Hi folks,
I've been increasingly concerned lately about Wikimedia's coverage of living people, both within biographies of living people (BLPs) on Wikipedia, and in coverage of living people in non-BLP text. I've asked the board to put this issue on the agenda for the April meeting in Berlin, and I'm hoping there to figure out some concrete next steps to support quality in this area. In advance of that, I want to ask for input from you.
First, I'm going to lay out the scope of the problem as I see it. (If you're already up to speed, you might want to skip that bit.) Then I'll lay out a little of my thinking on how we could aim to improve. I would very much appreciate any feedback from you -ideally here on this list- before the April meeting :- )
(Please note that for convenience I'm going to use the phrase "BLP" as shorthand for the whole issue of coverage of living people throughout all Wikimedia projects. BLP's probably constitute the majority of that coverage, but not all of it.)
Scope of the problem:
I am sure that BLP subjects have been complaining about their portrayals since Wikipedia's very early days. And I am sure that BLPs have always suffered from the same problems and errors that occur in all articles: malicious vandalism, biased editing, lack of citations, and so on. However, I am particularly worried about BLPs, for two reasons:
1. BLPs are, by definition, about living people. A mistake in an article about the War of 1812 is too bad. A mistake in an article about a living person could cause that person real-world harm. We don't want to do that.
2. I believe the risk of hurting people is greater than it used to be, because Wikipedia is growing increasingly unignorable. People are using the internet to check out job applicants, colleagues, dates - and we are the first search result for many names.
As Wikipedia generally becomes bigger and smarter and more in-depth, its credibility increases - and so the gap between what we aim to do and what we actually achieve on many BLPs, becomes ever more visible and disappointing. This hurts our mission:
* We want to be taken seriously. Having a large number of influential, accomplished people (the people who are typically subjects of BLPs) distrusting or disliking us, damages our credibility.
* We aspire to be neutral and accurate. We know that not all BLP complainants share that goal - some simply want their BLP whitewashed. The existence of unfounded complaints, though, doesn't undercut the seriousness of the real problem: many BLPs are inaccurate, unfair and paint a distorted picture of their subject. They are not up to Wikipedia's standards.
* And -as I said earlier- these are real people's lives. Neutrally-written, sourced information that is unflattering to the subject of an article is appropriate to an encyclopedia, but lies, nonsense, insinuations and unbalanced portrayals are not.
So what can we do? Here are the things I am thinking about. I would love your input:
* 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? Some Wikimedia chapters have pioneered more systematic training of volunteers to handle OTRS responses; should we try to scale up those or similar practices?
* Are there technical tools we could implement, that would support greater quality in BLPs? For example – easy problem reporting systems, particular configurations of Flagged Revs, etc.
* Wikimedians have developed lots of tools for preventing/fixing vandalism and errors of fact. Where less progress has been made, I think, is on the question of disproportionate criticism. It seems to me that the solution may include the development of systems designed to expose particularly biased articles to a greater number of people who can help fix them. But this is a pretty tough problem and I would welcome people's suggestions for resolving it
* The editors I've spoken with about BLPs are pretty serious about them – they are generally conservative, restrained, privacy-conscious, etc. But I wonder if that general attitude is widely-shared. If Wikipedia believes (as is said in -for example- the English BLP policy) that it has a responsibility to take great care with BLPs, should there be a Wikipedia-wide BLP policy, or a projects-wide statement of some kind?
BLPs and our general effect on living people have been a tough problem for a long time, and I think we need now to bring together the appropriate people and resources, and hash through how to best make some progress on the problem. I'd like to start that discussion here, now. I'd appreciate any feedback from you all, before April. Please note I am deliberately not asking questions about who should be responsible for what: chapters, individual volunteers, the Wikimedia board or staff. We can figure that part out later. Right now I'm mostly interested in what we should be doing.
Thanks, Sue
2009/3/2 Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org:
So what can we do? Here are the things I am thinking about. I would love your input:
- 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? Some Wikimedia chapters have pioneered more systematic training of volunteers to handle OTRS responses; should we try to scale up those or similar practices?
From what I can tell, a lot of subjects of BLPs that have problems
with their articles don't complain at all. The accounts I've heard (or, at least, my interpretation thereof) of Wikimedians being approached at events by people with bad articles have all been along the lines of "my article is rubbish, how do I get it fixed?" not "my article is rubbish and I've been trying to get it fixed but nobody is listening to me". That suggests that those subjects that don't happen to meet a Wikipedian never actually complain. There are two possible explanations for that that I can see: 1) They don't really care all that much and the complaints we get are just opportunistic moaning or 2) they have no idea where to even start with complaining. While there may be some cases of (1), I'm sure (2) is a significant factor.
I've just looked at a BLP and nowhere can I see an guidance on how to complain. I suggest a "Report a problem with this article" link to added to the sidebar of all articles as a mailto link to the appropriate OTRS address.
- Are there technical tools we could implement, that would support greater
quality in BLPs? For example – easy problem reporting systems, particular configurations of Flagged Revs, etc.
Flagged Revs is an excellent way of dealing with vandalism to BLPs, technical solutions to more subtle problems are a little trickier. Flagged Revs could be used with addition levels - a "free of vandalism" level and a "well balanced, fact-checked and free of anything remotely libellous" level. Two separate levels are necessary since the 2nd takes far too long to be a practical vandal fighting tool - I'm not sure which level would be shown by default to whom, that needs to be worked out.
- Wikimedians have developed lots of tools for preventing/fixing vandalism
and errors of fact. Where less progress has been made, I think, is on the question of disproportionate criticism. It seems to me that the solution may include the development of systems designed to expose particularly biased articles to a greater number of people who can help fix them. But this is a pretty tough problem and I would welcome people's suggestions for resolving it
Tagging with templates is our usual method, but it isn't particularly effective. Perhaps we need to be a little more demanding about getting things fixed. An addition to the multiple flags suggestion above could work here - introduce a new deletion procedure by which any BLP (but, in theory, BLPs with problems) can be tagged for deletion in 1 month if a recent version of it hasn't been flagged as fact checked, etc. by that time. (The "No article is better than a bad article" theory.) I suspect we may end up with every BLP being so tagged so it would basically be a policy of never having a backlog of much more than 1 month on fact checking - a nice idea, but I'm not sure if we could keep up with it without deleting most of our BLPs.
- The editors I've spoken with about BLPs are pretty serious about them –
they are generally conservative, restrained, privacy-conscious, etc. But I wonder if that general attitude is widely-shared. If Wikipedia believes (as is said in -for example- the English BLP policy) that it has a responsibility to take great care with BLPs, should there be a Wikipedia-wide BLP policy, or a projects-wide statement of some kind?
There isn't really any such thing as "Wikipedia-wide", that's why wikipedia-l is pretty much dead. Decisions of the entire Wikimedia community are pretty difficult to achieve. They have to be done by vote, nothing else is practical, and discussion to put together a proposal to vote on is tricky because only people that speak English can really be involved. I think, if we want any kind of statement like that, it has to come from the WMF.
Thomas Dalton wrote I've just looked at a BLP and nowhere can I see an guidance on how to complain. I suggest a "Report a problem with this article" link to added to the sidebar of all articles as a mailto link to the appropriate OTRS address.
Another way to deal with this is to print small business cards "how to":s and distribute them to people who have this problem. Something like this:
"So, your Wikipedia entry is wrong? Here's how to fix it in three easy steps:
1) If the problem is vandalism, feel free to remove it directly by clicking "edit", delete the text and click "save", 2) if not, click on the talk page, click on the plus sign and describe the problem there (be polite), 3) if nothing happens in two days, click on the "contact Wikipedia" link to your left and then click on "report an error".
But keep in mind that Wikipedia strives for verifiable facts, so any sources that can back up your claims will help your matter to be handled more promptly.
Best wishes!"
This seems to work for the companies I have lectured for anyway.
/Lennart
2009/3/2 Lennart Guldbrandsson wikihannibal@gmail.com:
Thomas Dalton wrote I've just looked at a BLP and nowhere can I see an guidance on how to complain. I suggest a "Report a problem with this article" link to added to the sidebar of all articles as a mailto link to the appropriate OTRS address.
Another way to deal with this is to print small business cards "how to":s and distribute them to people who have this problem. Something like this:
"So, your Wikipedia entry is wrong? Here's how to fix it in three easy steps:
- If the problem is vandalism, feel free to remove it directly by clicking
"edit", delete the text and click "save", 2) if not, click on the talk page, click on the plus sign and describe the problem there (be polite), 3) if nothing happens in two days, click on the "contact Wikipedia" link to your left and then click on "report an error".
But keep in mind that Wikipedia strives for verifiable facts, so any sources that can back up your claims will help your matter to be handled more promptly.
Best wishes!"
This seems to work for the companies I have lectured for anyway.
That works for dealing with people that come up to you at events to complain. They don't work for people that don't otherwise complain, which are the people I was talking about.
2009/3/2 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
From what I can tell, a lot of subjects of BLPs that have problems with their articles don't complain at all. The accounts I've heard (or, at least, my interpretation thereof) of Wikimedians being approached at events by people with bad articles have all been along the lines of "my article is rubbish, how do I get it fixed?" not "my article is rubbish and I've been trying to get it fixed but nobody is listening to me". That suggests that those subjects that don't happen to meet a Wikipedian never actually complain. There are two possible explanations for that that I can see: 1) They don't really care all that much and the complaints we get are just opportunistic moaning or 2) they have no idea where to even start with complaining. While there may be some cases of (1), I'm sure (2) is a significant factor.
I would guess it's mostly (2), in my experience. People have no idea who to contact. The "Contact Wikipedia" link on en:wp's sidebar doesn't seem to catch their eye - though it gets you to the right answer in three further clicks. Perhaps it should be on the page you hit immediately.
(My usual answer: "Email info at wikimedia dot org, that's wikimedia with an M. It'll get funneled to the right place. All other ways of contacting us end up there anyway." This seems to work a bit.)
- d.
2009/3/2 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
I would guess it's mostly (2), in my experience. People have no idea who to contact. The "Contact Wikipedia" link on en:wp's sidebar doesn't seem to catch their eye - though it gets you to the right answer in three further clicks. Perhaps it should be on the page you hit immediately.
It certainly didn't catch my eye when I was looking for such a link. I think an explicit "report a problem" link is required. It would go straight to the info-en queue (or equivalent). If possible, it should include the critical information (article title and revision id, at least) in the email automatically, although I'm not sure mailto links can do that...
2009/3/2 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/3/2 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
I would guess it's mostly (2), in my experience. People have no idea who to contact. The "Contact Wikipedia" link on en:wp's sidebar doesn't seem to catch their eye - though it gets you to the right answer in three further clicks. Perhaps it should be on the page you hit immediately.
It certainly didn't catch my eye when I was looking for such a link. I think an explicit "report a problem" link is required. It would go straight to the info-en queue (or equivalent). If possible, it should include the critical information (article title and revision id, at least) in the email automatically, although I'm not sure mailto links can do that...
Yeah, an express "Report a problem with this article" link would be a useful start. For the article title and revision ID, that may require an extension or similar that does some magic. A simple matter of programming, I'm sure.
- d.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/3/2 Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org:
- Are there technical tools we could implement, that would support
greater
quality in BLPs? For example – easy problem reporting systems, particular configurations of Flagged Revs, etc.
Flagged Revs is an excellent way of dealing with vandalism to BLPs, technical solutions to more subtle problems are a little trickier. Flagged Revs could be used with addition levels - a "free of vandalism" level and a "well balanced, fact-checked and free of anything remotely libellous" level. Two separate levels are necessary since the 2nd takes far too long to be a practical vandal fighting tool - I'm not sure which level would be shown by default to whom, that needs to be worked out.
That might help for actual biographies, but it doesn't help much when BLP-violations happen in other places, particularly article Talk: pages. In my experience that's all to common.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
I've just looked at a BLP and nowhere can I see an guidance on how to complain. I suggest a "Report a problem with this article" link to added to the sidebar of all articles as a mailto link to the appropriate OTRS address.
Sounds good, but how good is OTRS at handling these issues? Are there any statistics available as to what percentage of OTRS complainers are satisfied with the resolution? Does OTRS provide any escalation for people who aren't satisfied with their initial results?
Flagged Revs is an excellent way of dealing with vandalism to BLPs,
technical solutions to more subtle problems are a little trickier. Flagged Revs could be used with addition levels - a "free of vandalism" level and a "well balanced, fact-checked and free of anything remotely libellous" level. Two separate levels are necessary since the 2nd takes far too long to be a practical vandal fighting tool - I'm not sure which level would be shown by default to whom, that needs to be worked out.
Another good idea, but how would an article be accepted as "well balanced"? You just can't write about a topic which has any level of controversy and come up with an article which everyone will agree is "well balanced". No matter what you write, someone is going to have a problem with it, so marking an article as "well balanced" is more likely to increase the complaints rather than reduce them. I think Citizendium's "approved articles" is about the best you can do in this type of situation, and their articles certainly aren't "well balanced".
2009/3/2 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Flagged Revs is an excellent way of dealing with vandalism to BLPs, technical solutions to more subtle problems are a little trickier. Flagged Revs could be used with addition levels - a "free of vandalism" level and a "well balanced, fact-checked and free of anything remotely libellous" level. Two separate levels are necessary since the 2nd takes far too long to be a practical vandal fighting tool - I'm not sure which level would be shown by default to whom, that needs to be worked out.
Another good idea, but how would an article be accepted as "well balanced"? You just can't write about a topic which has any level of controversy and come up with an article which everyone will agree is "well balanced". No matter what you write, someone is going to have a problem with it, so marking an article as "well balanced" is more likely to increase the complaints rather than reduce them. I think Citizendium's "approved articles" is about the best you can do in this type of situation, and their articles certainly aren't "well balanced".
Of course, the terms need to be well defined, I was being intentionally vague about that part because it requires significant discussion and debate that I don't think we want to get into now. Citizendium's "approved articles" are the equivalent of (not exactly the same as, though) our "featured articles" - we don't want to require all BLPs to be featured, that would never work!
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/3/2 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Flagged Revs is an excellent way of dealing with vandalism to BLPs, technical solutions to more subtle problems are a little trickier. Flagged Revs could be used with addition levels - a "free of vandalism" level and a "well balanced, fact-checked and free of anything remotely libellous" level. Two separate levels are necessary since the 2nd takes far too long to be a practical vandal fighting tool - I'm not sure which level would be shown by default to whom, that needs to be worked out.
Another good idea, but how would an article be accepted as "well
balanced"?
You just can't write about a topic which has any level of controversy and come up with an article which everyone will agree is "well balanced". No matter what you write, someone is going to have a problem with it, so marking an article as "well balanced" is more likely to increase the complaints rather than reduce them. I think Citizendium's "approved articles" is about the best you can do in this type of situation, and
their
articles certainly aren't "well balanced".
Of course, the terms need to be well defined, I was being intentionally vague about that part because it requires significant discussion and debate that I don't think we want to get into now. Citizendium's "approved articles" are the equivalent of (not exactly the same as, though) our "featured articles" - we don't want to require all BLPs to be featured, that would never work!
Citizendium's "approved articles" is similar in goal to Wikipedia's "featured articles", but the process is very very different. If adopted by Wikipedia (and I highly doubt it would be), it would be *much* more scalable than the current "featured articles" system. That said, I didn't think your proposal was to "require all BLPs to be [flagged as well balanced]".
As for your vagueness, well, I think the implementation is the key to flagged revisions.
Anthony wrote:
Sounds good, but how good is OTRS at handling these issues? Are there any statistics available as to what percentage of OTRS complainers are satisfied with the resolution? Does OTRS provide any escalation for people who aren't satisfied with their initial results?
In general, I think that OTRS does an excellent job, and they do provide escalation (to me sometimes, or to Mike Godwin). I'm unaware of anyone making it through the OTRS process and not being (more or less) satisfied, with only one exception - a biography that I learned of recently (prefer not to say which one out of risk of accidentally causing a news headline) where OTRS had appropriately fixed the article but over time (2, maybe 3 years) the "errors" had crept back in.
(I put "errors" in scare quotes not to suggest that they were not falsehoods, but rather to emphasize that what was going on, in my opinion, was not innocent error, but maliciousness.)
Another good idea, but how would an article be accepted as "well balanced"? You just can't write about a topic which has any level of controversy and come up with an article which everyone will agree is "well balanced". No matter what you write, someone is going to have a problem with it, so marking an article as "well balanced" is more likely to increase the complaints rather than reduce them.
This is contrary to all my experience. Even controversial topics can be well balanced.
Just as a side note - in my experience, virtually no BLP complaints that I have heard in person were invalid. Even highly controversial people (or perhaps, *especially* highly controversial people) aren't worried about the controversies being accurately reported. They are concerned that they be reported fairly and in reasonable proportion to their overall history. In my opinion, we fail miserably at that in far too many cases, and just because no one has complained yet, this does not mean that we are doing a good job.
Let me repeat that in a different way, for emphasis: I think that a great number of our biographies, and bad in a particular way. Minor controversies are exploded into central stories of people's lives in a way that is abusive and unfair, and games players have learned how to properly cite things and good people have a hard time battling against violations of WP:UNDUE.
This is true even in cases where the subjects haven't complained, and it is a problem not just in terms of our ethical responsibilities to subjects of biographies, but also in terms of our ethical responsibilities to our readers, who depend on us for neutrality.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Sounds good, but how good is OTRS at handling these issues? Are there
any
statistics available as to what percentage of OTRS complainers are
satisfied
with the resolution? Does OTRS provide any escalation for people who
aren't
satisfied with their initial results?
In general, I think that OTRS does an excellent job, and they do provide escalation (to me sometimes, or to Mike Godwin). I'm unaware of anyone making it through the OTRS process and not being (more or less) satisfied, with only one exception - a biography that I learned of recently (prefer not to say which one out of risk of accidentally causing a news headline) where OTRS had appropriately fixed the article but over time (2, maybe 3 years) the "errors" had crept back in.
What is the current "OTRS process"? When I contacted them a couple years ago I was referred to arb com, and didn't hear from them again. I certainly wasn't satisfied.
My problem wasn't in regard to a biography, but it was a "BLP issue" under Sue's expanded definition (it was in regard to some things written about me in the Wikipedia namespace).
I'm sure the process has changed in the years since, though. Does the current process ask people if they're satisfied?
(I put "errors" in scare quotes not to suggest that they were not
falsehoods, but rather to emphasize that what was going on, in my opinion, was not innocent error, but maliciousness.)
Another good idea, but how would an article be accepted as "well
balanced"?
You just can't write about a topic which has any level of controversy and come up with an article which everyone will agree is "well balanced". No matter what you write, someone is going to have a problem with it, so marking an article as "well balanced" is more likely to increase the complaints rather than reduce them.
This is contrary to all my experience. Even controversial topics can be well balanced.
I completely agree that every article can be "well balanced". In fact, I'd say any rational person upon proper consideration would be required to accept that a "well balanced" article is always possible. However, what I said was that you can't write about a topic which has any level of controversy, and come up with an article which everyone will agree is "well balanced". My idea of what is "well balanced" in any particular situation is probably not the same as yours, and it's certainly not the same everyone (or every Wikipedian, which is sufficiently broad as to be basically equivalent to everyone).
For example, consider the article now titled [[Bill Ayers presidential election controversy]]. In my opinion, such an article is not "well balanced" unless it discusses such things as the fact that, according to ABC News, "Ayers admitted planting bombs at a number of government installations in the 1960s", that he has said "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough.", and that his wife "was once on the FBI's Top 10 Most Wanted List for inciting to riot". Yet these very facts were taken *out* of the article in an attempt to make the article better balanced and compliant with BLP policy.
Or take the Citizendium article on [[homeopathy]]. In its attempt to follow a policy of neutrality, it comes up with such nonsense as "it is possible that mainstream scientists and physicians have it wrong; perhaps homeopathy is indeed effective, and, if so, there is something important to be studied" and "Scientists in almost any area expect that, what today is the consensus understanding will, in some tomorrow, by a mere curiosity in the history of science." I hope you would agree that this irrational skepticism does not make for a "well balanced" article, but according to the article's maintainers, such language is necessary to maintain balance.
