles of the 1930 printing of the same edition, "A1 at
Lloyd's," "Aal," "Aalen," "Aalesund," and
"Aali, Mehemet" were no longer
in the 1971 printing. 50% is quite an attrition rate. Of the first 10
biographical articles, only 4 survived. Not all casual library visitors
seeking information will have the same result.
Ec