[WikiEN-l] Analysis of BLP issues (Jimmy Wales should reconsider)

[MacGyverMagic/Mgm]

On 4/22/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> Since I think this is a terrible analysis of the issue let me repeat my
> response:
>
>
> We're not talking about Brandt and mildly critical stuff on a
> well-written and highly monitored article. We are not talking about
> people trying to cover up neutral reports of the truth. That's a
> straw-man.
>
> We are talking about downright libels, negative spinning, and outrageous
> lies. We are talking about biographies that have pulled together every
> detail of a minor small-town scandal, and ignored any positive
> information whatsoever. People have a moral right not to be subjected to
> that "WarmFuzzyPedia" or not.
>
> We insist on neutrality, verifiability and 'due weight', but we are
> hosting thousands of biographies that do not comply with these policies
> and we have structures that have manifestly proven inadequate in dealing
> with them.
>
> If we host bios - we have a moral duty of care to the subject. We are
> clearly in breach of that duty.
>
> Yes, people don't get 'take down rights' in the real media - but real
> media is produced by writers with real names and by publishers who take
> legal responsibility, not written by ten year olds or clever anonymous
> people with a malicious grudge and then published by non-responsible
> foundation.
>
> People have a absolute moral right not to have their name googled and
> find that the highest ranking site (or perhaps only internet information
> on them) has been written by a silly slanderous schoolkid, their
> ex-husband's angry girlfriend, or a disgruntled ex-employee or rival out
> to trash them. And often these subtle attacks are on the face reading
> well-referenced and seemingly factual. Never spotted as simple vandalism.
>
> People have a moral right not have to check their own biography for
> hatchet jobs, and if they they do check it, and there is one, they have
> an moral right to expect us to have a means of making sure it never
> happens again.
>
> If Wikipedia can't reasonable insure that people don't have these moral
> rights infringed, then it has no business hosting their low-notability
> biographies in the first place.
>
> Comparisons with other internet user-contribution sites, and the claim
> that we are better than them, are misleading. They don't claim to be
> 'encyclopedias' and they don't usually form the number one hit when a
> private individual's name gets googled.
>
> If I put a sheet of paper up in the local youth club, and some malicious
> person writes the untruth 'John Smith was arrested for child-abuse',
> then I can reasonably claim that the responsibility lies solely with the
> writer and not with me. But if I put a ten foot billboard above John
> Smith's house, with the invitation "come and write the encyclopedic
> truth about John', and leave the paint lying about, I need to bear some
> responsibility when the anonymous libeler places his giant statement.
>
> This IS our ethical problem, and we need to do more to solve it.
>
> Doc


Calling in more people to actually deal with the problems and develop
technical solutions to keep on top of possibly problematic changes are
things we could do to solve issues.

The thing is, we can't completely get rid of the people who post such
material in the first place without restricting access and that's not going
to happen.

The sort of entries you are describing would be down the drain in my book,
I'm talking about keeping the articles we want to have neutral and accurate.

Mgm