So yes, a "well balanced" article can exist, but not everyone is going to agree on what it looks like. Maybe your comment that "This is contrary to all my experience" was to imply that you believe Wikipedia can develop a process which achieves this "well balanced" article? If so, I'd love to hear you outline it. (Or, if you think the current process already does this, I'd like to see some evidence for this, because in my experience Wikipedia articles tend to be horribly out of balance.)
Just as a side note - in my experience, virtually no BLP complaints that
I have heard in person were invalid. Even highly controversial people (or perhaps, *especially* highly controversial people) aren't worried about the controversies being accurately reported. They are concerned that they be reported fairly and in reasonable proportion to their overall history. In my opinion, we fail miserably at that in far too many cases, and just because no one has complained yet, this does not mean that we are doing a good job.
Let me repeat that in a different way, for emphasis: I think that a
great number of our biographies, and bad in a particular way. Minor controversies are exploded into central stories of people's lives in a way that is abusive and unfair, and games players have learned how to properly cite things and good people have a hard time battling against violations of WP:UNDUE.
This is true even in cases where the subjects haven't complained, and it is a problem not just in terms of our ethical responsibilities to subjects of biographies, but also in terms of our ethical responsibilities to our readers, who depend on us for neutrality.
From that comment I'm guessing you don't think the current process is the
way to achieve a "well balanced" article. Personally, I don't think an "anybody can edit" process can achieve it. But I'm open-minded about this. If you think it can happen, I'd love to see the plan.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
What is the current "OTRS process"?
There is no formalized process. If a OTRS volunteer notes that a customer remains unhappy with the resolution of the case, he/she will normally refer in an informal way to the OTRS mailinglist or OTRS IRC channel for second opinions and discussion on how to proceed. In cases which have a legal relevancy, either foundation's input (eg. Mike/Cary) will be sought or the customer will directly be asked to write to the Foundation.
When I contacted them a couple years ago I was referred to arb com, and didn't hear from them again.
I believe that dispute between users would usually be referred to ArbCom (on en.wikipedia). For content / BLP issues, I don't think this should happen.
My problem wasn't in regard to a biography, but it was a "BLP issue" under Sue's expanded definition (it was in regard to some things written about me in the Wikipedia namespace).
Was this part of a larger dispute that was already being considered by the ArbCom? If so, I would assume that the OTRS volunteer in charge wanted to avoid too many parties considering the same thing.
I'm sure the process has changed in the years since, though. Does the current process ask people if they're satisfied?
If you mean "ask" as in, do we work like Microsoft which puts a "If this response was helpful, click here, if not, please click here to send an email to my manager" (or along these lines) at the end of each support email, then no. However, we assume that people who are not satisfied will follow up by way of response and then, see above...
The "Microsoft option" is rather impractical, as there is no hierarchy in OTRS, we don't have "supervisors" or "managers" to whom emails could be referred.
But again, each email includes a footer that says that this response comes from a group of volunteers and that formal follow-up would need to be done in a certified letter to the foundation.
Michael
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
My problem wasn't in regard to a biography, but it was a "BLP issue"
under
Sue's expanded definition (it was in regard to some things written about
me
in the Wikipedia namespace).
Was this part of a larger dispute that was already being considered by the ArbCom?
No. In fact, a member of ArbCom had referred me to OTRS. However, I don't want to get into the specifics of this on a public mailing list.
I'm sure the process has changed in the years since, though. Does the
current process ask people if they're satisfied?
If you mean "ask" as in, do we work like Microsoft which puts a "If this response was helpful, click here, if not, please click here to send an email to my manager" (or along these lines) at the end of each support email, then no.
Yeah, that was my question.
However, we assume that people who are not satisfied will follow up by
way of response and then, see above...
The "Microsoft option" is rather impractical, as there is no hierarchy in OTRS, we don't have "supervisors" or "managers" to whom emails could be referred.
It'd be nice for statistical purposes, in order to gauge how well you're doing, though. Ultimately it'd probably lead to a system with "supervisors" or "managers", since that's a much better way of doing things.
But again, each email includes a footer that says that this response
comes from a group of volunteers and that formal follow-up would need to be done in a certified letter to the foundation.
Ah, so not only do you not ask for feedback, but you actively discourage it.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Ah, so not only do you not ask for feedback, but you actively discourage it.
I think this is slightly misrepresenting what I said. For reference purposes here the current footer, as attached to each outgoing message:
"--- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org "
From past experience, I can clearly state that this has seldom
discouraged anyone from following-up... It is just intended to show that sending "I disagree with your opinion that allegation xyz in the article about me is properly sourced and therefore I'll sue you soon" in every response won't get you anywhere -- once the informal resolution through the Support Team failed, there is no alternative to formally contacting the WMF:
Michael
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Ah, so not only do you not ask for feedback, but you actively discourage
it.
I think this is slightly misrepresenting what I said.
It was commentary on what you said. I also quoted exactly what you said.
For reference purposes here the current footer, as attached to each outgoing message:
"--- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org "
That's not nearly as bad as what I thought it said based on your description, and I withdraw my comment that you're discouraging feedback. Thanks for providing us with the actual quote.
2009/3/2 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
No. In fact, a member of ArbCom had referred me to OTRS. However, I don't want to get into the specifics of this on a public mailing list.
As a general rule: if you've been formally penalised on a wiki for your behaviour thereon, and want that concealed, then that's really not in the same class as *anything* this thread is talking about. Just saying.
- d.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:16 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/2 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
No. In fact, a member of ArbCom had referred me to OTRS. However, I
don't
want to get into the specifics of this on a public mailing list.
As a general rule: if you've been formally penalised on a wiki for your behaviour thereon, and want that concealed, then that's really not in the same class as *anything* this thread is talking about. Just saying.
Thanks for the comment, David, but bringing up off-topic hypotheticals in order to say that they're off-topic is not appropriate.
2009/3/2 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:16 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
As a general rule: if you've been formally penalised on a wiki for your behaviour thereon, and want that concealed, then that's really not in the same class as *anything* this thread is talking about. Just saying.
Thanks for the comment, David, but bringing up off-topic hypotheticals in order to say that they're off-topic is not appropriate.
So that quite definitely isn't what you're talking about as the matter concerning you? Good to know. I'm still interested to know what it actually was, then.
- d.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:23 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/2 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:16 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
As a general rule: if you've been formally penalised on a wiki for your behaviour thereon, and want that concealed, then that's really not in the same class as *anything* this thread is talking about. Just saying.
Thanks for the comment, David, but bringing up off-topic hypotheticals in order to say that they're off-topic is not appropriate.
So that quite definitely isn't what you're talking about as the matter concerning you? Good to know. I'm still interested to know what it actually was, then.
Let's not get this thread off topic - Anthony has not stated enough particulars for his case to be usefully discussed here, and if he's not willing to do so then it should be ignored rather than used as yet another venue to fight over his general behavior. The discussion's evolution is dragging us off an important general topic and is not useful for the collegial behavior on list.
Thanks.
2009/3/2 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
What is the current "OTRS process"? When I contacted them a couple years ago I was referred to arb com, and didn't hear from them again. I certainly wasn't satisfied.
Pray tell, what was the actual substance of your dispute?
(Note that this is speaking of a project on which you say you no longer contribute and on which you claim to have withdrawn rights to all your contributions by emailing foundation-l saying so.)
- d.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Let me repeat that in a different way, for emphasis: I think that a great number of our biographies, and bad in a particular way. Minor controversies are exploded into central stories of people's lives in a way that is abusive and unfair, and games players have learned how to properly cite things and good people have a hard time battling against violations of WP:UNDUE.
I've made this observation before, but I think it bears repeating. At least on the English Wikipedia, a frequent practice is to start a section called "Criticism and controversy" or some variation thereof. This indicates to me an utter failure to write an actual biographical article. If we can't figure out how to integrate something into the overall picture of someone's life, then we're definitely failing to provide the context to actually understand the controversy, probably giving it distorted emphasis, and possibly lacking the material to treat the person as the subject of an independent article. Quite often, of course, the back-and-forth in that section ends up overwhelming any other content instead.
--Michael Snow
2009/3/3 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
I've made this observation before, but I think it bears repeating. At least on the English Wikipedia, a frequent practice is to start a section called "Criticism and controversy" or some variation thereof. This indicates to me an utter failure to write an actual biographical article. If we can't figure out how to integrate something into the overall picture of someone's life, then we're definitely failing to provide the context to actually understand the controversy, probably giving it distorted emphasis, and possibly lacking the material to treat the person as the subject of an independent article. Quite often, of course, the back-and-forth in that section ends up overwhelming any other content instead.
If bad writing were curable by guidelines and policies, English Wikipedia would be brilliant prose from end to end. It isn't - there's a discernible "Wikipedia style" which is flat, grey and neutralised. Useful for spotting plagiarism of it. Good writers are thin on the ground - most editors are more skilled at researching and referencing, and can write a decipherable sentence.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
If bad writing were curable by guidelines and policies, English Wikipedia would be brilliant prose from end to end. It isn't - there's a discernible "Wikipedia style" which is flat, grey and neutralised.
This would seem to put us in the same class as such great publications as "The Watchtower" and "Awake". :-)
Ec
David Gerard wrote:
If bad writing were curable by guidelines and policies, English Wikipedia would be brilliant prose from end to end.
This should be printed on coffee mugs and sold in the web shop.
Michael Snow wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Let me repeat that in a different way, for emphasis: I think that a great number of our biographies, and bad in a particular way. Minor controversies are exploded into central stories of people's lives in a way that is abusive and unfair, and games players have learned how to properly cite things and good people have a hard time battling against violations of WP:UNDUE.
I've made this observation before, but I think it bears repeating. At least on the English Wikipedia, a frequent practice is to start a section called "Criticism and controversy" or some variation thereof. This indicates to me an utter failure to write an actual biographical article. If we can't figure out how to integrate something into the overall picture of someone's life, then we're definitely failing to provide the context to actually understand the controversy, probably giving it distorted emphasis, and possibly lacking the material to treat the person as the subject of an independent article. Quite often, of course, the back-and-forth in that section ends up overwhelming any other content instead.
While I find it impossible to disagree with your characterization of the current situation in any depth, and for sentimental reasons don't wish to engage teh view expressed by Jimmy Wales above your reply; I am bound to note that this state of affairs does present a certain historical irony, in that "Criticism and controversy" sections did not originate as a way of "starting" a biasing against a person whom the article was about, but as a way of keeping the main body of the biographical wholly hagiographical, and all the seamy sides being able to be rebutted in the "controversy" section, with none of the encomiums and even the worst saccharine sentiments in the hagiographical portion challenged at all by even the gentlest critical glance. "Yes, we won't be removing that sourced information, just moving it out of the way of the main flow of our sweet article about this wonderful person."
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Hoi, What is: * encomium * hagiographical * saccharine sentiment
PS You lost me. Thanks, GerardM
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
Michael Snow wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Let me repeat that in a different way, for emphasis: I think that a great number of our biographies, and bad in a particular way. Minor controversies are exploded into central stories of people's lives in a way that is abusive and unfair, and games players have learned how to properly cite things and good people have a hard time battling against violations of WP:UNDUE.
I've made this observation before, but I think it bears repeating. At least on the English Wikipedia, a frequent practice is to start a section called "Criticism and controversy" or some variation thereof. This indicates to me an utter failure to write an actual biographical article. If we can't figure out how to integrate something into the overall picture of someone's life, then we're definitely failing to provide the context to actually understand the controversy, probably giving it distorted emphasis, and possibly lacking the material to treat the person as the subject of an independent article. Quite often, of course, the back-and-forth in that section ends up overwhelming any other content instead.
While I find it impossible to disagree with your characterization of the current situation in any depth, and for sentimental reasons don't wish to engage teh view expressed by Jimmy Wales above your reply; I am bound to note that this state of affairs does present a certain historical irony, in that "Criticism and controversy" sections did not originate as a way of "starting" a biasing against a person whom the article was about, but as a way of keeping the main body of the biographical wholly hagiographical, and all the seamy sides being able to be rebutted in the "controversy" section, with none of the encomiums and even the worst saccharine sentiments in the hagiographical portion challenged at all by even the gentlest critical glance. "Yes, we won't be removing that sourced information, just moving it out of the way of the main flow of our sweet article about this wonderful person."
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
http://www.onelook.com/?w=encomium "a formal expression of praise" http://www.onelook.com/?w=hagiography "a biography that idealizes or idolizes the person (especially a person who is a saint)" http://www.onelook.com/?w=saccharine "overly sweet"
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What is:
- encomium
- hagiographical
- saccharine sentiment
PS You lost me. Thanks, GerardM
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
While I find it impossible to disagree with your characterization of the current situation in any depth, and for sentimental reasons don't wish to engage teh view expressed by Jimmy Wales above your reply; I am bound to note that this state of affairs does present a certain historical irony, in that "Criticism and controversy" sections did not originate as a way of "starting" a biasing against a person whom the article was about, but as a way of keeping the main body of the biographical wholly hagiographical, and all the seamy sides being able to be rebutted in the "controversy" section, with none of the encomiums and even the worst saccharine sentiments in the hagiographical portion challenged at all by even the gentlest critical glance. "Yes, we won't be removing that sourced information, just moving it out of the way of the main flow of our sweet article about this wonderful person."
2009/3/4 quiddity pandiculation@gmail.com:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=encomium "a formal expression of praise" http://www.onelook.com/?w=hagiography "a biography that idealizes or idolizes the person (especially a person who is a saint)" http://www.onelook.com/?w=saccharine "overly sweet"
*cough* you mean, of course:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/encomium http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hagiography http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/saccharine
- d.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:27 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/4 quiddity pandiculation@gmail.com:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=encomium "a formal expression of praise" http://www.onelook.com/?w=hagiography "a biography that idealizes or idolizes the person (especially a person who is a saint)" http://www.onelook.com/?w=saccharine "overly sweet"
*cough* you mean, of course:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/encomium http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hagiography http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/saccharine
*hums innocently* but no, not until we implement wikidata will Wiktionary not make me cringe slightly... http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata I might have linked to omegawiki.org too, if any of those words existed there... Are these two still at all likely to merge? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OmegaWiki or have the "... copying and pasting these lists from one language Wiktionary to another was inefficient and error-prone ..." problems been solved since I last read up on this?
q
Hoi, It is not that I am not able to look up words in a dictionary.. When an excess of dificult word is used, the message is lost. Thanks, GerardM
2009/3/4 quiddity pandiculation@gmail.com
http://www.onelook.com/?w=encomium "a formal expression of praise" http://www.onelook.com/?w=hagiography "a biography that idealizes or idolizes the person (especially a person who is a saint)" http://www.onelook.com/?w=saccharine "overly sweet"
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What is:
- encomium
- hagiographical
- saccharine sentiment
PS You lost me. Thanks, GerardM
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
While I find it impossible to disagree with your characterization of the current situation in any depth, and for sentimental reasons don't wish to engage teh view expressed by Jimmy Wales above your reply; I am bound to note that this state of affairs does present a certain historical irony, in that "Criticism and controversy" sections did not originate as a way of "starting" a biasing against a person whom the article was about, but as a way of keeping the main body of the biographical wholly hagiographical, and all the seamy sides being able to be rebutted in the "controversy" section, with none of the encomiums and even the worst saccharine sentiments in the hagiographical portion challenged at all by even the gentlest critical glance. "Yes, we won't be removing that sourced information, just moving it out of the way of the main flow of our sweet article about this wonderful person."
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/3/5 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
It is not that I am not able to look up words in a dictionary.. When an excess of dificult word is used, the message is lost.
None of these were excessively difficult, and now you know more English words.
- d.
Hoi, My English is considered to be quite good. I have not learned any new words and I do not mind to have an occassional word. For me this was excessive and it stopped my reading and my interest. Thanks, Gerard
PS David, what was you first language again ?
2009/3/5 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
2009/3/5 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
It is not that I am not able to look up words in a dictionary.. When an excess of dificult word is used, the message is lost.
None of these were excessively difficult, and now you know more English words.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/3/5 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
My English is considered to be quite good. I have not learned any new words and I do not mind to have an occassional word. For me this was excessive and it stopped my reading and my interest.
You didn't notice your original response was to someone whose first language wasn't English either?
- d.
Please stop this. John
Gerard Meijssen skrev:
Hoi, My English is considered to be quite good. I have not learned any new words and I do not mind to have an occassional word. For me this was excessive and it stopped my reading and my interest. Thanks, Gerard
PS David, what was you first language again ?
2009/3/5 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
2009/3/5 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
It is not that I am not able to look up words in a dictionary.. When an excess of dificult word is used, the message is lost.
None of these were excessively difficult, and now you know more English words.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think we need to ban anyone with "Gerard" in their (first or last) name. I certainly wish it were possible to filter out such emails without deleting them completely.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 9:36 AM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
Please stop this. John
Gerard Meijssen skrev:
Hoi, My English is considered to be quite good. I have not learned any new
words
and I do not mind to have an occassional word. For me this was excessive
and
it stopped my reading and my interest. Thanks, Gerard
PS David, what was you first language again ?
2009/3/5 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
2009/3/5 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
It is not that I am not able to look up words in a dictionary.. When an excess of dificult word is used, the message is lost.
None of these were excessively difficult, and now you know more English words.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
This line of reasoning will end now. I am sick of seeing rants, tirades, and personal attacks in my inbox. We have to improve our BLP policies, your sniping is not helping that.
________________________________ From: Anthony wikimail@inbox.org To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2009 7:48:42 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
I think we need to ban anyone with "Gerard" in their (first or last) name. I certainly wish it were possible to filter out such emails without deleting them completely.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 9:36 AM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
Please stop this. John
Gerard Meijssen skrev:
Hoi, My English is considered to be quite good. I have not learned any new
words
and I do not mind to have an occassional word. For me this was excessive
and
it stopped my reading and my interest. Thanks, Gerard
PS David, what was you first language again ?
2009/3/5 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
2009/3/5 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
It is not that I am not able to look up words in a dictionary.. When an excess of dificult word is used, the message is lost.
None of these were excessively difficult, and now you know more English words.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, My English is considered to be quite good. I have not learned any new words and I do not mind to have an occassional word. For me this was excessive and it stopped my reading and my interest. Thanks, Gerard
PS David, what was you first language again ?
David was not the one to introduce the words into the discussion; that was done by a native Finnish speaker, a language more distantly removed from English than Dutch. Since that person was responding to my comments, I was up to the challenge. I even confess that I had to look up the one with two plurals just to make sure I understood it correctly
Ec
2009/3/5 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
It is not that I am not able to look up words in a dictionary.. When an excess of dificult word is used, the message is lost.
on 3/5/09 6:02 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
None of these were excessively difficult,
Yes, perhaps they were, David - to him.
and now you know more English words.
C'mon, David :-(
Marc Riddell
There is lots I want to reply to here; this mail is just a start...
2009/3/2 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
From what I can tell, a lot of subjects of BLPs that have problems with their articles don't complain at all. The accounts I've heard (or, at least, my interpretation thereof) of Wikimedians being approached at events by people with bad articles have all been along the lines of "my article is rubbish, how do I get it fixed?" not "my article is rubbish and I've been trying to get it fixed but nobody is listening to me". That suggests that those subjects that don't happen to meet a Wikipedian never actually complain. There are two possible explanations for that that I can see: 1) They don't really care all that much and the complaints we get are just opportunistic moaning or 2) they have no idea where to even start with complaining. While there may be some cases of (1), I'm sure (2) is a significant factor.
I've just looked at a BLP and nowhere can I see an guidance on how to complain. I suggest a "Report a problem with this article" link to added to the sidebar of all articles as a mailto link to the appropriate OTRS address.
I agree with this - I think "report a problem" would be a very helpful starting point.
FWIW I'll tell you that when people complain to me, they often say they tried to find a proper avenue for complaints, but couldn't. I realize there is a school of thought that "people who can't find the correct avenue for complaints don't deserve to have their complaints heard," but that's not my view.
I assume that people are looking for a specific biography complaints channel, and probably also looking for assurances that it is secure/confidential. (Bearing in mind that inaccuracies or distortions in their BLP would feel highly sensitive to most people.)
