[Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
ft2.wiki at gmail.com
Mon May 23 13:58:22 UTC 2011
I agree with the point you make, but still think it's the right thing.
Essentially the counter argument boils down to "if they don't know there's a
BLP they can't make work for us about it". Whatever is in the BLP will be
there whether they know it or not. So the question is, is it ethically
better, and likely to improve quality, if they do know about it? Probably
yes. We will for sure get some irate replies or requests that we simply
can't meet (ie demands or expectations that won't work with a neutral
reference site). But we will also be recognized as trying to do right in a
way few other sources do. I don't think that the problem outweighs the clear
benefits of doing so.
I'm also inclined to believe innate human decency will help us - a few
people act like jerks but the majority, given a fair explanation, will
appreciate the effort, thank us, understand they are being consulted on any
issues they notice, and try to help.
Maybe we can design a possible email, experiment on a couple of batches of
30 - 50 newly created and older BLPs, and see what happens?
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas at googlemail.com
> I'm not so sure. As much as living persons have a history of
> raising/catching important errors in their articles, they also take
> exception to negative material.
> I had one rather protracted issue with a BLP where the individual feels he
> has been attacked by other parties and the media for a number of years. He
> viewed the associated Wikipedia articles (which were reasonably balanced,
> but did include negative information about him) as an extension of that
> attack. His attempts to insert his version of "the truth" caused
> but more importantly it really really upset him.
> I can forsee this happening a lot more if we *tell* everyone they have a
> biography :)
> Sending something like that out is basically an invitation to edit their
> biography; and the combination of being a WP newbie, and writing about
> themselves is not usually a good one.
> If we can address that issue at the same time, then sure, it's a good idea.
> On 23 May 2011 14:28, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > A specific email address isn't always available but virtually anyone
> > notable
> > will have a method of contact that can be found fairly quickly.
> > Businesspeople have a business, academics have their university website,
> > politicians and high ranking officials have a political website or
> > governmental office, authors have a publisher, and a vast number of
> > have an easily located personal website, agent, or known organization
> > are closely affiliated with. Even alleged criminals have a lawyer or a
> > means
> > of contact. The kind of stuff needed for contact details is almost always
> > noted in any "keepable" BLP, or a minute's web searching.
> > A few may need Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, but I suspect not many. Only
> > very small minority will not be easily identified with a means of email
> > other direct contact within a few minutes.
> > Worth it, I think.
> > FT2
> > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> > > On 5/23/11 1:40 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > > > On 23 May 2011 00:03, FT2<ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Out of interest, when a BLP is created and not speedy deleted, could
> > we
> > > not
> > > >> write a standard email to the subject stating that a biographical
> > > article
> > > >> has been created on them on the online encyclopedia "Wikipedia",
> > > inviting
> > > >> them to review it, explaining what it's about, and pointing them to
> > > remedies
> > > >> for fixing minor or major issues or requesting deletion? Hearing
> > us
> > > >> might at the very least be seen as "us trying to do something
> > > > I've not heard that idea before; I like it. We should do that. It
> > > > wouldn't be difficult and would, as you say, show that we are at
> > > > trying to do the right thing. We would need to be prepared to deal
> > > > with the increased traffic to OTRS that it would inevitably result
> > > > but that's not too big a problem.
> > >
> > > I don't think it's impossible, but I think finding an email address for
> > > the average person is going to be harder than you think. I do a good
> > > of email-finding to contact journal-paper authors whose email address
> > > has changed from the one published in the journal, but especially
> > > outside of the sciences, this isn't particularly easy. Many professors
> > > have no websites, and many who do don't have an email address on the
> > > site. You end up having to dig up the university's "find person"
> > > database and search, and sometimes that database isn't even publicly
> > > available. And for celebrities, they actively go out of their way to
> > > hide their email. CEOs and similar in the business world usually don't
> > > have emails publicly listed either.
> > >
> > > At the very least, it'd be quite a bit of work, and would probably
> > > require someone willing to use non-email communication channels, like
> > > LinkedIn messaging or Twitter or something, to achieve reasonable
> > > coverage. Might be an interesting experiment.
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
More information about the foundation-l