On 9/10/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/06, Jason Potkanski electrawn@electrawn.com wrote:
Greetings, Electrawn here. I think this is a perfect opportunity to introduce myself since I am being flamed on the list here without a proper invite
I don't feel that I've flamed you, but I have raised questions (in what was, I admit, a rather strident tone) about your judgement and your interpretation of policy, which is a different thing entirely and I'm sorry if I offended you. In my original message I chose not to identify users by name to avoid this becoming a debate about particular personalities. I also chose not to be specific about what articles I was referring to as I was interested in discussing the broader issues affecting all articles instead of the minutiae of a particular article, which belongs on that article's talk page. Instead, you've chosen to personally attack me and drag out the details of a single article, neither of which is particularly productive here.
I am not offended. I don't feel I was personally attack, nor was the response a personal attack. The post was framed to a single point of view, designed to solicit yes men drum beating. We agree to disagree.
I do want to clear up some of your misstatements regarding the Jeff Gannon matter. I am not "in arbitration" regarding this matter, or in anything at all except in a dispute with another user (more about him in a minute). An op-ed piece (one which I personally haven't read and have not proposed using for a source) was not the source for calling Gannon a prostitute, but was merely one of many mainstream media sources presented by multiple editors as substantiating the fact that Gannon advertised his sexual services. The "repeated reversions" I have made were reverting that user who wished to remove all mention of this from every WP article that mentioned Gannon.
Personal: If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...quacks like a duck...
Real World: (My opinion, legal expert needed) If not true, this is libel. Big...center of the bullseye in the dartboard Libel.
Wikipedia BLP Articles: When in doubt, keep it out...when not in doubt, bring back in. Don't revert.
Wikipedia Other Articles: Let eventualism ring. Do revert.
Analysis: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jeff+gannon+prostitute .
Actual Prostitute:
- Primary Reliable Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1416370,00.html, a reliable UK source, dares call him a prostitute.
- Primary RS: The Independant, another UK reliable source, possibly calls him a hooker in an article title. I am having trouble finding the article text.
Numerous Unreliable primary sources such as blogs make the claim.
Involved with prostitution:
- PRS: NY Daily News, http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/279556p-239417c.html "after left-leaning Internet bloggers discovered possible ties to gay prostitution."
- PRS: Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36733-2005Feb18.html . "naked pictures have appeared on a number of gay escort sites"
Deeper:
AP Archives have nothing on "Jeff Gannon" AND prost* or "Jeff Gannon" AND escort.
LexisNexis alacarte for "Jeff Gannon Prostitute" turns up 500 hits. Now we have some real meaty RS all over the place, some claiming he is a prostitute.
No secondary sources were easily located.
Conclusions: Big mainstream US media doesn't dare make the jump to "A prostitute." They hover around escort and involved with prostitution. Mainstream UK Media seems to jump right out and say "a prostitute." Smalltime US media, but still many reliable sources, seem to occasionally say "a prostitute."
Questions: * What is right for wikipedia: ...a prostitute? alleged prostitute (Note:No charges filed)? involved with prostitution? involved with an gay escort service? involved with an homosexual escort service? nude pictures on a escort service website? Leave out alltogether? -(I personally say leave out all together, lack of journalistic credentials enough is to tell the story. Parading as a prostitute is notable and widely reported, however, the guy is human and needs to make a living. Does this need to be in a biography, especially when defamation considerations are in play?) * How many sources is enough to back up potential defamation? One? Two? Three? -(I say at least three.) * United States versus British media as defamation backing sources? Basically, if the US big boys aren't going to stick their necks out, can wikipedia? Are foreign backed sources enough? Are smalltime US sources enough?
However, if all these sources are relying on just one source, thats a big hmm for another discussion.
Final: Before searching Lexis Nexis, I was pretty sure that prostitute should stay out. After, I feel its use may hold weight.
And thank you for mentioning the issue of the Southern Voice, which is perhaps the most appalling of your policy interpretations, which would prohibit all LGBT publications from being used in Wikipedia. Would you propose the same thing about Ebony? Univision? If not, why not? What is the difference? Even if you subscribed to the ludicrous idea that all LGBT publications are too "partisan" and thus "unreliable", the proposed use of the Southern Voice was not to provide facts about Phillips, but to substantiate the fact that some LGBT organizations criticized Phillips. We do, of course, want to consider issues of undue weight and prevent WP articles for being overwhelmed with criticism, but the things you have proposed would serve to eliminate legitimate criticism from Wikipedia articles and disqualify many mainstream, reputable sources from being used in those articles.