So - we can create a channel for BLP complaints, and we can label it appropriately so people have accurate expectations of confidentiality. But in order for it to be successful, I believe we would need a cadre of highly-trained and well-supported volunteers who have pledged to investigate seriously, communicate tactfully, and maintain appropriate confidentiality. Do we think we can we do that, and if so, what would it take?
...
- The editors I've spoken with about BLPs are pretty serious about them –
they are generally conservative, restrained, privacy-conscious, etc. But
I
wonder if that general attitude is widely-shared. If Wikipedia believes
(as
is said in -for example- the English BLP policy) that it has a responsibility to take great care with BLPs, should there be a Wikipedia-wide BLP policy, or a projects-wide statement of some kind?
There isn't really any such thing as "Wikipedia-wide", that's why wikipedia-l is pretty much dead. Decisions of the entire Wikimedia community are pretty difficult to achieve. They have to be done by vote, nothing else is practical, and discussion to put together a proposal to vote on is tricky because only people that speak English can really be involved. I think, if we want any kind of statement like that, it has to come from the WMF.
To me, this starts shading into the "civility" issue that has been discussed here before. Do we agree that we want the Wikimedia projects to be serious-minded, conscientious, approachable and friendly? (I do.) If many -but not all- of us agree, how can we best work towards a consensus, then reinforce and support it?
2009/3/2 Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org:
There is lots I want to reply to here; this mail is just a start...
I've just looked at a BLP and nowhere can I see an guidance on how to complain. I suggest a "Report a problem with this article" link to added to the sidebar of all articles as a mailto link to the appropriate OTRS address.
I agree with this - I think "report a problem" would be a very helpful starting point.
I've started work on an extension to provide such a link. Hopefully I'll have something to show in a few days.
FWIW I'll tell you that when people complain to me, they often say they tried to find a proper avenue for complaints, but couldn't. I realize there is a school of thought that "people who can't find the correct avenue for complaints don't deserve to have their complaints heard," but that's not my view.
That argument only works if there is an obvious complaints avenue that they've missed. At the moment, there isn't.
I assume that people are looking for a specific biography complaints channel, and probably also looking for assurances that it is secure/confidential. (Bearing in mind that inaccuracies or distortions in their BLP would feel highly sensitive to most people.)
So - we can create a channel for BLP complaints, and we can label it appropriately so people have accurate expectations of confidentiality. But in order for it to be successful, I believe we would need a cadre of highly-trained and well-supported volunteers who have pledged to investigate seriously, communicate tactfully, and maintain appropriate confidentiality. Do we think we can we do that, and if so, what would it take?
I'm not sure people will understand the concept of OTRS channels, they just want some clear instructions on how to complain. I don't think they care how we organise the complaints once we receive them, as long as it gets dealt with.
Sue Gardner schrieb:
There is lots I want to reply to here; this mail is just a start...
2009/3/2 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
From what I can tell, a lot of subjects of BLPs that have problems
with their articles don't complain at all. The accounts I've heard (or, at least, my interpretation thereof) of Wikimedians being approached at events by people with bad articles have all been along the lines of "my article is rubbish, how do I get it fixed?" not "my article is rubbish and I've been trying to get it fixed but nobody is listening to me". That suggests that those subjects that don't happen to meet a Wikipedian never actually complain. There are two possible explanations for that that I can see: 1) They don't really care all that much and the complaints we get are just opportunistic moaning or 2) they have no idea where to even start with complaining. While there may be some cases of (1), I'm sure (2) is a significant factor.
I've just looked at a BLP and nowhere can I see an guidance on how to complain. I suggest a "Report a problem with this article" link to added to the sidebar of all articles as a mailto link to the appropriate OTRS address.
I agree with this - I think "report a problem" would be a very helpful starting point.
FWIW I'll tell you that when people complain to me, they often say they tried to find a proper avenue for complaints, but couldn't. I realize there is a school of thought that "people who can't find the correct avenue for complaints don't deserve to have their complaints heard," but that's not my view.
I assume that people are looking for a specific biography complaints channel, and probably also looking for assurances that it is secure/confidential. (Bearing in mind that inaccuracies or distortions in their BLP would feel highly sensitive to most people.)
So - we can create a channel for BLP complaints, and we can label it appropriately so people have accurate expectations of confidentiality. But in order for it to be successful, I believe we would need a cadre of highly-trained and well-supported volunteers who have pledged to investigate seriously, communicate tactfully, and maintain appropriate confidentiality. Do we think we can we do that, and if so, what would it take?
...
The "Report a problem" button may be helpful, but it also may be cause problem. I faer that some people can use it to start a "Report a problem"-spam or -vandalism and the foundation would get a floot of "problem reports" that are indeed no problem reports. Many such vandalism can surely be filtered out with technical tools but some may be not. It is to be waited to see how big such a flood would be and if we can handle them properly.
Ting
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Flagged Revs is an excellent way of dealing with vandalism to BLPs, technical solutions to more subtle problems are a little trickier. Flagged Revs could be used with addition levels - a "free of vandalism" level and a "well balanced, fact-checked and free of anything remotely libellous" level. Two separate levels are necessary since the 2nd takes far too long to be a practical vandal fighting tool - I'm not sure which level would be shown by default to whom, that needs to be worked out.
I very much agree, but given the difficulty of implementing flags that deal only with blatant vandalism, I feel despair at trying to go further.
Tagging with templates is our usual method, but it isn't particularly effective. Perhaps we need to be a little more demanding about getting things fixed.
It's easier to add a tag than to fix what it's trying to point out. Piling up tasks for other people to do is bound to create backlogs.
Ec
2009/3/2 Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org:
Hi folks,
I've been increasingly concerned lately about Wikimedia's coverage of living people, both within biographies of living people (BLPs) on Wikipedia, and in coverage of living people in non-BLP text. I've asked the board to put this issue on the agenda for the April meeting in Berlin, and I'm hoping there to figure out some concrete next steps to support quality in this area. In advance of that, I want to ask for input from you.
I think that: *There should be official Foundation's policy about handling legal problems with biographies of living persons, which should have similar status like privacy policy. It should be legal document saying what to do if... not just a set of advices for editors. Moreover it should clearly state whom to contact on Foundation level, who is responsible for content etc. it should be written by lawyer. *BLP policy on Wikipedia-en (and probably on many others) is rather internal policy for editors describing not the legal issues but rather editing rules - they might be different on different project, moreover they use to change over the time. *These two things of course overlap - but they are two different issues in fact. *It should be made clear that the offical Foundation policy regarding legal issues with BLPs is more important than local BLP's policies and always comes first.
In particular the legal BLP Foundation policy should give an answer for: *what to do if a person want to remove enitre biography from Wikipedia - especially in cases when a person is not formally a "public person" but he/she is somehow famous *what to do if a person claims that a given information hurts him/her life but it is well proved by sources - and what sources are acceptable and what not. *what to do if a person says his/her biography is wrong but rejects to provide proves or sources of their claims *what kind of information should never be put on biography because it is personal even if someone found public sources for them (like E-mail and real address, phone number, illnesses, etc.)
Two recent examples from Polish Wikipedia: *A sportsmen had anitdoping case around 5 years ago, when he was 18. There is good source of this information (his own interwiev in sport's magazine in which he appologises for taking an illegal drug). Now the guy is saing that it was all forgotten by mainstream media, he was already punished for this (6 months break) but he is now trying to get new contract and Wikipedia entry on him may destroy the deal. Therefore he ask for removing this info or his entire bio... *A pop singer manager wants to remove the birthday of his starllet, because she is (probably) around 30 but her current image show her as "almost teenager". The birhtday is sourced by "Who is Who in Poland", paper eddtion - but it was removed from electronic version, and they also manged to remove it from all other web-pages.
2009/3/2 Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com:
Two recent examples from Polish Wikipedia: *A sportsmen had anitdoping case around 5 years ago, when he was 18. There is good source of this information (his own interwiev in sport's magazine in which he appologises for taking an illegal drug). Now the guy is saing that it was all forgotten by mainstream media, he was already punished for this (6 months break) but he is now trying to get new contract and Wikipedia entry on him may destroy the deal. Therefore he ask for removing this info or his entire bio... *A pop singer manager wants to remove the birthday of his starllet, because she is (probably) around 30 but her current image show her as "almost teenager". The birhtday is sourced by "Who is Who in Poland", paper eddtion - but it was removed from electronic version, and they also manged to remove it from all other web-pages.
If those were answered any way other than "no, go away" (however politely phrased), then that's just wrong.
- d.
2009/3/2 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/3/2 Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com:
Two recent examples from Polish Wikipedia: *A sportsmen had anitdoping case around 5 years ago, when he was 18. There is good source of this information (his own interwiev in sport's magazine in which he appologises for taking an illegal drug). Now the guy is saing that it was all forgotten by mainstream media, he was already punished for this (6 months break) but he is now trying to get new contract and Wikipedia entry on him may destroy the deal. Therefore he ask for removing this info or his entire bio... *A pop singer manager wants to remove the birthday of his starllet, because she is (probably) around 30 but her current image show her as "almost teenager". The birhtday is sourced by "Who is Who in Poland", paper eddtion - but it was removed from electronic version, and they also manged to remove it from all other web-pages.
If those were answered any way other than "no, go away" (however politely phrased), then that's just wrong.
Yes. They were answered in such a way. Bu it does not solve the problem from legal POV, and when you make such an answer you are - at least in Poland at some legal risk. In Poland there is a law that a person can always ask for removing his/her personal data from any electronic database (except govermental ones). In the second case the info about drugs is not "personal data" but in the first one is (birthday). In the first case we have just recieived a formal request from the starllet's solicitor to remove her birthday based on the "personal data" law. Although Wikipedia servers are fortunetally not in Poland, the "database operator" which in this case may mean the editor who added this birthday should remove this birthday or he/she is commiting a kind of minor crime. This is just a practical example how legal POV might be in some cases different than general BLP policy writen and voted by local project's communities.
This is the most prominent problem facing the English Wikipedia today in my view. BLPs are easy to write and easy to get wrong, and there are always newly famous people to write about - so this issue is only going to become more important and more visible with time. Sue's point about the type of people who are subjects of BLPs is important from a public relations perspective; if we tick off people with megaphones, everyone is going to hear about it.
A "report a problem" link (prominently displayed on BLPs in particular) was my first thought as well, and seems like a straightforward way to improve handling of complaints. I agree with Thomas that the article and revision being reported should be included if possible in the e-mail automatically, and I think we should have an OTRS queue specifically for BLPs to handle these reports. I would also like to see the pool of OTRS respondents expanded - some advertising on the need for queue minders, and maybe an expansion of the potential pool (for instance, not being an administrator on any project I wouldn't be eligible).
I would like to see Mike's opinion, though, on how deeply the Foundation can be involved in establishing Wikimedia-wide policies on content like BLPs. It would seem to challenge the notion that the Foundation itself hosts but does not control project content. Tomasz' suggestion would be an especially serious departure from past practice.
Nathan
2009/3/2 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
I would like to see Mike's opinion, though, on how deeply the Foundation can be involved in establishing Wikimedia-wide policies on content like BLPs. It would seem to challenge the notion that the Foundation itself hosts but does not control project content. Tomasz' suggestion would be an especially serious departure from past practice.
The BLP policy on en:wp basically says: the article needs to be NPOV, verifiable and no original research, and it needs to be good enough and not-wrong *at all times*. That is, the basic content rules, but applied very hard indeed. Furthermore, any given statement needs to be not merely referenced, but actually noteworthy in itself.
This is an ideal, but it's a reasonably simple and clear one.
(This has been misinterpreted, with varying degrees of wilfulness, as "do no harm", take out anything possibly negative, etc. Nevertheless, solid references that are evidence of notability of each claim generally mean stuff stays in. The Polish examples above would be told "er, no, go away.")
How do other projects interpret or implement their own BLP policies? Are they more or less like the en:wp one? What differences exist?
- d.
Hoi For the English Wikipedia there is an awareness and there are procedures in place to deal with BLP problems.These procedures may get an update with an implementation of Flagged Revisions. In her question, Sue did not limit BLP issues to English Wikipedia only.
It seems to me that BLP issues in languages other then English are in a way more problematic because of a lack of understanding of the language and of the cultural and legal issues for the jurisdictions where a language is spoken. Given that from a traffic point of view the other half is in languages other then English, I would appreciate to learn more how BLP issues are dealt with in other languages. I can imagine that English Wikipedia is effectively more then half of the cases that are dealt with at the office. Thanks, GerardM
2009/3/2 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com
This is the most prominent problem facing the English Wikipedia today in my view. BLPs are easy to write and easy to get wrong, and there are always newly famous people to write about - so this issue is only going to become more important and more visible with time. Sue's point about the type of people who are subjects of BLPs is important from a public relations perspective; if we tick off people with megaphones, everyone is going to hear about it.
A "report a problem" link (prominently displayed on BLPs in particular) was my first thought as well, and seems like a straightforward way to improve handling of complaints. I agree with Thomas that the article and revision being reported should be included if possible in the e-mail automatically, and I think we should have an OTRS queue specifically for BLPs to handle these reports. I would also like to see the pool of OTRS respondents expanded - some advertising on the need for queue minders, and maybe an expansion of the potential pool (for instance, not being an administrator on any project I wouldn't be eligible).
I would like to see Mike's opinion, though, on how deeply the Foundation can be involved in establishing Wikimedia-wide policies on content like BLPs. It would seem to challenge the notion that the Foundation itself hosts but does not control project content. Tomasz' suggestion would be an especially serious departure from past practice.
Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
least in Poland at some legal risk. In Poland there is a law that a person can always ask for removing his/her personal data from any electronic database (except govermental ones).
There is a similar law in Sweden (Personuppgiftslagen, PUL), but it has an exception for the freedom of the press and similar journalistic purposes ("det journalistiska undantaget"), and this exception is always referred to for websites similar to Wikipedia.
The Norwegian law apparently has a similar exception, that also covers opinion pieces (opinionsdannende). The Danish law apparently refers directly to article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
What you could do is to ask Polish journalists how they operate newspaper websites under this law, and how they (as guardians of the freedom of the press) would react if the Polish Wikipedia was censored in this way. Perhaps they should write a newspaper article about how this musical artist tries to hide her real age.
This doesn't necessarily bring an answer to the question, but establishing a good link with journalists is always useful.
2009/3/2 Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se:
What you could do is to ask Polish journalists how they operate newspaper websites under this law, and how they (as guardians of the freedom of the press) would react if the Polish Wikipedia was censored in this way. Perhaps they should write a newspaper article about how this musical artist tries to hide her real age.
Yes. It's the sort of issue custom-crafted to backfire really badly.
- d.
In Norway its covered in "Lov om behandling av personopplysninger (personopplysningsloven)" §7; Forholdet til ytringsfriheten (Relation to freedom of speech) [http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-20000414-031-001.html#7]
It is an exception for "kunstneriske, litterære eller journalistiske, herunder opinionsdannende, ..." or artistic, litterary and journalistic, including opinion building purposes.
John
Lars Aronsson skrev:
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
least in Poland at some legal risk. In Poland there is a law that a person can always ask for removing his/her personal data from any electronic database (except govermental ones).
There is a similar law in Sweden (Personuppgiftslagen, PUL), but it has an exception for the freedom of the press and similar journalistic purposes ("det journalistiska undantaget"), and this exception is always referred to for websites similar to Wikipedia.
The Norwegian law apparently has a similar exception, that also covers opinion pieces (opinionsdannende). The Danish law apparently refers directly to article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
What you could do is to ask Polish journalists how they operate newspaper websites under this law, and how they (as guardians of the freedom of the press) would react if the Polish Wikipedia was censored in this way. Perhaps they should write a newspaper article about how this musical artist tries to hide her real age.
This doesn't necessarily bring an answer to the question, but establishing a good link with journalists is always useful.
They have no recourse. We are not subject to Polish law.
________________________________ From: Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, March 2, 2009 6:24:09 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
2009/3/2 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/3/2 Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com:
Two recent examples from Polish Wikipedia: *A sportsmen had anitdoping case around 5 years ago, when he was 18. There is good source of this information (his own interwiev in sport's magazine in which he appologises for taking an illegal drug). Now the guy is saing that it was all forgotten by mainstream media, he was already punished for this (6 months break) but he is now trying to get new contract and Wikipedia entry on him may destroy the deal. Therefore he ask for removing this info or his entire bio... *A pop singer manager wants to remove the birthday of his starllet, because she is (probably) around 30 but her current image show her as "almost teenager". The birhtday is sourced by "Who is Who in Poland", paper eddtion - but it was removed from electronic version, and they also manged to remove it from all other web-pages.
If those were answered any way other than "no, go away" (however politely phrased), then that's just wrong.
Yes. They were answered in such a way. Bu it does not solve the problem from legal POV, and when you make such an answer you are - at least in Poland at some legal risk. In Poland there is a law that a person can always ask for removing his/her personal data from any electronic database (except govermental ones). In the second case the info about drugs is not "personal data" but in the first one is (birthday). In the first case we have just recieived a formal request from the starllet's solicitor to remove her birthday based on the "personal data" law. Although Wikipedia servers are fortunetally not in Poland, the "database operator" which in this case may mean the editor who added this birthday should remove this birthday or he/she is commiting a kind of minor crime. This is just a practical example how legal POV might be in some cases different than general BLP policy writen and voted by local project's communities.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
They have no recourse. We are not subject to Polish law.
Individual Polish editors are, however, likely to be and they might apparentely be in danger of prosecution.
Michael
2009/3/2 Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
They have no recourse. We are not subject to Polish law.
Individual Polish editors are, however, likely to be and they might apparentely be in danger of prosecution.
If there is serious danger of them being sued for *not* making particular edits, or removing edits by non-Polish contributors, said editors cannot be allowed to edit at all, to protect the encyclopedia from them being used as tools of legal attack.
- d.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:48 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/2 Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
They have no recourse. We are not subject to Polish law.
Individual Polish editors are, however, likely to be and they might apparentely be in danger of prosecution.
If there is serious danger of them being sued for *not* making particular edits, or removing edits by non-Polish contributors, said editors cannot be allowed to edit at all, to protect the encyclopedia from them being used as tools of legal attack.
Well, I could think of a couple people who might be subject to persecutions (depending on how serious Polish prosecution authorities are...) :
- The editor who added the personal data - Administrators who were made aware of this on-wiki but declined to react by removing the data - Polish volunteers of the info-pl-OTRS queue who were made aware of this via email and rejected to intervene
Shall we exclude them all? (Note, this is all speculation, but it's a discussion worth having imho)
Regards, Michael
2009/3/2 Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com:
Well, I could think of a couple people who might be subject to persecutions (depending on how serious Polish prosecution authorities are...) :
- Administrators who were made aware of this on-wiki but declined to
react by removing the data
- Polish volunteers of the info-pl-OTRS queue who were made aware of
this via email and rejected to intervene
Is there likely a legal obligation to act?
Shall we exclude them all? (Note, this is all speculation, but it's a discussion worth having imho)
If administrators are subject to legal danger for *not* performing given actions, their power to take those actions must be taken away, for the protection of the encyclopedia.
I don't say that lightly, but I can't see any other way things could be. I have a pile of special superpowers on en:wp, but if I were being legally required to exercise them for reasons other than the good of the encyclopedia, I'd be fervently hoping someone would take them away without me actually asking them to.
What is the realistic legal danger of people being forced to take actions on the encyclopedia just because they can, in Polish law?
- d.
2009/3/2 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
I don't say that lightly, but I can't see any other way things could be. I have a pile of special superpowers on en:wp, but if I were being legally required to exercise them for reasons other than the good of the encyclopedia, I'd be fervently hoping someone would take them away without me actually asking them to.
BTW, this is why, when concerns are raised with a BLP on a UK citizen, I tend *not* to edit the article, but to forward the concern to someone not UK-based. UK libel law is *insane*.
- d.
I think we're sort of getting off topic - perhaps the issue of legal responsibility can be forked into a different thread? My own pet concern these days is the issue of model consent and age verification on projects and Commons. It is related to BLPs, but perhaps it would be better not to distract from the core issue with other separate but related problems.
