[WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales should reconsider

[George Herbert]

On 4/20/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Bryan Derksen wrote:
> > doc wrote:
> >> James Farrar wrote:
> >>> Well, we could give up, shut down the project, and all go and do something else.
> >>>
> >> And how does that argument help? We need to admit the real problem and
> >> then try to find some real solutions - but unfortunately some people
> >> would rather shoot the messenger or assume that any major change would
> >> mean the death of wikipedia.
> >
> > But IMO it's not a "real solution" to delete an article that we would
> > otherwise have if only the subject of the article hadn't asked us to
> > delete it. Adding the exemption for biographies already in Britannica
> > would just make Wikipedia's coverage even more nonsensical and
> > arbitrary. There's nothing magical about Britannica's standards that
> > makes biographies problem-free and it would introduce a whopping great
> > systemic bias.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> Why is it that folk on this list always simply point out the problems
> with any change rather then engage constructively in finding working
> solutions?
>
> There are other criteria we might use, such as we keep all bios on
> subjects who have had an actual biography published in any mainstream
> media or encyclopedia, or who are listed in 'Who's who' or equivalent.
> Yes, this would need a lot more tweeking.
>
> The basic problem is that many people are resisting all change and
> simply denying that there is a real issue. Find me one OTRS regular who
> doesn't believe a radical change is both necessary and eventually
> inevitable.

Stable versions is certainly a change which is technical based, has
major effects, and could help significantly on a bunch of different
fronts.  Nobody has had much of anything negative to say about that (a
few gripes, but it's very very popular).  It's just not live yet.

Structural changes of the "just remove all bios" or "remove any
biography that the subject objects to" are counter to the project's
core goal of making an encyclopedia.

Someone who has a WP article about them that they percieve negatively
may be upset, but it's one thing to say that we sympathize with them
being upset, and quite another to suggest that we shouldn't have an
article about them, or about large classes of people including them.

The idea that people have a right to not be covered in media reports,
encyclopedias, websites, blogs, etc. are not unique to criticisms of
Wikipedia's operations, but are rather odd overall.  There is
generally little to no legal basis for these ideas, and little social
basis for these ideas.

Individuals are upset for one or more of three reasons:
1) They think they aren't notable, and don't want to be.
2) They think they're covered inaccurately.
3) They think the coverage presents them negatively.

We have normal processes to deal with truly non-notable subject
articles.  They go away, relatively reliably.  A lot of people who
don't want to be notable are by other reasonable standards.  People
may not like that, but they may not like being covered in a local
newspaper or someone's blog or website, etc.  The problem is not
unique to Wikipedia, and we aren't breaking social or legal norms to
cover people who meet some minimum standards of notability.
Notability is something they can challenge, but not something they can
arbitrarily reset standards on.

If they're covered inaccurately then that's a problem, and we can and
should do something about that.  BLP says we need to, everyone agrees
with BLP, and people are if anything overly vigorous about enforcing
it.

If coverage is seen as negative, it's for one or both of the following
reasons:  The coverage is slanted, or the sourced and accurate facts
behind the article are, or tend to be, interpreted in a negative
manner.  If the article is biased, not-neutral, then BLP applies and
other policies apply and we fix it.  If the facts don't show a
positive light on someone's life or activities, then that's their
problem, not ours.

People have a right to be upset about a lot of what gets put up about
them in Wikipedia.  But the same applies to MySpace, Usenet, IRC, and
a zillion Blogs and homepages.  Those don't have any sort of editorial
policy, charter to be accurate and neutral and have sources, and
people who have the power and responsibility to fix things going
around dealing with the things that are done wrong here.  Wikipedia
does not offer a unique technical or social opportunity for internet
damage to people's reputations or lives.  We are, all things
considered, probably uniquely the most reliable non-commercial source
on the Internet.  We are clearly and unequivocally imperfect, but
that's a fact of life to some degree.

We could make a WarmFuzzyPedia.  But it would not be accurate, useful,
or something that a lot of people would be interested in building and
maintaining.  It would, in my humble opinion, be the end of Wikipedia
to change into a WarmFuzzyPedia, and I will resist you to the last if
you insist on going that direction.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com