I am not sure you are following me correctly. LGBT sources and other narrow audience sources should be used quite sparingly and are not a reliable source for MOST articles. An LGBT papers Field Of View is on LGBT people and LGBT issues. This makes it great and reliable for LGBT biographies and LGBT pages. Articles on say...a CNN journalist push use of such a source, in my opinion, towards unreliable. Overreliance on these as primary sources may make articles have a POV.
I think we can agree on: - Use of advocacy journalism primary sources should be replaced with objective journalism sources where possible.
As for your LPU, you mention (while taking a moment to attack me) that you invited "all sorts of people" to participate. You invited 17. They included the user who wished to scrub all mention of Gannon's former occupation from WP, who mentions on his user page that he's from a conservative messageboard and declares his mission here is to "correct" WP's "liberal bias". Another was an editor who uses his user space to denounce about 20 or so editors by name and until fairly recently had them under a "list of weasels" or somesuch. These were the people you thought would be good to recruit, and of course they eagerly signed up. I thought the small number of members and the relatively high proportion of problem users among them was alarming. This was the main reason I thought it was imperative to bring your project to the attention of more users.
I suppose, humorously (and should be interpreted as), to quote Dennis Leary: "Thank you, thank you, thank you and ..."
Justice is(er, should be) blind. Treat editors with blindness (and good faith and civility) until malice. Most of the people invited were recent contributers to NPOV, BLP, LIBEL, BLP noticeboard talk pages as well as Kyra Phillips. More metapedians needed at BLPP.
Catch-22, I think. The framing of the post sends people on wikien to BLPP with a chip on their shoulder, without the framing though, there would be no interest.
Several times in your long message you repeat the acronym soup, to, in your words "beat this in like a headon commercial." We're not idiots here, we are aware of these policies. What is needed is a thoughtful application of these policies, not a simplistic mantra. Chanting BLP! BLP! BLP! doesn't automatically make you right, or does it mean those who disagree with you want to stuff WP with libel. (Now with 20 percent more libel!) Mentioning reliably sourced unflattering facts is not libel. Mentioning criticism of the subject of the article is not libel. But you've recruited a bunch of POV warriors to go around stripping WP articles of unflattering things about their fellow political party members (BLP! BLP! BLP!) with no oversight and no means to watch the watchmen. This coupled with your wildly over-expansive interpretation of BLP makes me conclude that you should not be playing a key role in interpreting the policy or implementing how it is enforced.
Then why I am I seeing quick reversions from adminstrators when defamation and reliable sourcing are being raised? Both these things seem to have been much agreed upon to keep out till in and for editors who want to keep them to prove it? What is needed is to educate most editors that actions on defamation issues run contrary to prominient wikipedia philosphies, hence the use of a simple mantra. Chanting BLP,BLP... is designed to get eyeballs on the problem and the severity of its nature. Most editors are acting in good faith but are generally unaware of defamation laws and various journalistic and historical codes of conduct. When defamation is in play, reliable sourcing needs to be rock solid and in generous quantity. Depending on the seriousness of potential libel, verifiability may not be enough, the standard may have to be truth! Criticism is good but most belongs outside of wikipedia. I have recruited a bunch of editors to help build consensus on how to handle problematic BLP articles. If editors are off willynilly editing articles under a BLPP mantra without consensus, shoot them and ban them. I am sorry you think I am unable to play a key role, but I think you misunderstand how I actually think about this.
Underneath, mostly, I am quite moderate. I am frequently stepping into zealot shoes and taking devils advocate positions to bring up defamation issues that need to be addressed NOW. Not only do BLP articles requires immediatism, the wikipedia policies behind it require immediatism too. The run a red flag up the highest flagpole and aim those hollywood spotlights at it kind of immediatism. Its a ticking bomb.
As for qualifications, over my career I have been a journalist, beat reporter, opinion columnist, editor, web editor, read AP stylebook, code of ethics and various ethics textbooks. I have been a political scientist (mm...SCOTUS!), parlimentarian, read Roberts Rules of Order cover to cover. Have been a business/technical analyst, where six sigma, TQM, BPI, scientific management, taylorism and most other process management buzzwords come into play. Also a computer programmer: PHP, Perl, Java, C/C++, ircbots like eggdrop and TCL/TK, to use of mediawiki with xoops on a personal wiki.
So not only do I fully understand the ethical issues and the significance of the legal ones, I understand political culture and how to create and enforce processes and policies alike. From a technical standpoint, I know the limitations and potential of mediawiki and other software well.
-Jtp Electrawn
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l