Nathan
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:14 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/2 Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com:
Well, I could think of a couple people who might be subject to persecutions (depending on how serious Polish prosecution authorities are...) :
- Administrators who were made aware of this on-wiki but declined to
react by removing the data
- Polish volunteers of the info-pl-OTRS queue who were made aware of
this via email and rejected to intervene
Is there likely a legal obligation to act?
Shall we exclude them all? (Note, this is all speculation, but it's a discussion worth having imho)
If administrators are subject to legal danger for *not* performing given actions, their power to take those actions must be taken away, for the protection of the encyclopedia.
I don't say that lightly, but I can't see any other way things could be. I have a pile of special superpowers on en:wp, but if I were being legally required to exercise them for reasons other than the good of the encyclopedia, I'd be fervently hoping someone would take them away without me actually asking them to.
What is the realistic legal danger of people being forced to take actions on the encyclopedia just because they can, in Polish law?
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
In Norway it seems that neglecting to do something will not lead to any real danger of legal actions, its phrased "uforstand", but gross neglectence, or "grov uforstand" could be punishable by law. An example given is that if an admin is notified on email about specific child porn in an article (that was the example given in an email thread) and refuses to take action it might be "grov uforstand", while if a group of admins are notified it will not be more than "uforstand" from those that does not react. If someone in fact writes back and says "go away, we're not interested" that might be labeled as "grov uforstand".
It seems like this kind of scenario is the only real danger for an admin at no.wp for something he has not done himslf.
John
David Gerard skrev:
2009/3/2 Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com:
Well, I could think of a couple people who might be subject to persecutions (depending on how serious Polish prosecution authorities are...) :
- Administrators who were made aware of this on-wiki but declined to
react by removing the data
- Polish volunteers of the info-pl-OTRS queue who were made aware of
this via email and rejected to intervene
Is there likely a legal obligation to act?
Shall we exclude them all? (Note, this is all speculation, but it's a discussion worth having imho)
If administrators are subject to legal danger for *not* performing given actions, their power to take those actions must be taken away, for the protection of the encyclopedia.
I don't say that lightly, but I can't see any other way things could be. I have a pile of special superpowers on en:wp, but if I were being legally required to exercise them for reasons other than the good of the encyclopedia, I'd be fervently hoping someone would take them away without me actually asking them to.
What is the realistic legal danger of people being forced to take actions on the encyclopedia just because they can, in Polish law?
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Would Polish police really expend the time to round up and charge every single Polish editor? I don't think so. The Foundation would most likely reject any demands for information, barring the successful prosecution of quite a few Polish editors. Also, convincing a judge not to throw the cases out would be problematic. When you add in all the bad publicity, it is highly unlikely that the Polish police will bother with this matter.
________________________________ From: Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, March 2, 2009 8:46:53 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
They have no recourse. We are not subject to Polish law.
Individual Polish editors are, however, likely to be and they might apparentely be in danger of prosecution.
Michael
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Would Polish police really expend the time to round up and charge every single Polish editor? I don't think so. The Foundation would most likely reject any demands for information, barring the successful prosecution of quite a few Polish editors. Also, convincing a judge not to throw the cases out would be problematic. When you add in all the bad publicity, it is highly unlikely that the Polish police will bother with this matter.
This response suffers from being so deeply practical. We do ourselves harm when we assume that the mere suggestion of a prosecution will cause us to shiver in the corner. Once we have fairly reviewed the circumstances we need to make room for the response, "Make my day!"
Ec
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
They have no recourse. We are not subject to Polish law.
How do you know? And who is "we"?
Sebastian
I think that the implementation of Flagged Revisions will clean up a lot of the BLP problems. Another possibility that I doubt anyone will support is appointing a BLP Committee or group of administrators to oversee all BLP matters.
________________________________ From: Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2009 11:20:53 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
Hi folks,
I've been increasingly concerned lately about Wikimedia's coverage of living people, both within biographies of living people (BLPs) on Wikipedia, and in coverage of living people in non-BLP text. I've asked the board to put this issue on the agenda for the April meeting in Berlin, and I'm hoping there to figure out some concrete next steps to support quality in this area. In advance of that, I want to ask for input from you.
First, I'm going to lay out the scope of the problem as I see it. (If you're already up to speed, you might want to skip that bit.) Then I'll lay out a little of my thinking on how we could aim to improve. I would very much appreciate any feedback from you -ideally here on this list- before the April meeting :- )
(Please note that for convenience I'm going to use the phrase "BLP" as shorthand for the whole issue of coverage of living people throughout all Wikimedia projects. BLP's probably constitute the majority of that coverage, but not all of it.)
Scope of the problem:
I am sure that BLP subjects have been complaining about their portrayals since Wikipedia's very early days. And I am sure that BLPs have always suffered from the same problems and errors that occur in all articles: malicious vandalism, biased editing, lack of citations, and so on. However, I am particularly worried about BLPs, for two reasons:
1. BLPs are, by definition, about living people. A mistake in an article about the War of 1812 is too bad. A mistake in an article about a living person could cause that person real-world harm. We don't want to do that.
2. I believe the risk of hurting people is greater than it used to be, because Wikipedia is growing increasingly unignorable. People are using the internet to check out job applicants, colleagues, dates - and we are the first search result for many names.
As Wikipedia generally becomes bigger and smarter and more in-depth, its credibility increases - and so the gap between what we aim to do and what we actually achieve on many BLPs, becomes ever more visible and disappointing. This hurts our mission:
* We want to be taken seriously. Having a large number of influential, accomplished people (the people who are typically subjects of BLPs) distrusting or disliking us, damages our credibility.
* We aspire to be neutral and accurate. We know that not all BLP complainants share that goal - some simply want their BLP whitewashed. The existence of unfounded complaints, though, doesn't undercut the seriousness of the real problem: many BLPs are inaccurate, unfair and paint a distorted picture of their subject. They are not up to Wikipedia's standards.
* And -as I said earlier- these are real people's lives. Neutrally-written, sourced information that is unflattering to the subject of an article is appropriate to an encyclopedia, but lies, nonsense, insinuations and unbalanced portrayals are not.
So what can we do? Here are the things I am thinking about. I would love your input:
* 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? Some Wikimedia chapters have pioneered more systematic training of volunteers to handle OTRS responses; should we try to scale up those or similar practices?
* Are there technical tools we could implement, that would support greater quality in BLPs? For example – easy problem reporting systems, particular configurations of Flagged Revs, etc.
* Wikimedians have developed lots of tools for preventing/fixing vandalism and errors of fact. Where less progress has been made, I think, is on the question of disproportionate criticism. It seems to me that the solution may include the development of systems designed to expose particularly biased articles to a greater number of people who can help fix them. But this is a pretty tough problem and I would welcome people's suggestions for resolving it
* The editors I've spoken with about BLPs are pretty serious about them – they are generally conservative, restrained, privacy-conscious, etc. But I wonder if that general attitude is widely-shared. If Wikipedia believes (as is said in -for example- the English BLP policy) that it has a responsibility to take great care with BLPs, should there be a Wikipedia-wide BLP policy, or a projects-wide statement of some kind?
BLPs and our general effect on living people have been a tough problem for a long time, and I think we need now to bring together the appropriate people and resources, and hash through how to best make some progress on the problem. I'd like to start that discussion here, now. I'd appreciate any feedback from you all, before April. Please note I am deliberately not asking questions about who should be responsible for what: chapters, individual volunteers, the Wikimedia board or staff. We can figure that part out later. Right now I'm mostly interested in what we should be doing.
Thanks, Sue _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I normally spend my wikitime on writing articles, and generally avoid wikidrama. When I run into a BLP problem, if I'm uninvolved enough then I can deal with it myself. Sometimes, I am sufficiently involved and cannot be directly involved in resolving BLP problems and take admin actions myself. That said, I've been around Wikipedia for a long while, and know where to go to report a BLP problem and request assistance.
For many many months, I was observing blatant BLP violations and other serious issues with the William Rodriguez article, but was not in a position to take admin actions nor cleanup the article myself. The article was reported numerous times on ANI, checkuser/sockpuppets pages, the BLP noticeboard, and arbcom enforcement, only for the reports to be mostly ignored until last week when more drastic attention grabbing steps were taken. Contacting arbcom via e-mail was also not helpful. The article is still in serious need of cleanup, to bring it in compliance with the BLP policy.
Why are reports about BLP and other serious problems being ignored? Is this commonly the case that BLP reports and other serious problems are disregarded? I do see a fair bit of noise and drama on the admin noticeboards, but the number of admins effectively dealing with problems seems insufficient. My experience with OTRS is that they insufficiently deal with problems, perhaps also due to lack of manpower on the queues and shortage of people willing to take on tough cases.
Dealing with BLP and other such serious problems can be very time consuming, yet is a thankless task. It's a task that I'm not well-suited for, nor have the time available to help with. I'm not sure how to get more admins and editors involved in dealing with BLP reports? Also, the Wikipedia community and the foundation needs to be more supportive of those admins/editors who do step up and do a good job in handling these problems.
Anyway, the inaction of my BLP reports really frustrated me to the point where I was thinking of giving up on Wikipedia. I still don't have interest in doing much Wikipedia editing right now, though maybe after a few weeks (or maybe a month or two) of wikibreak, I will be back to editing more.
-Aude
I have some experience with customer service and was willing to serve as OTRS volunteer, but was rejected. The number of rejections I have witnessed is really shooting OTRS in the foot.
________________________________ From: Aude audevivere@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, March 2, 2009 8:57:14 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
I normally spend my wikitime on writing articles, and generally avoid wikidrama. When I run into a BLP problem, if I'm uninvolved enough then I can deal with it myself. Sometimes, I am sufficiently involved and cannot be directly involved in resolving BLP problems and take admin actions myself. That said, I've been around Wikipedia for a long while, and know where to go to report a BLP problem and request assistance.
For many many months, I was observing blatant BLP violations and other serious issues with the William Rodriguez article, but was not in a position to take admin actions nor cleanup the article myself. The article was reported numerous times on ANI, checkuser/sockpuppets pages, the BLP noticeboard, and arbcom enforcement, only for the reports to be mostly ignored until last week when more drastic attention grabbing steps were taken. Contacting arbcom via e-mail was also not helpful. The article is still in serious need of cleanup, to bring it in compliance with the BLP policy.
Why are reports about BLP and other serious problems being ignored? Is this commonly the case that BLP reports and other serious problems are disregarded? I do see a fair bit of noise and drama on the admin noticeboards, but the number of admins effectively dealing with problems seems insufficient. My experience with OTRS is that they insufficiently deal with problems, perhaps also due to lack of manpower on the queues and shortage of people willing to take on tough cases.
Dealing with BLP and other such serious problems can be very time consuming, yet is a thankless task. It's a task that I'm not well-suited for, nor have the time available to help with. I'm not sure how to get more admins and editors involved in dealing with BLP reports? Also, the Wikipedia community and the foundation needs to be more supportive of those admins/editors who do step up and do a good job in handling these problems.
Anyway, the inaction of my BLP reports really frustrated me to the point where I was thinking of giving up on Wikipedia. I still don't have interest in doing much Wikipedia editing right now, though maybe after a few weeks (or maybe a month or two) of wikibreak, I will be back to editing more.
-Aude
Hello,
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
I have some experience with customer service and was willing to serve as OTRS volunteer, but was rejected. The number of rejections I have witnessed is really shooting OTRS in the foot.
I can understand your bitterness, but I think it leads you to the wrong conclusion. I'd rather say that our high standards are one of the strengths of our response team.
I care not about my application being killed. I am pointing out that it appears that you kill most of the applications, which may be the reason for a lack of manpower. Have you considered using IRC for interviews as part of the application package?
________________________________ From: Guillaume Paumier guillom.pom@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, March 2, 2009 9:05:58 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
Hello,
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
I have some experience with customer service and was willing to serve as OTRS volunteer, but was rejected. The number of rejections I have witnessed is really shooting OTRS in the foot.
I can understand your bitterness, but I think it leads you to the wrong conclusion. I'd rather say that our high standards are one of the strengths of our response team.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
I care not about my application being killed. I am pointing out that it appears that you kill most of the applications, which may be the >reason for a lack of manpower.
Access to OTRS implies a high trust into the user from the part of the foundation.
The main backlog is currently with permissions emails, where less stringent access standards (should) apply, because the information there is mostly not very sensitive.
The second largest backlog is in the Quality subqueue of info-en, and this is the issue here...because access to info-en::Quality is a fairly high level access in the general OTRS system (I'm making this sound much more bureaucratic than it actually is) -- obviously, because there you'll find the high priority cases with a possibly high PR impact, so we need to make sure that we trust people who handle them. I've seen people attach copies of their ID or copies of their Criminal Records File in emails to that queue...so I hope you understand that I support being quite strict in giving access there.
Have you considered using IRC for interviews as part of the application package?
That would require a high amount of time for the OTRS admins. Mind you, it's not "the foundation's HR department" that does this but individual volunteers.
Michael
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
That would require a high amount of time for the OTRS admins. Mind you, it's not "the foundation's HR department" that does this but individual volunteers.
Perhaps it's good then that an OTRS related position opened the other day, so the workload will be less.
Not necessarily. You do them in bulk at a certain time each week or every two weeks.
________________________________ From: Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, March 2, 2009 9:22:19 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
I care not about my application being killed. I am pointing out that it appears that you kill most of the applications, which may be the >reason for a lack of manpower.
Access to OTRS implies a high trust into the user from the part of the foundation.
The main backlog is currently with permissions emails, where less stringent access standards (should) apply, because the information there is mostly not very sensitive.
The second largest backlog is in the Quality subqueue of info-en, and this is the issue here...because access to info-en::Quality is a fairly high level access in the general OTRS system (I'm making this sound much more bureaucratic than it actually is) -- obviously, because there you'll find the high priority cases with a possibly high PR impact, so we need to make sure that we trust people who handle them. I've seen people attach copies of their ID or copies of their Criminal Records File in emails to that queue...so I hope you understand that I support being quite strict in giving access there.
Have you considered using IRC for interviews as part of the application package?
That would require a high amount of time for the OTRS admins. Mind you, it's not "the foundation's HR department" that does this but individual volunteers.
Michael
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
Not necessarily. You do them in bulk at a certain time each week or every two weeks.
And of course all applicants will be available at the same time, because they all live in the same timezones and have the same work/life schedule. And I thought coordinating a meeting with a few students in Zurich was difficult....
The assumption is that the people are dedicated enough to make time for the interview. Or you can do them individually. It isn't that hard or time consuming.
________________________________ From: Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, March 2, 2009 9:41:41 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
Not necessarily. You do them in bulk at a certain time each week or every two weeks.
And of course all applicants will be available at the same time, because they all live in the same timezones and have the same work/life schedule. And I thought coordinating a meeting with a few students in Zurich was difficult....
As an easy start for BLPs to contact us for help, why not have the global footer of all WMF sites include a prominent and very visible link to a simple mail form they can use to mail OTRS or the Foundation for help?
- Joe
2009/3/2 Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com:
As an easy start for BLPs to contact us for help, why not have the global footer of all WMF sites include a prominent and very visible link to a simple mail form they can use to mail OTRS or the Foundation for help?
Because no-one reads the footer (or we wouldn't have so many people surprised we're a charity). Hardly anyone reads the sidebar, but at least it's there. We changed the link on en:wp from "Contact us" to "Contact Wikipedia" to make it clear we weren't talking about how to contact the article subject ...
We could put an email link to info@wikimedia.org in the footer. Shall we do so? Superfluous?
- d.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:17 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/2 Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com:
As an easy start for BLPs to contact us for help, why not have the global footer of all WMF sites include a prominent and very visible link to a simple mail form they can use to mail OTRS or the Foundation for help?
Because no-one reads the footer (or we wouldn't have so many people surprised we're a charity). Hardly anyone reads the sidebar, but at least it's there. We changed the link on en:wp from "Contact us" to "Contact Wikipedia" to make it clear we weren't talking about how to contact the article subject ...
We could put an email link to info@wikimedia.org in the footer. Shall we do so? Superfluous?
Since BLP is so important--and Sue is wrong, not because of the "coverage" of Wikimedia over it, which is distantly secondary to the negative effects of a bad BLP situation on a Wikimedia site--then let's put a big prominent "Report A Problem" link on the top of every page, WMF-wide.
- Joe
Another alternate idea would be to make Flagged Revisions a Foundation requirement for all WMF projects. That would put far more filtering and control in place for helping to weed out BLP issues.
If any project contests this locally, the Magic Fork Option exists for that reason.
Joe
2009/3/2 Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com:
Since BLP is so important--and Sue is wrong, not because of the "coverage" of Wikimedia over it, which is distantly secondary to the negative effects of a bad BLP situation on a Wikimedia site--then let's put a big prominent "Report A Problem" link on the top of every page, WMF-wide.
I can see "Report a problem with this page" going in the sidebar of en:wp without controversy. We might even make it red.
The main thing would be to make sure we have the back end in place.
Something like the Special:Contact page would be a good idea. At the very least, a mailto:info@wikimedia.org link.
(But first, it'd be good to know just what will be done with editorial notes - just throwing them away wouldn't be good. OTRS is rather understaffed as is. It'd be easy to look like we can deal with lots of complaints, but I'm not sure we can just yet.)
- d.
Personally, I'd like to see a prominent "Report a problem with this article" link or box only on BLPs for starters. We don't want to overwhelm OTRS with complaints about other sorts of less time sensitive errors, nor do we want to discourage people who notice errors from figuring out how to actually edit. I wonder if something can be attached to categories? Like subcategories of "Category:Living people" if such a thing exists, and have the report link on all pages in those categories.
You still have the problem of uncategorized pages, but at least it makes the report link stick out by not having it be part of the typically ignored interface framework.
Nathan
If I'm not mistaken it should be possible to detect the presence of a text which describe a person, and then include a link to a contact form about BLP.
John
Nathan skrev:
Personally, I'd like to see a prominent "Report a problem with this article" link or box only on BLPs for starters. We don't want to overwhelm OTRS with complaints about other sorts of less time sensitive errors, nor do we want to discourage people who notice errors from figuring out how to actually edit. I wonder if something can be attached to categories? Like subcategories of "Category:Living people" if such a thing exists, and have the report link on all pages in those categories.
You still have the problem of uncategorized pages, but at least it makes the report link stick out by not having it be part of the typically ignored interface framework.
Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:26 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/2 Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com:
Since BLP is so important--and Sue is wrong, not because of the "coverage" of Wikimedia over it, which is distantly secondary to the negative effects of a bad BLP situation on a Wikimedia site--then let's put a big prominent "Report A Problem" link on the top of every page, WMF-wide.
I can see "Report a problem with this page" going in the sidebar of en:wp without controversy. We might even make it red.
The main thing would be to make sure we have the back end in place.
Something like the Special:Contact page would be a good idea. At the very least, a mailto:info@wikimedia.org link.
(But first, it'd be good to know just what will be done with editorial notes - just throwing them away wouldn't be good. OTRS is rather understaffed as is. It'd be easy to look like we can deal with lots of complaints, but I'm not sure we can just yet.)
Yeah - as useful as it would be to have a "send email to OTRS" link everywhere, using that as the first line of response to quality problems wiki-wide would crush OTRS. Talk pages and admins and noticeboards are there on-wiki for reasons.... the on-wiki response scales much better than OTRS, who are artificially limited by being restricted to people identified and known well enough to be trusted with what is in some cases extremely sensitive personal information.
If we think this is worth doing - can we have an article tag which would shift it from making some sort of local on-wiki report (take you to a special page that had an explanation, with preferred solution being links to add a new section to the talk page, for example), switching to an email to OTRS in the case of a tagged BLP article. This would require developer support but might be a better balance.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:36 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah - as useful as it would be to have a "send email to OTRS" link everywhere, using that as the first line of response to quality problems wiki-wide would crush OTRS. Talk pages and admins and noticeboards are there on-wiki for reasons.... the on-wiki response scales much better than OTRS, who are artificially limited by being restricted to people identified and known well enough to be trusted with what is in some cases extremely sensitive personal information.
If we think this is worth doing - can we have an article tag which would shift it from making some sort of local on-wiki report (take you to a special page that had an explanation, with preferred solution being links to add a new section to the talk page, for example), switching to an email to OTRS in the case of a tagged BLP article. This would require developer support but might be a better balance.
