[WikiEN-l] Defamation policy

[Mark Gallagher]

G'day Steve,

> In the context of WP:OFFICE, as well as more recently, Jimbo and 
> others have written somethings about "hurt feelings," as if it was a
> policy ( WP:CODDLE maybe) which could circumvent even important
> policy ( WP:NPOV maybe). Could you explain this?

We take a generally lax view towards rumour-mongering on Wikipedia. 
This is partly due to the CWE[0] (witness, for instance, the users 
who've decided that since {{fact}}[1] exists, nothing, however idiotic, 
may be removed from an article as untrue); partly due to Wikipedia's 
perceived "anything goes" values (something to do, I believe, with 
"anyone can edit" and anti-elitism); and partly because Wikipedia is so 
damned big that a poor edit (e.g. Siegenthaler[2]) can go for some time 
unnoticed, if placed in the wrong spot.

The new(ish) emphasis on the biographies of living persons is there to 
acknowledge that, while we should strive for top-notch articles on any 
subject, a poor article about a person who is alive today and capable of 
being affected by the content of the article is particularly damaging, 
and cleaning up such an article should be a higher priority.

Another problem is the famous Wikipedia "Fuck You" Response, wherein a 
person with a complaint about the content of their article is told where 
to go, not because their complaints are groundless, but because We Shall 
Publish What We Like And To Hell With You.  If certain editors need to 
be reminded that such a response is immature, offensive, and potentially 
dangerous, then I see no problem with doing so.

> I agree with the idea of treating bios with care, but that does not 
> necessarily necessitate the use of an entirely different methodology
> than any other wiki page - including censoring talk pages. You may as
> well start a biowiki that operates under entirely different rules.

BLP at its best (I'm not saying there isn't any instruction creep and 
CWE cruft appearing at the edges) is not about establishing a double 
standard.  It's about making damn sure the standards we should be 
applying to other sections of the encyclopaedia as well are followed on 
the biographies of living persons.

Untrue statements should not be published in our encyclopaedia.  Since 
the project is so big (and we have contributors who are misinformed, 
stupid, or just plain malicious), problems are unavoidable.  By being 
strict about the biographies of living persons, we're trying to crack 
down on problems that can actually hurt people here and now.  True 
statements which happen to raise the ire of an article's subject, 
however, should remain, and insisting on a reliable source for such 
statements simply gives us something to point to next time the article's 
subject comes around to complain.

For some editors, WP:BLP is the difference between "fuck you, man, you 
can't tell us what to do" and "I'm sorry you feel aggrieved.  Our 
article about you is well-sourced, however, and contains no errors of 
fact as far as we can see.  If you dispute the content of a particular 
statement we've made, please point to a reliable source providing an 
alternate theory and we'll be happy to update the article.  Thank you 
for helping us improve Wikipedia."


The talk about being sued --- which I know you didn't mention but I 
thought I'd throw in here --- is really a red herring.  There are people 
out there who will only do the Right Thing if threatened with something 
big and heavy.  This saddens me, and I don't doubt it saddens you.  It's 
my view that we ought to do the Right Thing because, well, it's the 
bloody *Right Thing*, y'know?  Unfortunately, some people --- some 
*Wikipedians*, believe it or not --- refuse to do so unless you write it 
down in some policy, or (in extreme cases) press the Guilt Button by 
telling them they're going to get Wikipedia sued.  No, really!

Of course, this tends to backfire rather often.  Human beings, even the 
human beings who take this view of the world, have rather good brains 
and are capable of assessing situations for themselves.  What this means 
is, some people will ignore stupid shit in an article if they decide 
that it won't end in a court action, because after all, the only reason 
we're trying to improve the quality of this encyclopaedia is to avoid 
getting sued.  Then we get to the copyright issue, where people say, 
"Sure, it's stealing, but I've looked at it myself and I believe we're 
going to get plenty of warning before anyone tries to sue over it, so 
that makes it legal."  Sometimes I suspect it would be better if the 
"you'll see us in court" genie had never been let out of the bottle.


[0] Chinese Whispers Effect.  No, I'm not going to shut up about it.

[1] Which creates a superscript "citation needed" marker, for those
     unaware.

[2] Have I spelled it correctly yet?

-- 
Mark Gallagher
"I was neat, clean, shaved and sober, and I didn't care who knew it."
(Raymond Chandler, /The Big Sleep/)