A prominent REPORT AN ISSUE button on all BLPs in the site header, WMF-wide; and compulsory Flagged Revisions on all WMF sites would be a great start.
- Joe
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:26 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/2 Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com:
Since BLP is so important--and Sue is wrong, not because of the "coverage" of Wikimedia over it, which is distantly secondary to the negative effects of a bad BLP situation on a Wikimedia site--then let's put a big prominent "Report A Problem" link on the top of every page, WMF-wide.
I can see "Report a problem with this page" going in the sidebar of en:wp without controversy. We might even make it red.
The main thing would be to make sure we have the back end in place.
Something like the Special:Contact page would be a good idea. At the very least, a mailto:info@wikimedia.org link.
(But first, it'd be good to know just what will be done with editorial notes - just throwing them away wouldn't be good. OTRS is rather understaffed as is. It'd be easy to look like we can deal with lots of complaints, but I'm not sure we can just yet.)
If OTRS is understaffed, then there's an easy fix to that too. Make a separate queue that this specifically will go to, have less stringent requirements in place for that, and have the form be explicit that it's ONLY for articles/issues about living people.
- Joe
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
If OTRS is understaffed, then there's an easy fix to that too. Make a separate queue that this specifically will go to, have less stringent requirements in place for that, and have the form be explicit that it's ONLY for articles/issues about living people.
Excuse me? BLPs are one of the most sensitive tickets that arrive in OTRS, because people will often share non-public information on themselves and their "cases", under the implication of confidentiality. If anything, these merit more stringent access requirements! (I know this doesn't help to address the backlog, but we shouldn't forget this)
Michael
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
If OTRS is understaffed, then there's an easy fix to that too. Make a separate queue that this specifically will go to, have less stringent requirements in place for that, and have the form be explicit that it's ONLY for articles/issues about living people.
Excuse me? BLPs are one of the most sensitive tickets that arrive in OTRS, because people will often share non-public information on themselves and their "cases", under the implication of confidentiality. If anything, these merit more stringent access requirements! (I know this doesn't help to address the backlog, but we shouldn't forget this)
Michael
I understand that, but there is has to be a way to do this if the Foundation for legal reasons (Section 230) can't take ownership of the BLP problem directly.
Joe
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
If OTRS is understaffed, then there's an easy fix to that too. Make a separate queue that this specifically will go to, have less stringent requirements in place for that, and have the form be explicit that it's ONLY for articles/issues about living people.
Excuse me? BLPs are one of the most sensitive tickets that arrive in OTRS, because people will often share non-public information on themselves and their "cases", under the implication of confidentiality. If anything, these merit more stringent access requirements! (I know this doesn't help to address the backlog, but we shouldn't forget this)
Michael
I understand that, but there is has to be a way to do this if the Foundation for legal reasons (Section 230) can't take ownership of the BLP problem directly.
More focus on the problem doesn't mean that we can treat it in a more cavalier manner just to get more attention on it.
What people send to OTRS (and secondarily, the unblock lists like unblock-en-l) is often highly sensitive material. I've seen scans of drivers licenses, passports, etc. Others mentioned criminal records printouts, etc.
We can't undo that aspect of that job - so crushing the people doing that stuff under additional load is unwise. That should be a restrictive parameter in solving the other stuff - OTRS can have an additional role to play here, sure, and it already is a destination for many BLP concerns. But we can't funnel through it as the first solution to any article problem.
Finding a balance (technical, policy, user interface) is required...
On Mar 2, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Joe Szilagyi wrote:
If OTRS is understaffed, then there's an easy fix to that too. Make a separate queue that this specifically will go to, have less stringent requirements in place for that, and have the form be explicit that it's ONLY for articles/issues about living people.
- Joe
Half-agree - we don't want LESS stringent requirements, we want MORE stringent requirements for a BLP queue. These are the articles that can do real, manifest, actionable harm to real people. We want our most highly trusted and most experienced editors working on BLPs, imho.
Philippe
___________________ philippe philippe.wiki@gmail.com
[[en:User:Philippe]]
2009/3/2 philippe philippe.wiki@gmail.com
On Mar 2, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Joe Szilagyi wrote:
If OTRS is understaffed, then there's an easy fix to that too. Make a separate queue that this specifically will go to, have less stringent requirements in place for that, and have the form be explicit that it's ONLY for articles/issues about living people.
- Joe
Half-agree - we don't want LESS stringent requirements, we want MORE stringent requirements for a BLP queue. These are the articles that can do real, manifest, actionable harm to real people. We want our most highly trusted and most experienced editors working on BLPs, imho.
Philippe
I agree with this. I also believe there is a higher requirement for tact and kindness when dealing with BLPs, relative to other types of articles. To me this is a fundamental ethical issue and also a practical one - there is no point inviting people to engage with us, if we are planning to then slap them in the face. Particularly if they are already feeling wounded due to (what they perceive as) a problematic BLP.
This is similar to the issue of public outreach - as Frank Schulenburg has said many times, there's no point actively recruiting new editors, if we intend to then be rude to them. I personally believe that friendliness and civility are important for the Wikimedia projects, both as ends in and of themselves, and as important drivers of successful collaboration.
Also and separately ..... I just got a note off-list from someone pointing out that we are spending a lot of time here talking about how to fix problematic BLPs, rather than how to support quality before-the-fact (ie., preventative measures). I think it's a reasonable point. I asked whether raising the notability bar would improve the overall quality of BLPs. Do we have other ideas for preventative measures?
I asked whether raising the notability bar would improve the overall quality of BLPs. Do we have other ideas for preventative measures?
The start of a poor biography is good news coverage of some incident that occurred to a person, their 15 minutes of fame, or infamy. Any other information about the person is not available, at least not from any reliable published source. To avoid this would require exclusion of biographies regarding persons about whom information about their life, apart from an incident, is unavailable.
Fred
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fred Bauder wrote:
I asked whether raising the notability bar would improve the overall quality of BLPs. Do we have other ideas for preventative measures?
The start of a poor biography is good news coverage of some incident that occurred to a person, their 15 minutes of fame, or infamy. Any other information about the person is not available, at least not from any reliable published source. To avoid this would require exclusion of biographies regarding persons about whom information about their life, apart from an incident, is unavailable.
This would exclude a great deal of pornographic actresses and actors. Which I don't think is a bad thing, in fact. I'm far from a prude, but someone who is solely notable for appearing in a few pornographic films seems to contradict what our policy is regarding other inclusion categories; and these articles seem to have a higher-than-average incident of compliant rate, notably when personal information begins to appear on their articles.
Cary
The whole issue might be approached in these steps:
1) Determine the role of the Foundation We claim that WMF does not interfere with the content. How true is this, and how true we want to make it? It is pretty easy to say that "our national Wikimedia organisation" is not the owner, but WMF in a country far far away and difficult to suit. And WMF claims that it is not responsible for content, but the author in question. But if WMF establishes a policy about BLP, there might rise doubt this.
2) Determine what the issue exactly is If someone complaints about "his" article, his criticism can be reasonable or not. So this is the policy itself. Maybe WMF could support (together with other organizations) a group of experts that makes a policy proposal for internet platforms in general.
3) Help the readers, "victims" and Wikipedians Not only for the persons concerned, but also for the Wikipedians it is important to know how to deal with the issue. I would welcome a brochure for people who believe that their personality rights are inflicted, and training lessons for Wikipedians. Those lessons could be organized by Wikimedia organisations with a more general title, also interesting for a curriculum vitae (resumé) of the participating Wikipedians.
Kind regards Ziko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fred Bauder wrote:
I asked whether raising the notability bar would improve the overall quality of BLPs. Do we have other ideas for preventative measures?
The start of a poor biography is good news coverage of some incident that occurred to a person, their 15 minutes of fame, or infamy. Any other information about the person is not available, at least not from any reliable published source. To avoid this would require exclusion of biographies regarding persons about whom information about their life, apart from an incident, is unavailable.
This would exclude a great deal of pornographic actresses and actors. Which I don't think is a bad thing, in fact. I'm far from a prude, but someone who is solely notable for appearing in a few pornographic films seems to contradict what our policy is regarding other inclusion categories; and these articles seem to have a higher-than-average incident of compliant rate, notably when personal information begins to appear on their articles.
Cary
That would not preclude an article about the movie, if notable, although only a few films spring to mind. And the name of the actor can be mentioned but ought not be a redlink, unless the person's private life is notable and the subject of substantial information published in reliable sources.
Fred
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
That would not preclude an article about the movie, if notable, although only a few films spring to mind. And the name of the actor can be mentioned but ought not be a redlink, unless the person's private life is notable and the subject of substantial information published in reliable sources.
I see no reason why having an article on someone need include information not published in reliable sources. If they're well-known for something in the public eye but details of their life elsewhere are not prevalent, then that's how our article should be as well.
-Matt
2009/3/3 Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com:
I see no reason why having an article on someone need include information not published in reliable sources. If they're well-known for something in the public eye but details of their life elsewhere are not prevalent, then that's how our article should be as well.
This will promptly become a "your source is great"/"no yours sucks mine rules" battle. When we started requiring references, that became the target of the querulous. And everyone is convinced the term "reliable sources" is actually (a) objectively definable (b) invariant for all topics.
And never mind that people who know about the construction of ontology and how it works usually have a degree or two in the subject, I'm sure a bunch of people who've been on a wiki for a few months can make up something that passes all muster, and if it doesn't then reality is wrong. And the New York Times is gospel, but anything in the subject's own blog must be first assumed to be a tissue of lies, and the subject themselves buried in initialisms.
- d.
2009/3/3 Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com:
I see no reason why having an article on someone need include information not published in reliable sources. Â If they're well-known for something in the public eye but details of their life elsewhere are not prevalent, then that's how our article should be as well.
This will promptly become a "your source is great"/"no yours sucks mine rules" battle. When we started requiring references, that became the target of the querulous. And everyone is convinced the term "reliable sources" is actually (a) objectively definable (b) invariant for all topics.
And never mind that people who know about the construction of ontology and how it works usually have a degree or two in the subject, I'm sure a bunch of people who've been on a wiki for a few months can make up something that passes all muster, and if it doesn't then reality is wrong. And the New York Times is gospel, but anything in the subject's own blog must be first assumed to be a tissue of lies, and the subject themselves buried in initialisms.
- d.
How about something a little more helpful?
Fred
2009/3/4 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
How about something a little more helpful?
Uh, I think pointing out obvious problems counts, particularly when the solution offered is to do the same things that are already problematic twice as hard.
The hard part is to lead the community to a standard of living bio that is suitable.
* What makes a valid research source is not something teenagers on a website can make up off the top of their heads and expect to get right, but that's what WP:RS is. See the talk page if you don't believe me. Hubris and enthusiasm don't make competence, unfortunately. * No guideline or policy will protect against stupidity or malice, and those that try to will be a millstone for good faith editors. But time and time again, the community reaction has been to add more policies and guidelines in the hope these will protect against stupidity or malice, and blame the good faith editors for not following the bad guidelines hard enough. See the current arbitration case on the matter.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2009/3/4 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
How about something a little more helpful?
Uh, I think pointing out obvious problems counts, particularly when the solution offered is to do the same things that are already problematic twice as hard.
The hard part is to lead the community to a standard of living bio that is suitable.
- What makes a valid research source is not something teenagers on a
website can make up off the top of their heads and expect to get right, but that's what WP:RS is. See the talk page if you don't believe me. Hubris and enthusiasm don't make competence, unfortunately.
- No guideline or policy will protect against stupidity or malice, and
those that try to will be a millstone for good faith editors. But time and time again, the community reaction has been to add more policies and guidelines in the hope these will protect against stupidity or malice, and blame the good faith editors for not following the bad guidelines hard enough. See the current arbitration case on the matter.
- d.
__
I cannot stress enough how strongly I agree with this assessment. If NPOV, V, and RS were followed - as they should be by normally intelligent adults wishing to write good articles - BLP isn't even needed at all. I support BLP existing, although I've seen it misused a good bit - but IMO it wouldn't hurt a bit if someone IAR'd and gutted a lot of the other policies that have grown up like weeds over the last couple of years. More will only make matters worse.
-kc-
2009/3/4 KillerChihuahua puppy@killerchihuahua.com:
I cannot stress enough how strongly I agree with this assessment. If NPOV, V, and RS were followed - as they should be by normally intelligent adults wishing to write good articles - BLP isn't even needed at all. I support BLP existing, although I've seen it misused a good bit - but IMO it wouldn't hurt a bit if someone IAR'd and gutted a lot of the other policies that have grown up like weeds over the last couple of years. More will only make matters worse.
Not quite - the important difference with BLPs is that we cannot be eventualist (start with an awful article and let it improve with time) - we do not have the luxury of eventualism. With BLPs, we must be immediatist - we must not have a live version that violates the content rules.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2009/3/4 KillerChihuahua puppy@killerchihuahua.com:
I cannot stress enough how strongly I agree with this assessment. If NPOV, V, and RS were followed - as they should be by normally intelligent adults wishing to write good articles - BLP isn't even needed at all. I support BLP existing, although I've seen it misused a good bit - but IMO it wouldn't hurt a bit if someone IAR'd and gutted a lot of the other policies that have grown up like weeds over the last couple of years. More will only make matters worse.
Not quite - the important difference with BLPs is that we cannot be eventualist (start with an awful article and let it improve with time)
- we do not have the luxury of eventualism. With BLPs, we must be
immediatist - we must not have a live version that violates the content rules.
- d.
Quite right - I should have been more clear on that. -kc-
Fred Bauder wrote:
This would exclude a great deal of pornographic actresses and actors. Which I don't think is a bad thing, in fact. I'm far from a prude, but someone who is solely notable for appearing in a few pornographic films seems to contradict what our policy is regarding other inclusion categories; and these articles seem to have a higher-than-average incident of compliant rate, notably when personal information begins to appear on their articles.
Cary
That would not preclude an article about the movie, if notable, although only a few films spring to mind. And the name of the actor can be mentioned but ought not be a redlink, unless the person's private life is notable and the subject of substantial information published in reliable sources.
He may have appeared in more than one film, or he may have received awards for his performances, or he may have been active in free speech politics. This still does not touch on his personal life .
Ec
2009/3/2 Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com:
Since BLP is so important--and Sue is wrong, not because of the "coverage" of Wikimedia over it, which is distantly secondary to the negative effects of a bad BLP situation on a Wikimedia site--
Sue was clearly talking about the coverage inside Wikimedia projects, not the coverage in external media. The word "coverage" has meaning beyond "press coverage". Read the first sentence of the e-mail again:
"I've been increasingly concerned lately about Wikimedia's coverage of living people, both within biographies of living people (BLPs) on Wikipedia, and in coverage of living people in non-BLP text."
On Mar 2, 2009, at 2:21 PM, Joe Szilagyi wrote:
Since BLP is so important--and Sue is wrong, not because of the "coverage" of Wikimedia over it, which is distantly secondary to the negative effects of a bad BLP situation on a Wikimedia site--then let's put a big prominent "Report A Problem" link on the top of every page, WMF-wide.
- Joe
While I'm not in favor of such a "Report a Problem" link at the top of EVERY page (because sit back and watch that queue explode from reports of every piece of vandalism (it's SO much easier to report it than to fix it...) and we don't have a sufficient number of OTRS people to deal with that...
I AM in favor of having such a link appear at the top of every single BLP (perhaps automatically tied to the BLP template or some such auto- magic system?), with a fairly instant response that says "we got it. we'll be in touch..." and assigns it through some sort of basic workforce rule to a team of designated volunteers. The important thing is to make sure that ANYTHING sent through such a link is assigned and tracked in such a way that it can be RE-assigned if sufficient follow-up doesn't come fairly quickly.
Philippe
___________________ philippe philippe.wiki@gmail.com
[[en:User:Philippe]]
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:17 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
We could put an email link to info@wikimedia.org in the footer. Shall we do so? Superfluous?
I would say no, the English Wikipedia has a very specific queue make-up so that questions are answered more quickly and are more easily organized (including boilerplates specific to certain queues). One of the reasons we have a "wizard" on the Contact form is being they can lead to different places. (info-en-q, info-en-c, etc.)
I applaude that the foundation wants to do something about problems with BLP. In several countries, the success of wikipedia is so great, that it has become the number one source for information. This in turn means that we as the wikimedia movement have a huge responsibility and stepping up to that has become a question of ethical behavior: Not doing so would just be wrong. Meaning that we need better ways of dealing with problematic biographies and we need more ways of making these problems not happen. Oh, and editors are also living people by the way. Don't forget about striving to make the wikimedia projects a pleasant place to work in and not the documentation place for beerhousebrawl-style discussions it too often is.
More specific answers to Sues questions:
2009/3/2 Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org:
So what can we do? Here are the things I am thinking about. I would love your input:
- 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? Some Wikimedia chapters have pioneered more systematic training of volunteers to handle OTRS responses; should we try to scale up those or similar practices?
My experiences are mostly on de-WP. Problems with BLP are coming in frequently now, roughly once a week even people with lawyers.We have a highly motivated Support-Team that is able to handle the cases coming in via OTRS at an acceptable speed and with good success. The support team works tight with WM-DE and our lawyers. People strive to become better, there have been several RL-meetings of the team, which have now become recurrent events, financially supported by WM-DE and also by our lawyers. Reason for this is that these meetings have been useful to the volunteers attending and that, as I said, the team is highly motivated. So: yes, strive to have this for every Wikipedia.
Availability is a problem: Although the page with the email is listed on any de-WP-page, people frequently complain that it was difficult to find us. As for en-WP, finding a contact adress is hard even for me.
- Are there technical tools we could implement, that would support greater
quality in BLPs? For example – easy problem reporting systems, particular configurations of Flagged Revs, etc.
One of my reasons to develop Flagged Revs was an incident with blatant vandalism in an article about a well known german politician that persisted for several months until we got an email from his office. That is plain unacceptable. Flagged revisions work very well in these cases. However, flagged revisions are not the complete solution, in particular they do not help persistently against clever POV pushing or against making articles more unbiased. But: I really like the test proposal on en-WP to try flagged revs out on BLP articles. Turn it on for those as soon as possible.
- Wikimedians have developed lots of tools for preventing/fixing vandalism
and errors of fact. Where less progress has been made, I think, is on the question of disproportionate criticism. It seems to me that the solution may include the development of systems designed to expose particularly biased articles to a greater number of people who can help fix them. But this is a pretty tough problem and I would welcome people's suggestions for resolving it
What is so special about Wikipedia as far as the BLPs go is the Wiki. It means that anybody can do anything and that means that the principle of a lot of people checking an article is important to success. Flagged Revs makes at least a four-eye-principle mandatory for edits of not yet trusted editors. That's good, but it doesn't mean that the people actually know what they are writing/flagging about. What I'm saying is: Notability is an important criteria for BLP to make sure that there are actually people around who can check what is written. When in doubt about notability, delete BLPs. Do not make low notability criterias for living persons.
- The editors I've spoken with about BLPs are pretty serious about them –
they are generally conservative, restrained, privacy-conscious, etc. But I wonder if that general attitude is widely-shared. If Wikipedia believes (as is said in -for example- the English BLP policy) that it has a responsibility to take great care with BLPs, should there be a Wikipedia-wide BLP policy, or a projects-wide statement of some kind?
Yes. There already are project wide policies, like the neutral point of view and for example a privacy policy could be useful. I have the impression that privacy is cherished in any culture, west, east, you name it, so this might fit.
I also severely disagree that the foremost goal of the foundation regarding legal issues should be, to make the foundation a legally untargetable fortress, at the cost of no control whatsoever about the projects it hosts. There is a middle ground and that should be taken, for the benefit of the content and the editors.
Best,
Philipp
2009/3/2 P. Birken pbirken@gmail.com:
One of my reasons to develop Flagged Revs was an incident with blatant vandalism in an article about a well known german politician that persisted for several months until we got an email from his office. That is plain unacceptable. Flagged revisions work very well in these cases. However, flagged revisions are not the complete solution, in particular they do not help persistently against clever POV pushing or against making articles more unbiased. But: I really like the test proposal on en-WP to try flagged revs out on BLP articles. Turn it on for those as soon as possible.
As far as I can make out, the present situation on en:wp is: a proposal was put which got 59% support. That's not a sufficiently convincing support level. So Jimbo is currently putting together a better proposal, with the aim of at least 2/3 support and hoping for 80% - it'll be more robust. Timeframe, er, I just asked him as well.
i.e. we're getting there! Inch by inch!
- d.
2009/3/2 P. Birken pbirken@gmail.com
My experiences are mostly on de-WP. Problems with BLP are coming in frequently now, roughly once a week even people with lawyers.We have a highly motivated Support-Team that is able to handle the cases coming in via OTRS at an acceptable speed and with good success. The support team works tight with WM-DE and our lawyers. People strive to become better, there have been several RL-meetings of the team, which have now become recurrent events, financially supported by WM-DE and also by our lawyers. Reason for this is that these meetings have been useful to the volunteers attending and that, as I said, the team is highly motivated. So: yes, strive to have this for every Wikipedia.
...... [lots of useful comments] .....
What is so special about Wikipedia as far as the BLPs go is the Wiki. It means that anybody can do anything and that means that the principle of a lot of people checking an article is important to success. Flagged Revs makes at least a four-eye-principle mandatory for edits of not yet trusted editors. That's good, but it doesn't mean that the people actually know what they are writing/flagging about. What I'm saying is: Notability is an important criteria for BLP to make sure that there are actually people around who can check what is written. When in doubt about notability, delete BLPs. Do not make low notability criterias for living persons.
Thank you Philipp - I only quoted two bits, but this entire e-mail was useful for me.
In general - I have always understood that the German Wikipedia is conservative, and leans towards building a smaller, higher-quality encyclopedia, compared with the English version which is bigger and more variable in quality. It's my understanding that the policies and practices of the German Wikipedia are less permissive than in English, in pretty much every way.
So, two questions strike me:
1) If we're imagining a continuum with smaller/higher-quality/restrictive at one end, and larger/variable-in-quality/permissive at the other .... I am curious to know where the other language versions situate themselves. I am assuming that (with some exceptions) they cluster closer to the English model than the German, but I am just guessing. Do they?
2) When it comes to the German Wikipedia and other language versions which put an unusually high priority on quality ..... I am curious to know what quality-supportive measures (be they technical, social/cultural, or policy-level) those Wikipedia have in place. Philipp says a high threshold for notability is one in the German Wikipedia. Are there others?
Thanks, Sue
my tuppence in amongst the many voices :-).....
- If we're imagining a continuum with smaller/higher-quality/restrictive
at one end, and larger/variable-in-quality/permissive at the other .... I am curious to know where the other language versions situate themselves. I am assuming that (with some exceptions) they cluster closer to the English model than the German, but I am just guessing. Do they?
Generally, I think it's probably best to consider the english wikipedia as a fundamentally different beast to other projects - for a variety of reasons, not least the sheer scale of the project. That aside - I'd share the impression that the German project has evolved stronger structure / governance processes than many / any others, and to that degree smaller projects are indeed clustering closer to the english wiki.
- When it comes to the German Wikipedia and other language versions which
put an unusually high priority on quality ..... I am curious to know what quality-supportive measures (be they technical, social/cultural, or policy-level) those Wikipedia have in place. Philipp says a high threshold for notability is one in the German Wikipedia. Are there others?
You may well have read this before - but it's put rather well by 'Kato' over at Wikipedia Review;
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=23140&view=findpos...
basically there's a sensible three stage plan to follow to help drive quality and minimise 'BLP' harm;
1) Semi-protext all 'BLP' material 2) Allow an 'opt-out' for some subjects (eg. non public figures, or those not covered in 'dead tree sources' for example) - note this is more inclusive than a simple higher threshold for notability 3) 'Default to delete' in discussions about BLP material - if we can't positively say that it improves the project, it's sensible and responsible to remove the material in my view.
It's very heartening to see this important issue getting discussion / attention :-)
cheers,
Peter PM.
On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:48 PM, private musings wrote:
basically there's a sensible three stage plan to follow to help drive quality and minimise 'BLP' harm;
- Semi-protext all 'BLP' material
- Allow an 'opt-out' for some subjects (eg. non public figures, or
those not covered in 'dead tree sources' for example) - note this is more inclusive than a simple higher threshold for notability 3) 'Default to delete' in discussions about BLP material - if we can't positively say that it improves the project, it's sensible and responsible to remove the material in my view.
As a general rule, I think pm has given us a common-sense place to begin discussions about how to cleanup existing BLPs. There will always be situations that don't fit within this, but as a starting point for guidelines, I support these.
Philippe
quick bit extra - flagged revisions for BLP material is also a bit of a no-brainer, and should be recommended by the foundation immediately as a valuable software improvement - it's really part of point 1) (Semi 'protext' all BLP material - curse my typo!)
cheers,
Peter PM.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:06 AM, philippe philippe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:48 PM, private musings wrote:
basically there's a sensible three stage plan to follow to help drive quality and minimise 'BLP' harm;
- Semi-protext all 'BLP' material
- Allow an 'opt-out' for some subjects (eg. non public figures, or
those not covered in 'dead tree sources' for example) - note this is more inclusive than a simple higher threshold for notability 3) 'Default to delete' in discussions about BLP material - if we can't positively say that it improves the project, it's sensible and responsible to remove the material in my view.
As a general rule, I think pm has given us a common-sense place to begin discussions about how to cleanup existing BLPs. There will always be situations that don't fit within this, but as a starting point for guidelines, I support these.
Philippe
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/3/2 philippe philippe.wiki@gmail.com
On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:48 PM, private musings wrote:
basically there's a sensible three stage plan to follow to help drive quality and minimise 'BLP' harm;
- Semi-protext all 'BLP' material
- Allow an 'opt-out' for some subjects (eg. non public figures, or
those not covered in 'dead tree sources' for example) - note this is more inclusive than a simple higher threshold for notability 3) 'Default to delete' in discussions about BLP material - if we can't positively say that it improves the project, it's sensible and responsible to remove the material in my view.
As a general rule, I think pm has given us a common-sense place to begin discussions about how to cleanup existing BLPs. There will always be situations that don't fit within this, but as a starting point for guidelines, I support these.
It seems obvious to me from the conversation on this thread that part of the reason the German Wikipedia seems better able to manage its BLPs (assuming that is true - but it seems true) is because there is a smaller number of them. Presumably a smaller number of BLPs = fewer to maintain and problem-solve = a higher quality level overall. (And possibly also, OTRS volunteers who are less stressed out, resulting in a higher level of patience and kindness when complaints do get made.)
Assuming that's true, allowing BLP subjects to opt-out seems like it would have a direct positive increase on the quality of remaining BLPs, in addition to eliminating some BLPs entirely. Clearly, there would still be a notability threshold above which people would never be allowed to opt out - there will always be articles about people such as Hillary Clinton and J.K. Rowling and Penelope Cruz. But a decision to significantly raise that threshold, as well as default to deletion upon request, seems like it would have a positive effect on quality.
Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and practices, particularly WRT BLPs?
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 3:17 AM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
It seems obvious to me from the conversation on this thread that part of the reason the German Wikipedia seems better able to manage its BLPs (assuming that is true - but it seems true) is because there is a smaller number of them. Presumably a smaller number of BLPs = fewer to maintain and problem-solve = a higher quality level overall. (And possibly also, OTRS volunteers who are less stressed out, resulting in a higher level of patience and kindness when complaints do get made.)
Assuming that's true, allowing BLP subjects to opt-out seems like it would have a direct positive increase on the quality of remaining BLPs, in addition to eliminating some BLPs entirely. Clearly, there would still be a notability threshold above which people would never be allowed to opt out - there will always be articles about people such as Hillary Clinton and J.K. Rowling and Penelope Cruz. But a decision to significantly raise that threshold, as well as default to deletion upon request, seems like it would have a positive effect on quality.
Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and practices, particularly WRT BLPs?
I think raising the notability threshold would certainly help, and would be okay with allowing deletion upon request. I have by far experienced the most problems with BLPs for those of lesser notability. Right now, BLPs on those with lesser notability have more limited sources to build a proper biography, and often the sources that do exist tend to emphasize controversy about the person and thus the Wikipedia bio skews that way.
-Aude
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Any body help ....I have blog for publiser ...but my trafic is low Sent from my BlackBerry® powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT
-----Original Message----- From: Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 00:17:14 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
2009/3/2 philippe philippe.wiki@gmail.com
On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:48 PM, private musings wrote:
basically there's a sensible three stage plan to follow to help drive quality and minimise 'BLP' harm;
- Semi-protext all 'BLP' material
- Allow an 'opt-out' for some subjects (eg. non public figures, or
those not covered in 'dead tree sources' for example) - note this is more inclusive than a simple higher threshold for notability 3) 'Default to delete' in discussions about BLP material - if we can't positively say that it improves the project, it's sensible and responsible to remove the material in my view.
As a general rule, I think pm has given us a common-sense place to begin discussions about how to cleanup existing BLPs. There will always be situations that don't fit within this, but as a starting point for guidelines, I support these.
It seems obvious to me from the conversation on this thread that part of the reason the German Wikipedia seems better able to manage its BLPs (assuming that is true - but it seems true) is because there is a smaller number of them. Presumably a smaller number of BLPs = fewer to maintain and problem-solve = a higher quality level overall. (And possibly also, OTRS volunteers who are less stressed out, resulting in a higher level of patience and kindness when complaints do get made.)
Assuming that's true, allowing BLP subjects to opt-out seems like it would have a direct positive increase on the quality of remaining BLPs, in addition to eliminating some BLPs entirely. Clearly, there would still be a notability threshold above which people would never be allowed to opt out - there will always be articles about people such as Hillary Clinton and J.K. Rowling and Penelope Cruz. But a decision to significantly raise that threshold, as well as default to deletion upon request, seems like it would have a positive effect on quality.
Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and practices, particularly WRT BLPs? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Sue Gardner wrote:
Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and practices, particularly WRT BLPs?
To the first question: I am not sure if this really helps solve the problem. We will always mention peoples inside or outside of BLP articles that are maybe not so notable. We will cite them, report what is reported about them, etc. Frankly, I think the notability threshold between de-wp and en-wp are quite similar. The german have different focus. For example all parliament members of Germany have their article on de-wp, but not all american congressmen or senators has an article on de-wp. And on en-wp, most german parliament members don't have an article, while all congressmen and senators have an article. But the principle threshold for both are the same. The notability threshold are radically different on other areas, for example fictional figures, but that is not our topic.
To the second question: Yes. I think there should be NONE defaulting to deletion upon request. There is also no default deletion upon request on de-wp. A request for delete should always be checked.
To the third question: Yes. Partly already answered in my other mails and partly above in the answer to the first question.
Ting
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Ting Chen wing.philopp@gmx.de wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the
notability
threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request
is a
bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should
shift
closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and practices, particularly WRT BLPs?
To the first question: I am not sure if this really helps solve the problem. We will always mention peoples inside or outside of BLP articles that are maybe not so notable. We will cite them, report what is reported about them, etc. Frankly, I think the notability threshold between de-wp and en-wp are quite similar. The german have different focus. For example all parliament members of Germany have their article on de-wp, but not all american congressmen or senators has an article on de-wp. And on en-wp, most german parliament members don't have an article, while all congressmen and senators have an article. But the principle threshold for both are the same. The notability threshold are radically different on other areas, for example fictional figures, but that is not our topic.
To the second question: Yes. I think there should be NONE defaulting to deletion upon request. There is also no default deletion upon request on de-wp. A request for delete should always be checked.
To the third question: Yes. Partly already answered in my other mails and partly above in the answer to the first question.
Ting
When people are mentioned on other wiki pages, those pages don't necessarily come up as prominently in Google searches. However, their Wikipedia biography article will be right at the top of search results. Of course, we want all articles to comply with BLP, but the impact of BLP problems on the subject is magnified with biographical articles.
Inclusion criteria, such as the "one news event" is helpful. If we could make the inclusion criteria for BLP more stringent in other such ways to weed out some of the garbage or tabloidy BLPs, that would be welcome in my opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminat...
-Aude
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/3/3 Aude audevivere@gmail.com:
Inclusion criteria, such as the "one news event" is helpful. If we could make the inclusion criteria for BLP more stringent in other such ways to weed out some of the garbage or tabloidy BLPs, that would be welcome in my opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminat...
That's *not* what "indiscriminate collection of information" means. That you cite it to support your point shows you don't understand the term.
- d.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 4:35 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/3 Aude audevivere@gmail.com:
Inclusion criteria, such as the "one news event" is helpful. If we could make the inclusion criteria for BLP more stringent in other such ways to weed out some of the garbage or tabloidy BLPs, that would be welcome in
my
opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminat...
That's *not* what "indiscriminate collection of information" means. That you cite it to support your point shows you don't understand the term.
I suggest you actually read that section of WP:NOT.
-Aude
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/3/3 Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org:
Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and practices, particularly WRT BLPs?
Deletion upon request is a terrible idea. It will lead to only hagiographies - violations of NPOV - being kept. (This has been discussed at length on wikien-l, fwiw.)
Raise the threshold in a manner that does not violate fundamental content policies. Any BLP policy that violates fundamental content policies will be unworkable. Think of it as "unconstitutional".
- d.
2009/3/3 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/3/3 Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org:
Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and practices, particularly WRT BLPs?
Deletion upon request is a terrible idea. It will lead to only hagiographies - violations of NPOV - being kept. (This has been discussed at length on wikien-l, fwiw.)
That said, reacting the other way and *prohibiting* deletion on request is also counterproductive - we've skirted close to this on enwp in the past, where people have interpreted "subject has asked us to delete it" as being an automatic cast-iron reason to keep it in place. I mean, I've seen cases where someone's stood up and said "this article is atrocious, subject wants it deleted" and it's been kept (with a variety of snide comments), whereas had they just said "this article is atrocious", it'd have been killed with no objections.
We can go too far; after all, when someone says "delete this please", it's at least as common that they're reflecting that the article has major fundamental problems as that they're making a frivolous request!
We do need to recognise that the subject of an article is often one of the people (counting readers and editors together) who has the closest knowledge *of the article*, and is well-placed to see real problems - finding some way of using that is potentially an excellent tool in identifying the real dross that we ourselves don't want, and keeping the material we *do* want up to a high standard.
The trick is taking advantage of their perspective, without turning it into a (real or imagined) conflict-of-interest issue, or letting it degenerate into the kind of thing that breeds automatic assumptions of bad faith.
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/3/3 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/3/3 Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org:
Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and practices, particularly WRT BLPs?
Deletion upon request is a terrible idea. It will lead to only hagiographies - violations of NPOV - being kept. (This has been discussed at length on wikien-l, fwiw.)
That said, reacting the other way and *prohibiting* deletion on request is also counterproductive - we've skirted close to this on enwp in the past, where people have interpreted "subject has asked us to delete it" as being an automatic cast-iron reason to keep it in place. I mean, I've seen cases where someone's stood up and said "this article is atrocious, subject wants it deleted" and it's been kept (with a variety of snide comments), whereas had they just said "this article is atrocious", it'd have been killed with no objections.
I agree with all of this. Fundamentally, our work as a community is to exercise editorial judgment, and we have a responsibility not to abdicate it. That gives me a dislike of default deletion upon request. But someone making a request is a sign that the article really needs a hard look, and quite possibly should be removed for not meeting our standards. So the reversed presumption of "default to delete, unless consensus to keep" is a good idea for living subjects. I would add that when this is in question, arguments that make excuses for the current state of the article are not valid reasons to keep it.
--Michael Snow
2009/3/3 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net
But someone making a request is a sign that the article really needs a hard look, and quite possibly should be removed for not meeting our standards. So the reversed presumption of "default to delete, unless consensus to keep" is a good idea for living subjects. I would add that when this is in question, arguments that make excuses for the current state of the article are not valid reasons to keep it.
I am just clarifying - "default to delete unless consensus to keep" would be a change from current state, right?
I ask because I got a call the other day from someone asking to have the BLP about her deleted. The article centred around a single incident in her life. I handed it off to a longtime English Wikipedian (doesn't matter who), who told me the subject was notable and therefore the article would be kept.
That experience was consistent with my general understanding - that it has been extremely difficult for even marginally notable people to get the BLP about them deleted.
So -again, just to clarify- if Wikipedia adopted a practice of defaulting to delete unless there's consensus to keep, that would be change from how BLPs are handled today - yes?
Sue Gardner wrote:
I am just clarifying - "default to delete unless consensus to keep" would be a change from current state, right?
In terms of policy, "default to delete" is the current state for BLPs. To be more exact, the important bit is: "If there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." However, that is at least somewhat new (several months old, I think), and I am not certain how universally administrators apply it at this point. The relevant policy is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DP#Deletion_discussion
Dominic
2009/3/4 Dominic dmcdevit@cox.net
Sue Gardner wrote:
I am just clarifying - "default to delete unless consensus to keep" would
be
a change from current state, right?
In terms of policy, "default to delete" is the current state for BLPs. To be more exact, the important bit is: "If there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." However, that is at least somewhat new (several months old, I think), and I am not certain how universally administrators apply it at this point. The relevant policy is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DP#Deletion_discussion
I'm confused. Doesn't the current (English) policy say "if there's no consensus ... the page is kept." So, default to _keep_, rather than default to delete...?
It's only the English policy, so I realize it's not necessarily representative/reflective of any of the other language versions, regardless. But in general, my understanding is that "default to keep" is more-or-less standard practice Wikipedia-wide (as much as all language versions can be said to have a standard practice), and the English policy seems to support that.
Recapping this piece of the thread: It seems to me that "default to delete" is not widely considered satisfactory, if it is interpreted to mean an automatic or near-automatic deletion upon request. Human judgment needs to be applied.
Erik had proposed that articles which meet these three criteria be deleted upon request: 1) they are not balanced and complete, 2) the subject is only marginally notable, and 3) the subject wants the article deleted. This would shift the bar towards a more deletionist stance for BLPs, but would preserve articles which are either complete and balanced, _or_ which are about people who are clearly self-evidently notable.
Assuming there is some consensus about what clearly self-evidently notable means, or that some consensus could be created ..... does that proposal make sense to people here?
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm confused. Doesn't the current (English) policy say "if there's no consensus ... the page is kept." So, default to _keep_, rather than default to delete...?
It's only the English policy, so I realize it's not necessarily representative/reflective of any of the other language versions, regardless. But in general, my understanding is that "default to keep" is more-or-less standard practice Wikipedia-wide (as much as all language versions can be said to have a standard practice), and the English policy seems to support that.
Recapping this piece of the thread: It seems to me that "default to delete" is not widely considered satisfactory, if it is interpreted to mean an automatic or near-automatic deletion upon request. Human judgment needs to be applied.
Erik had proposed that articles which meet these three criteria be deleted upon request: 1) they are not balanced and complete, 2) the subject is only marginally notable, and 3) the subject wants the article deleted. This would shift the bar towards a more deletionist stance for BLPs, but would preserve articles which are either complete and balanced, _or_ which are about people who are clearly self-evidently notable.
Assuming there is some consensus about what clearly self-evidently notable means, or that some consensus could be created ..... does that proposal make sense to people here?
According to Dominic's quote, it says default to delete if the article is *not* a marginally notable BLP. Not a very elegant way of changing the policy, but perhaps it was intended to slip past wide notice. While deleting marginally notable BLPs has become more common, even where no consensus to delete exists, the proposal did fail.
As far as granting significant weight to the wishes of a subject? Subject request has consistently been rejected as a basis for deleting an article, and many comments in the deletion discussions I've read have even rejected lending weight to these requests in any way.
Nathan
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
According to Dominic's quote, it says default to delete if the article is *not* a marginally notable BLP. Not a very elegant way of changing the policy, but perhaps it was intended to slip past wide notice. While deleting marginally notable BLPs has become more common, even where no consensus to delete exists, the proposal did fail.
As far as granting significant weight to the wishes of a subject? Subject request has consistently been rejected as a basis for deleting an article, and many comments in the deletion discussions I've read have even rejected lending weight to these requests in any way.
Nathan
I'm sorry - the quote is default to *keep* if the article is not a marginally notable BLP - which, through negatives, means default to delete for marginally notable BLPs.
2009/3/4 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
As far as granting significant weight to the wishes of a subject? Subject request has consistently been rejected as a basis for deleting an
article,
and many comments in the deletion discussions I've read have even
rejected
lending weight to these requests in any way.
I understand & appreciate the desire to proceed solely on the basis of 'what makes a good encyclopedia,' without incorporating any considerations outside that. Seriously, that makes a lot of sense to me.
But having said that, there doesn't seem to be a really clear consensus on 'what makes a good encyclopedia' when it comes to BLPs - witness for example, all the discussions about what constitutes notability. Since no clear consensus has emerged, and nobody seems to be arguing that retaining biographies of marginally-notable living people is an obvious and important good thing to do ... then why _not_ shift the bias towards deleting the marginally notable upon request?
I don't think that would lead to hagiographies Wikipedia-wide. You could just as easily argue it would improve quality by eliminating some mediocre articles that nobody cares about much .. while also, as a lucky side effect, reducing unhappiness among the subjects of those articles. Perhaps our stance could shift to _thanking_ subjects of bad BLPs for helping to police quality :-)
I'm sorry - the quote is default to *keep* if the article is not a
marginally notable BLP - which, through negatives, means default to delete for marginally notable BLPs.
I get it now, thank you :-)
2009/3/4 Dominic dmcdevit@cox.net
Sue Gardner wrote:
I am just clarifying - "default to delete unless consensus to keep"
would be
a change from current state, right?
In terms of policy, "default to delete" is the current state for BLPs. To be more exact, the important bit is: "If there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." However, that is at least somewhat new (several months old, I think), and I am not certain how universally administrators apply it at this point. The relevant policy is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DP#Deletion_discussion
I'm confused. Doesn't the current (English) policy say "if there's no consensus ... the page is kept." So, default to _keep_, rather than default to delete...?
It's only the English policy, so I realize it's not necessarily representative/reflective of any of the other language versions, regardless. But in general, my understanding is that "default to keep" is more-or-less standard practice Wikipedia-wide (as much as all language versions can be said to have a standard practice), and the English policy seems to support that.
Recapping this piece of the thread: It seems to me that "default to delete" is not widely considered satisfactory, if it is interpreted to mean an automatic or near-automatic deletion upon request. Human judgment needs to be applied.
Erik had proposed that articles which meet these three criteria be deleted upon request: 1) they are not balanced and complete, 2) the subject is only marginally notable, and 3) the subject wants the article deleted. This would shift the bar towards a more deletionist stance for BLPs, but would preserve articles which are either complete and balanced, _or_ which are about people who are clearly self-evidently notable.
Assuming there is some consensus about what clearly self-evidently notable means, or that some consensus could be created ..... does that proposal make sense to people here?
Yes, however, the key words are "Human judgment needs to be applied."
Fred
2009/3/4 Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org:
Erik had proposed that articles which meet these three criteria be deleted upon request: 1) they are not balanced and complete, 2) the subject is only marginally notable, and 3) the subject wants the article deleted. This would shift the bar towards a more deletionist stance for BLPs, but would preserve articles which are either complete and balanced, _or_ which are about people who are clearly self-evidently notable.
The main problem with this proposal might be the definition of "self-evidently notability". How do you want to evaluate it?
There are a couple of reasons I can think of why shifting to delete-on-request for marginally notable BLPs would be problematic.
(1) As Tomasz notes, the idea of marginal notability is one that doesn't play well to non-Wikipedians and isn't well defined in any case.
(2) We'd still have to have a deletion discussion, and if the "default to delete in the absence of a consensus" policy change continues to stick then having an additional default to deletion in the absence of consensus situation is duplicative.
(3) If the idea is to skip deletion discussions entirely, then we would be leaving the determination of "marginal notability" up to the admin reviewing the request. I can't think this would go over well - speedy deletion (i.e. deletions requiring the opinion of only one or two people) is a sensitive subject, and the criteria are intended to be strictly interpreted.
(4) How many requests do we actually get from article subjects to delete the article about them? I would think most would be happier with an article that speaks well of them and/or is simply factually correct. If we were to adopt this particular approach (and if it were not redundant, perhaps because the existing approach failed to take root permanently) would it have much practical impact?
We should keep in mind that deleting marginal BLPs is not a solution for the BLP problem. The process requires that someone who is aware of the policy comes upon a page that could stand deletion and takes the correct steps to see it deleted. Marginal BLPs, by their nature, are often poorly linked or orphaned and not well monitored by people versed in deletion policy; if they were, then we would have no problem with them.
Maybe by giving subjects a more obvious and easy way to complain we can get past this hurdle, making OTRS respondents responsible for starting AfDs. But we still have a whole constantly expanding host of articles and potential articles on living people who are too notable to delete; a deletion default doesn't help with those.
Nathan
I'd like to put forth for consideration the issue and problem of whitewashing, where the subject of an article wants there to be an article, but wants negative information removed from it despite the negative information being true and verifyable and notable.
I've been working one of these since it landed in OTRS a few months ago - I'm not the most active OTRSer by any means, but this is one of those "have to keep watching the case" cases. A businessman who was fairly successful was also convicted of an unusually large major financial fraud - which they contest and are appealing, but remains on the record.
They wanted the article stripped to the bone and just have some stuff about his success story, and had been edit warring over for some time via IPs and sockpuppets before he came to OTRS.
The info had been adequately sourced to start with - in the process of dealing with the edit warring he was making, other editors and anon editors had filled in quite a bit of the further background info and more and more reliable sources as well.
I don't know what the percentage is of requests overall where it's a whitewash attempt - it's been a significant percentage (5% as a guess) of those I had to deal with.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
(4) How many requests do we actually get from article subjects to delete the article about them? I would think most would be happier with an article that speaks well of them and/or is simply factually correct. If we were to adopt this particular approach (and if it were not redundant, perhaps because the existing approach failed to take root permanently) would it have much practical impact?
As a former OTRS person, I can say that this number is surprisingly high. I handled a *number* of cases in which people wanted their articles deleted. Some were completely non-notable, some were marginally notable, and some still are completely notable (but they'd still rather be gone, once we've explained that we can't white-wash for them).
[snip]
Maybe by giving subjects a more obvious and easy way to complain we can get past this hurdle, making OTRS respondents responsible for starting AfDs. But we still have a whole constantly expanding host of articles and potential articles on living people who are too notable to delete; a deletion default doesn't help with those.
Nathan
While working with OTRS, I actually sent several articles through AfD. And I typically didn't announce that it was an OTRS thing, so as to let the community judge the article on its own merits. This would actually be a decent policy to follow: encourage OTRS respondents to send the marginally notable through the normal AfD process (like any other) and allow those in the community more equipped to deal with deletion/BLP issues handle it.
-Chad
Chad wrote:
While working with OTRS, I actually sent several articles through AfD. And I typically didn't announce that it was an OTRS thing, so as to let the community judge the article on its own merits. This would actually be a decent policy to follow: encourage OTRS respondents to send the marginally notable through the normal AfD process (like any other) and allow those in the community more equipped to deal with deletion/BLP issues handle it.
This assumes that both of those groups are the same. Many people involved in the deletion processes are rather unconcerned with BLP issues (or things like sourcing and NPOV, as long as its notable), and many people concerned about BLPs don't involve themselves in the deletion process.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Alex mrzmanwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Chad wrote:
While working with OTRS, I actually sent several articles through AfD. And I typically didn't announce that it was an OTRS thing, so as to let the community judge the article on its own merits. This would actually be a decent policy to follow: encourage OTRS respondents to send the marginally notable through the normal AfD process (like any other) and allow those in the community more equipped to deal with deletion/BLP issues handle it.
This assumes that both of those groups are the same. Many people involved in the deletion processes are rather unconcerned with BLP issues (or things like sourcing and NPOV, as long as its notable), and many people concerned about BLPs don't involve themselves in the deletion process.
-- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)
Those that involve themselves in BLP matters should perhaps frequent AFD more often. Provided that is still how we delete articles that aren't speedyable.
-Chad
Those that involve themselves in BLP matters should perhaps frequent AFD more often. Provided that is still how we delete articles that aren't speedyable.
-Chad
I've left a suggestion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/No... to add a link to the [[Category:AfD debates (Biographical)]] on the noticeboard. (Possibly that category could be further refined to a category just listing living folks?)
-Quiddity
Any proposals to allow input from the person on the deletion of the article will inevitable tend to reject the medium-important articles which show something unfavorable but documented and relevant and keep those that show only favorable things. What this amounts to is saying, that if someone is really notable they can't censor the article, but otherwise they can. And not just favorable/unfavorable, they will want to delete the articles that do not praise them enough. I can think of a number of academics and what we call creative professionals where just this has been the problem.
If we do this, we will have then become for many of our articles on living people a who'swho, and are no longer an encyclopedia. Articles on medium important authors will either contain uncritical praise, or be deleted.
NPOV is indeed negotiable, we can negotiate it away, and become useless.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:00 PM, quiddity pandiculation@gmail.com wrote:
Those that involve themselves in BLP matters should perhaps frequent AFD more often. Provided that is still how we delete articles that aren't speedyable.
-Chad
I've left a suggestion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/No... to add a link to the [[Category:AfD debates (Biographical)]] on the noticeboard. (Possibly that category could be further refined to a category just listing living folks?)
-Quiddity
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Sue Gardner wrote:
2009/3/3 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net
But someone making a request is a sign that the article really needs a hard look, and quite possibly should be removed for not meeting our standards. So the reversed presumption of "default to delete, unless consensus to keep" is a good idea for living subjects. I would add that when this is in question, arguments that make excuses for the current state of the article are not valid reasons to keep it.
I am just clarifying - "default to delete unless consensus to keep" would be a change from current state, right?
I ask because I got a call the other day from someone asking to have the BLP about her deleted. The article centred around a single incident in her life. I handed it off to a longtime English Wikipedian (doesn't matter who), who told me the subject was notable and therefore the article would be kept.
That experience was consistent with my general understanding - that it has been extremely difficult for even marginally notable people to get the BLP about them deleted.
So -again, just to clarify- if Wikipedia adopted a practice of defaulting to delete unless there's consensus to keep, that would be change from how BLPs are handled today - yes? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I am not sure how it is handled on en-wp. If it was on zh-wp and if it is me whom you wrote I would do following: I would put the article to vote for delete with a remark that the person requested for delete. I would put a remark in village pump because this is a delete request that is not under the usual procedure to get more attention and I would leave a remark with link on the Skype chat room (this mainly because of the chinese community heavily use Skype) I would also leave a remark on the user talk page who had created or largely extended the article about the delete request. So it is either a per default keep nor a per default delete. I think it is a your attention please we need talk about this.
Ting
2009/3/2 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
(My usual answer: "Email info at wikimedia dot org, that's wikimedia with an M. It'll get funneled to the right place. All other ways of contacting us end up there anyway." This seems to work a bit.)
Ha. Tie this into Thomas's suggestion...
...print up a sheaf of business cards, with "Got a problem? info @ wikimedia.org" in nice clear bold lettering, the puzzle-globe at one edge; the other side just WIKIPEDIA writ large. Distribute them to everyone who does PRish stuff...
2009/3/4 Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk:
2009/3/2 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
(My usual answer: "Email info at wikimedia dot org, that's wikimedia with an M. It'll get funneled to the right place. All other ways of contacting us end up there anyway." This seems to work a bit.)
Ha. Tie this into Thomas's suggestion... ...print up a sheaf of business cards, with "Got a problem? info @ wikimedia.org" in nice clear bold lettering, the puzzle-globe at one edge; the other side just WIKIPEDIA writ large. Distribute them to everyone who does PRish stuff...
Best. Idea. Ever.
- d.
On Mar 4, 2009, at 7:17 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
Ha. Tie this into Thomas's suggestion...
...print up a sheaf of business cards, with "Got a problem? info @ wikimedia.org" in nice clear bold lettering, the puzzle-globe at one edge; the other side just WIKIPEDIA writ large. Distribute them to everyone who does PRish stuff...
Great idea. But also, we simply must change the culture of those who see these things on wiki. For instance, today I declined a page protection request from an editor who saw a BLP subject making changes to their own biography. Amazing! A BLP subject sees factual errors in their biography, tries to change it, and rather than helping them through the changes or referring them to OTRS or anywhere, we're asked to protect the page from the changes since the subject's version was... wait for it... INACCURATE?! I know there may be COI issues, but it seems to me that for whatever reason there's this adversarial "us vs the subject" relationship that's been built up... it's so dangerous and potentially damaging.
<sigh>
</rant>
___________________ philippe philippe.wiki@gmail.com
[[en:User:Philippe]]
2009/3/2 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
As far as I can make out, the present situation on en:wp is: a proposal was put which got 59% support. That's not a sufficiently convincing support level. So Jimbo is currently putting together a better proposal, with the aim of at least 2/3 support and hoping for 80% - it'll be more robust. Timeframe, er, I just asked him as well.
Bleh. Well, at least it's *something*.
I did a headcount the other week of all the OTRS simple vandalism and "uncomplicated" BLP tickets I handled - ie, all the ones not needing digging and arguing with people and so on. 80-90% of them would have been avoided by flagged revisions.
This leaves lots of BLP stuff (the systematic POV problems, etc) that it wouldn't address, certainly, but I reckon at a stroke it would pre-empt a good *third* of our email load. It'd probably prevent even more by proportion if we turned on a "report this" function, since that'd heavily be skewed towards vandalism.
Enabling both, together, would be excellent. But I think making it something for after we get the thrice-blesséd FlaggedRevs might be the most efficient approach.
2009/3/4 Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk:
I did a headcount the other week of all the OTRS simple vandalism and "uncomplicated" BLP tickets I handled - ie, all the ones not needing digging and arguing with people and so on. 80-90% of them would have been avoided by flagged revisions.
Please say this REALLY LOUD to the objectors this time around.
- d.
2009/3/4 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/3/4 Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk:
I did a headcount the other week of all the OTRS simple vandalism and "uncomplicated" BLP tickets I handled - ie, all the ones not needing digging and arguing with people and so on. 80-90% of them would have been avoided by flagged revisions.
Please say this REALLY LOUD to the objectors this time around.
- d.
Won't work. So of us objectors have overlarge watchlists see so we also know about the cases where long standing issues have been picked up and fixed by IPs.
Sue,
As far as "default to delete" goes... There was a high profile proposal about it awhile back, written by Doc_glasgow (now en:User:Scott_MacDonald), which got significant support but appeared to fall short of a consensus.
Nonetheless the deletion of articles on marginally notable living people became more common shortly afterward - not necessarily as a "default to delete," I think the increased awareness of the danger that marginally notable BLPs present convinced more people to argue for deletion at AfD.
I'm surprised to see that a version of default to delete made it into the deletion policy - supports the notion that policy follows practice, I suppose. However, the policy and the proposal behind it didn't mention or account for the wishes of the subject (that I recall); in deletion discussions those have largely been seen as not relevant.
Nathan
It is unfortunately not unheard of for policy proposals to be rejected, and then added to policy pages nonetheless.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Sue,
As far as "default to delete" goes... There was a high profile proposal about it awhile back, written by Doc_glasgow (now en:User:Scott_MacDonald), which got significant support but appeared to fall short of a consensus.
Nonetheless the deletion of articles on marginally notable living people became more common shortly afterward - not necessarily as a "default to delete," I think the increased awareness of the danger that marginally notable BLPs present convinced more people to argue for deletion at AfD.
I'm surprised to see that a version of default to delete made it into the deletion policy - supports the notion that policy follows practice, I suppose. However, the policy and the proposal behind it didn't mention or account for the wishes of the subject (that I recall); in deletion discussions those have largely been seen as not relevant.
Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/3/4 Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org:
2009/3/3 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net
But someone making a request is a sign that the article really needs a hard look, and quite possibly should be removed for not meeting our standards. So the reversed presumption of "default to delete, unless consensus to keep" is a good idea for living subjects. I would add that when this is in question, arguments that make excuses for the current state of the article are not valid reasons to keep it.
I am just clarifying - "default to delete unless consensus to keep" would be a change from current state, right?
I ask because I got a call the other day from someone asking to have the BLP about her deleted. The article centred around a single incident in her life. I handed it off to a longtime English Wikipedian (doesn't matter who), who told me the subject was notable and therefore the article would be kept.
That experience was consistent with my general understanding - that it has been extremely difficult for even marginally notable people to get the BLP about them deleted.
So -again, just to clarify- if Wikipedia adopted a practice of defaulting to delete unless there's consensus to keep, that would be change from how BLPs are handled today - yes?
As for the german Wikipedia, that would be a change of policy, The policy mentioned on the en-WP fro BLP is not present on de-WP.
Best,
Philipp
2009/3/3 Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org:
Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and practices, particularly WRT BLPs?
And yes, I think 3. is a very bad idea - en:wp's greatest strength is its breadth of coverage. As I noted, de:wp seems to fit people's ideals of an encyclopedia more, but en:wp is actually more useful in any practical sense.
1. is an idea to be approached with profound caution - far too many BLP policy proposals get a bit close to throwing out neutrality, i.e. violating Wikipedia's greatest innovation in the encyclopedia space.
This thread has a bit of an air of "something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do this." That is a logical fallacy.
- d.
Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and practices, particularly WRT BLPs?
With respect to biographies of living persons, unless there is sufficient reliable published information about a person to flesh out a well balanced article we shouldn't have one.
Having said that I am left with remorse regarding people involved in interesting incidents. In such cases, the article should be about the incident. That results in their name being mentioned, but not in the context of a flawed biography. The key is discipline regarding creating red links regarding persons about whom little reliable information is available.
Fred
2009/3/3 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
With respect to biographies of living persons, unless there is sufficient reliable published information about a person to flesh out a well balanced article we shouldn't have one.
The question them becomes "reliable." "Reliable sources" usually print whatever the subject tells them, even if it's a damn lie. (See the Polish example earlier in this thread.)
- d.
2009/3/3 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
With respect to biographies of living persons, unless there is sufficient reliable published information about a person to flesh out a well balanced article we shouldn't have one.
The question them becomes "reliable." "Reliable sources" usually print whatever the subject tells them, even if it's a damn lie. (See the Polish example earlier in this thread.)
- d.
Well, that is the "fact laundering" phenomenon I've explored in the past. Information is no better than its actual source. And if the actual source is gossip, rumor, or self dealing, no amount of publishing in The Times (or other reliable source) changes its essential nature.
Fred
2009/3/3 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
With respect to biographies of living persons, unless there is sufficient reliable published information about a person to flesh out a well balanced article we shouldn't have one.
This is an important principle, I think. Not necessarily in this form - but IMO the discussion has suffered a bit from a one-dimensional focus on notability. Let's say there's a three-step test:
1) The article is not a balanced and complete biography of a person's life an work; 2) The person is marginally notable; 3) The person wants the article deleted.
If all those three tests are met, the article would be deleted. If only 1) and 2) are met, at the very least, the article would be templated for improvement, with a clear note saying that if you're the subject and you want it deleted, you can request that through a simple process.
Essentially, we've often said that an article which only consists of "An apple is a fruit" can become a masterpiece overtime, but I think when it comes to one-sided biographies, we need to take into account that our happy little article workshop is also used by nearly 300 million people as a one stop reference. What's the justification for publishing poor quality biographies of marginally notable people, even against the subject's wishes?
--- On Tue, 3/3/09, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
From: Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 2:17 AM 2009/3/2 philippe philippe.wiki@gmail.com
On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:48 PM, private musings wrote:
basically there's a sensible three stage plan
to follow to help drive
quality and minimise 'BLP' harm;
- Semi-protext all 'BLP' material
- Allow an 'opt-out' for some subjects
(eg. non public figures, or
those not covered in 'dead tree sources' for
example) - note this is more
inclusive than a simple higher threshold for
notability
- 'Default to delete' in discussions
about BLP material - if we can't
positively say that it improves the project,
it's sensible and
responsible to remove the material in my view.
As a general rule, I think pm has given us a
common-sense place to
begin discussions about how to cleanup existing BLPs.
There will
always be situations that don't fit within this,
but as a starting
point for guidelines, I support these.
It seems obvious to me from the conversation on this thread that part of the reason the German Wikipedia seems better able to manage its BLPs (assuming that is true - but it seems true) is because there is a smaller number of them. Presumably a smaller number of BLPs = fewer to maintain and problem-solve = a higher quality level overall. (And possibly also, OTRS volunteers who are less stressed out, resulting in a higher level of patience and kindness when complaints do get made.)
Assuming that's true, allowing BLP subjects to opt-out seems like it would have a direct positive increase on the quality of remaining BLPs, in addition to eliminating some BLPs entirely. Clearly, there would still be a notability threshold above which people would never be allowed to opt out - there will always be articles about people such as Hillary Clinton and J.K. Rowling and Penelope Cruz. But a decision to significantly raise that threshold, as well as default to deletion upon request, seems like it would have a positive effect on quality.
Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and practices, particularly WRT BLPs?
1) Raising the notability threshold is not an intrinsically bad idea, but it is hard to agree without knowing the new threshold.
2) Defaulting to delete should be for all BLPs or none. I disagree that it be any different because it was requested. It will only lead to false hopes and greater disappointment if we have a special rule for "per request". Personally I support defaulting to delete on all BLPs
3) I disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift to follow anyone's policy or practices. They need to work out what will work best in the culture of their own community. Although the goal of protecting living people from being harmed by Wikipedia needs to be universal, I don't that it should be put in terms of de-style or en-style.
Birgitte SB
Sue Gardner wrote:
- If we're imagining a continuum with smaller/higher-quality/restrictive
at one end, and larger/variable-in-quality/permissive at the other .... I am curious to know where the other language versions situate themselves. I am assuming that (with some exceptions) they cluster closer to the English model than the German, but I am just guessing. Do they?
yes I think the english and the german wikipedias are two models and examples that are often used for the other language versions. I remember the talk from Harel in Taipei about the Hebrew Wikipedia and had the impression that they orient themselves more on the german model. Personally I believe that if German is more bigger language it this model would be used more often.
On zh-wp we had lots of discussions about using english model or the german model. At the end the english model won, mainly because people simply began to translate the english policies into chinese and other people orient themselves on these policies. I myself tend to support the english model because I think the german model is more oriented to the classic papel encyclopedias and discourage a lot of volunteers and also unneccessarily constrain themselves from the more possibilities that a online massive cooperative project offer. You remember my presentation in Alexandria.
Back to BLP. Personally I think that the policies we have related to BLPs are enough, but maybe we should be put more resource in the inforcement of these policies. The meetings Philipp mentioned in Germany are a very good start point. Perhaps the foundation can help organize such OTRS-training-meetings in the US (because the lack of a US chapter) and other countries, just as a beginning. Later we maybe we can see how we can expand this to more regions and countries. We should also encourage more people to work and help on OTRS and give them due support.
Ting
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Ting Chen wing.philopp@gmx.de wrote:
Back to BLP. Personally I think that the policies we have related to BLPs are enough, but maybe we should be put more resource in the inforcement of these policies. The meetings Philipp mentioned in Germany are a very good start point. Perhaps the foundation can help organize such OTRS-training-meetings in the US (because the lack of a US chapter) and other countries, just as a beginning. Later we maybe we can see how we can expand this to more regions and countries. We should also encourage more people to work and help on OTRS and give them due support.
Ting
I am a newer OTRS volunteer and am hesitant on handling tickets, except for the very easiest ones, because I'm not totally sure how to handle them. I did ask some questions a couple months ago on the OTRS mailing list about handling tickets, but never got a satisfactory response.
A training workshop would be a welcome opportunity to raise questions and really understand better how to help on OTRS in a way that reading the online documentation can't/doesn't provide. A meeting in the US would be fine, but also something at Wikimania and/or if there are other regional wiki conferences.
-Aude
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Ting Chen wing.philopp@gmx.de wrote:
Back to BLP. Personally I think that the policies we have related to BLPs are enough, but maybe we should be put more resource in the inforcement of these policies. The meetings Philipp mentioned in Germany are a very good start point. Perhaps the foundation can help organize such OTRS-training-meetings in the US (because the lack of a US chapter) and other countries, just as a beginning. Later we maybe we can see how we can expand this to more regions and countries. We should also encourage more people to work and help on OTRS and give them due support.
Ting
Regarding putting more resources into enforcement of BLP policies, what resources are you talking about? I have seen problems reported to the BLP and other noticeboards, with no response or inadequate responses from admins and editors.
My own wiki time is a very limited resource nowadays, so I can personally do only so much to help. I would love to have all the time in the world to help on Wikipedia, but that's not realistic. Resouces are our volunteers and I see the number of former admins growing along with others editing more infrequently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFormer_administrators&...
Making the inclusion criteria more stringent for BLPs may make things more managable for our volunteers (our resources) to handle in a satisfactory way.
-Aude
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Aude
Aude schrieb:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Ting Chen wing.philopp@gmx.de wrote:
Back to BLP. Personally I think that the policies we have related to BLPs are enough, but maybe we should be put more resource in the inforcement of these policies. The meetings Philipp mentioned in Germany are a very good start point. Perhaps the foundation can help organize such OTRS-training-meetings in the US (because the lack of a US chapter) and other countries, just as a beginning. Later we maybe we can see how we can expand this to more regions and countries. We should also encourage more people to work and help on OTRS and give them due support.
Ting
Regarding putting more resources into enforcement of BLP policies, what resources are you talking about? I have seen problems reported to the BLP and other noticeboards, with no response or inadequate responses from admins and editors.
Regarding more resource I think here at first point to encourage more people to work for OTRS, other possibility is hire more people dedicated for such and similar tasks from the foundation, if our financial situation allows us to do that. There could also be still other possibilities, from local communities for example. Naturally for all of us (except the foundation employees) this is a hobby and the real life has priority.
Ting
--- On Tue, 3/3/09, Aude audevivere@gmail.com wrote:
From: Aude audevivere@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 2:52 AM
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Ting Chen
wing.philopp@gmx.de wrote:
Back to BLP. Personally I think that the policies
we have related to
BLPs are enough, but maybe we should be put more
resource in the
inforcement of these policies. The meetings
Philipp mentioned in Germany
are a very good start point. Perhaps the
foundation can help organize
such OTRS-training-meetings in the US (because the
lack of a US chapter)
and other countries, just as a beginning. Later we
maybe we can see how
we can expand this to more regions and countries.
We should also
encourage more people to work and help on OTRS and
give them due support.
Ting
Regarding putting more resources into enforcement of BLP policies, what resources are you talking about? I have seen problems reported to the BLP and other noticeboards, with no response or inadequate responses from admins and editors.
One problem I encountered is that the BLP noticeboard on en.WP is regularly archived by date, whether or not a thread has been resolved. I frankly don't do much work in this area, but I occasionally stumble across something and report it there. The lack of feedback about whether the issue I reported was significant is discouraging. I imagine casual reporters who do not see the issues they report resolved nor get feedback on why the issues is not a concern simply stop making reports there.
Birgitte SB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Aude wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Ting Chen wing.philopp@gmx.de wrote:
Back to BLP. Personally I think that the policies we have related to BLPs are enough, but maybe we should be put more resource in the inforcement of these policies. The meetings Philipp mentioned in Germany are a very good start point. Perhaps the foundation can help organize such OTRS-training-meetings in the US (because the lack of a US chapter) and other countries, just as a beginning. Later we maybe we can see how we can expand this to more regions and countries. We should also encourage more people to work and help on OTRS and give them due support.
Ting
I am a newer OTRS volunteer and am hesitant on handling tickets, except for the very easiest ones, because I'm not totally sure how to handle them. I did ask some questions a couple months ago on the OTRS mailing list about handling tickets, but never got a satisfactory response.
A training workshop would be a welcome opportunity to raise questions and really understand better how to help on OTRS in a way that reading the online documentation can't/doesn't provide. A meeting in the US would be fine, but also something at Wikimania and/or if there are other regional wiki conferences.
-Aude
I'm well aware that members of the Wikimania program committee are on this list, and I'd be happy to lead a session on handling complaints at Wikimania. This isn't exactly what the German OTRS team did last year, but it's at least something. We may wish to try to organize regional workshops as well.
Cary
2009/3/3 Ting Chen wing.philopp@gmx.de:
yes I think the english and the german wikipedias are two models and examples that are often used for the other language versions. I remember the talk from Harel in Taipei about the Hebrew Wikipedia and had the impression that they orient themselves more on the german model. Personally I believe that if German is more bigger language it this model would be used more often.
I have spoken to a few editors who speak both German and English, and they say the German Wikipedia is better ... but they actually use the English one more. Because it covers so much more. So German may be "better" per an internal ideal, but English is actually more useful in any practical sense.
(This is of course anecdotal. If anyone wants to compile a list and do a survey of editors who contribute to both en:wp and de:wp ...)
- d.
2009/3/2 Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org:
So, two questions strike me: 2) When it comes to the German Wikipedia and other language versions which put an unusually high priority on quality ..... I am curious to know what quality-supportive measures (be they technical, social/cultural, or policy-level) those Wikipedia have in place. Philipp says a high threshold for notability is one in the German Wikipedia. Are there others?
I'm afraid I should have been more precise. When I said: "When in doubt about notability, delete BLPs. Do not make low notability criterias for living persons.", that was not a description of what is happening on de-WP, but my opinion on how things should be done. Factually, notability criterias are noticably more strict on de-WP than on en, but not all over the place actually lower regarding scientists.
Policy-wise, we have adopted WP:BLP from en with "when in doubt, respect privacy".
There are two factors where things are different from en as far as I can see. The first is the community. There are dozens of "Stammtische" in almost all major german towns, where wikipedians meet on a regular basis. This helps spreading awareness about the problem and that is a key thing in my eyes: the issue about BLP is always the conflict between privacy and freedom of the press. I have the impression that Wikipedians tend to take the stance that "We are wikipedia, we are good, it is our duty to tell the public the truth", while ignoring the detrimental effects this can have on living persons. Raising awareness about the problems of BLP is important. Rub peoples nose in the effect wikipedia articles have on the described persons live, make them imagining how that person might feel and that even little things may be an invasion of privacy. We all became experts on copyright, we should all become experts on personality rights and ethics as well.
The second factor is freedom of the press. This is less strong in Germany than in the UK and the US. Even things that are true may not be written, for example people who have served their time in jail have the right of not being named in the press. This makes discussion on the wiki very streamlined. The difficult cases are where it is not forbidden by law to write something, but only not useful, not encyclopedic or even unethical.
Best,
Philipp
I'm making a point of replying to this before I read any of the other responses to avoid being tainted by them.
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 launche a clear personal attack on some other person, even an outrageous reply needs to be added without content editing.
- Are there technical tools we could implement, that would support greater
quality in BLPs? For example – easy problem reporting systems, particular configurations of Flagged Revs, etc.
I have always felt flagged revs to be a valuable proposal; and I find the level of resistance to that initiative incomprehensible. Largely, I don't think that this is a matter of technical solutions; technical solutions for human problems can never be more than superficial.
- Wikimedians have developed lots of tools for preventing/fixing vandalism
and errors of fact. Where less progress has been made, I think, is on the question of disproportionate criticism. It seems to me that the solution may include the development of systems designed to expose particularly biased articles to a greater number of people who can help fix them. But this is a pretty tough problem and I would welcome people's suggestions for resolving it
The problem with rules that are too detailed is that the letter of the rules often overrides the spirit of those rules. It does little good when a discussion about a possibly derogatory statement migrates to one about the use of primary or secondary sources. When every detail about a BLP receives the same scrutiny the really bad stuff tends to fall into the background, and energies are sapped by being perfect over details which, even if wrong, are harmless. The question, for example, of where the subject attended school is not usually harmful if it's wrong. If the subject tries to correct this we need to trust him in the absence of reason for the contrary, and we need somehow to credit him as the source of that information. To question this without reason presumes bad faith.
Presumption of bad faith is a huge problem. It disguises itself as objectivity. When we insist that every little detail be unimpeachably sourced, we are assuming bad faith; we are not trusting the contributions of the editor who put them there no matter what he says. When we treat everything contributed from a corporate boardroom as advertising spam we are assuming bad faith; we ignore that maybe there are some things where they are the ones in the best position to answer. Reality should be recognized as somewhere between spicy hot, and tasteless pablum.
We write here in a time of ambient distrust. Events away from us and beyond our control have given ample justification for this. This distrust has developed concurrently with the means for its justification. The paradox is that Wikipedia owes its success to trust, not just of the accuracy of its content, but of the mutual respect of its contributors. Questioning, and whistle-blowing are valid activities, but when mistrust goes so far as not to take anything at all at face value the really serious biases just fade into the background.
Using a what-will-the neighbours-think approach is a path to stagnation; it focuses our sights on what happens outside, and not on our own behaviour.
- The editors I've spoken with about BLPs are pretty serious about them –
they are generally conservative, restrained, privacy-conscious, etc. But I wonder if that general attitude is widely-shared. If Wikipedia believes (as is said in -for example- the English BLP policy) that it has a responsibility to take great care with BLPs, should there be a Wikipedia-wide BLP policy, or a projects-wide statement of some kind?
The English Wikipedia is probably the worst offender. Until that is sorted out a Wikipedia wide policy is premature. The qualities at the beginning of you paragraph are important, but a level of common sense also needs to be applied. In unbalanced criticism any individual comment may be perfectly valid when viewed in isolation. The problem is with the effect of restating details, or the injudicious use of adjectives in places where they don't enlighten.
Ec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The English Wikipedia is probably the worst offender. Until that is sorted out a Wikipedia wide policy is premature. The qualities at the beginning of you paragraph are important, but a level of common sense also needs to be applied. In unbalanced criticism any individual comment may be perfectly valid when viewed in isolation. The problem is with the effect of restating details, or the injudicious use of adjectives in places where they don't enlighten.
I would venture to say that some of our smaller Wikipedias in the range of 1000 to 10000 articles may be worse offenders, on a per-biography basis, than the English Wikipedia; given that the community standards of inclusion are highly varied. The complaints I used to receive about the Yiddish Wikipedia, to just cite one example, were varied, and always involved biographies of people who would fail inclusion rather well on the English, and most other larger Wikipedias.
Cary
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.)
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 launche 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.)
And I am not claiming outrage at a systemic bias, but just flagrant bias as per the author of the specific entry.
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.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
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 which case it's an important issue, but it's not *this* important issue. At all. Even a bit.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
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 which case it's an important issue, but it's not *this* important issue. At all. Even a bit.
Bear with me. I started with that, because that is something at the periphery, easily overlooked. I will focus on the meat of the issue in due time.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
Bear with me. I started with that, because that is something at the periphery, easily overlooked. I will focus on the meat of the issue in due time.
Then I ask you to get to the point and stay on it, because this needs to be a thread focused on this specific issue, not one susceptible to being hijacked for other causes. Whether that's your intention or not.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
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 which case it's an important issue, but it's not *this* important issue. At all. Even a bit.
I'd argue that they're actually pretty closely interwtined issues--- incorrect information in a Wikipedia article harming actual, currently living people. There are some areas where this is very unlikely, and other areas where it's more likely, and I agree with many that we ought to have better policies on the areas where it's more likely. But I think we do somewhat a disservice to the overall mission by splitting off BLPs into separate policies and treat them as if they're some unique category unto themselves. Rather, I'd gather together "negative information about living people", "inflammatory information about ongoing conflicts", "poorly source information relating to current elections", and similar categories into a tier of information that has particularly stringent application of the verification and NPOV policies.
-Mark
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
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.
And I am keeping with the spirit of a statement I made in an earlier post, and am keeping my replies to specific focused points short and sweet.
Sue Gardner wrote:
- Wikimedians have developed lots of tools for preventing/fixing vandalism
and errors of fact. Where less progress has been made, I think, is on the question of disproportionate criticism. It seems to me that the solution may include the development of systems designed to expose particularly biased articles to a greater number of people who can help fix them. But this is a pretty tough problem and I would welcome people's suggestions for resolving it
The problem with rules that are too detailed is that the letter of the rules often overrides the spirit of those rules. It does little good when a discussion about a possibly derogatory statement migrates to one about the use of primary or secondary sources. When every detail about a BLP receives the same scrutiny the really bad stuff tends to fall into the background, and energies are sapped by being perfect over details which, even if wrong, are harmless. The question, for example, of where the subject attended school is not usually harmful if it's wrong. If the subject tries to correct this we need to trust him in the absence of reason for the contrary, and we need somehow to credit him as the source of that information. To question this without reason presumes bad faith.
This is not unexceptionally accurate. There are many details of biographical articles where it is not even close to presuming bad faith on the person in question to assume they might out of a perfectly natural human foible (a foible is not even close to bad faith) wish to gild the lily or embellish, or even retouch a blemish. I certainly know I have fallen for that in many instances, when telling tales of my deeds, and know many people who probably remember events I have personally witnessed wholly sane, sober and of sound mind with a vivid memory, but they remember what happened to their own benefit, quite naturally and non-bad-faith.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
- Wikimedians have developed lots of tools for preventing/fixing vandalism
and errors of fact. Where less progress has been made, I think, is on the question of disproportionate criticism. It seems to me that the solution may include the development of systems designed to expose particularly biased articles to a greater number of people who can help fix them. But this is a pretty tough problem and I would welcome people's suggestions for resolving it
The problem with rules that are too detailed is that the letter of the rules often overrides the spirit of those rules. It does little good when a discussion about a possibly derogatory statement migrates to one about the use of primary or secondary sources. When every detail about a BLP receives the same scrutiny the really bad stuff tends to fall into the background, and energies are sapped by being perfect over details which, even if wrong, are harmless. The question, for example, of where the subject attended school is not usually harmful if it's wrong. If the subject tries to correct this we need to trust him in the absence of reason for the contrary, and we need somehow to credit him as the source of that information. To question this without reason presumes bad faith.
This is not unexceptionally accurate. There are many details of biographical articles where it is not even close to presuming bad faith on the person in question to assume they might out of a perfectly natural human foible (a foible is not even close to bad faith) wish to gild the lily or embellish, or even retouch a blemish. I certainly know I have fallen for that in many instances, when telling tales of my deeds, and know many people who probably remember events I have personally witnessed wholly sane, sober and of sound mind with a vivid memory, but they remember what happened to their own benefit, quite naturally and non-bad-faith.
This is not a matter of actual bad faith on the part of the article's subject, but of presuming bad faith in anything that he might say. As long as we are dealing with the most pedestrian of biographical facts we should assume that the subject will be truthful about this, not that he is trying to be deceptive. The kind of data to which one might "remember to his own benefit" is by nature more subjective. What school he attended, and what did he do there differentiates two different kinds of questions.
For the tales of your deeds I hope to be still alive when the Kalevajussi is published.
Ec
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.
Sue Gardner wrote:
- The editors I've spoken with about BLPs are pretty serious about them –
they are generally conservative, restrained, privacy-conscious, etc. But I wonder if that general attitude is widely-shared. If Wikipedia believes (as is said in -for example- the English BLP policy) that it has a responsibility to take great care with BLPs, should there be a Wikipedia-wide BLP policy, or a projects-wide statement of some kind?
The English Wikipedia is probably the worst offender. Until that is sorted out a Wikipedia wide policy is premature. The qualities at the beginning of you paragraph are important, but a level of common sense also needs to be applied. In unbalanced criticism any individual comment may be perfectly valid when viewed in isolation. The problem is with the effect of restating details, or the injudicious use of adjectives in places where they don't enlighten.
I doubt your statement "The English Wikipedia is probably the worst offender." has genuine statistical evidence behind it. But no doubt it can't be far behind from the worst.
I do think your instinct about policies not being panaceas is likely accurate though. It isn't policy change (or regime change :) wikipedia projects need. It is contributor culture change. And that is hardest to bring about.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
At no.wp there was a link in the sidebar with email address to OTRS to ease reporting of such problems. It generated to many emails to the liking of some of the people on the OTRS list. After a poll with 3 against the link - they wanted an alternate solution, two for the link, one unclear and one who wanted to leave the problem to WMF, the link was removed three weeks later with a reference to the previous poll as conclusive.
John
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org