[WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review

[Todd Allen]

Fred Bauder wrote:
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Todd Allen [mailto:toddmallen at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 08:13 PM
>> To: 'English Wikipedia'
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP, and admin role in overriding community review
>>
>> David Gerard wrote:
>>     
>>> On 24/05/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> On 5/23/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>       
>>>>> The point is that isn't particularly fame. The incident is famous, the
>>>>> person's pretty much only famous in association with the incident.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>       
>>>> Could some argue that based on this [[Monica Lewinsky]] should be deleted?
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> I'm sure they could argue anything they got it into their heads to,
>>> particularly for the sake of a querulous argument. And, on Wikipedia,
>>> probably have.
>>>
>>>
>>> - d.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> Which is exactly why we -shouldn't- give a blanket license stating "Do
>> whatever you want, and you're not subject to community censure or an
>> overturn by consensus, only if someone cares enough to take it to ArbCom
>> -and- manages to get it accepted." At the very least, if the ArbCom is
>> going to set itself up as an arbiter of BLP disputes, it should be
>> -required- to accept any such case (especially if the threat of anyone
>> who acts without ArbCom's blessing is banning or desysopping, in this
>> case, ArbCom effectively sets itself up as the only way the matter -can-
>> be resolved.)
>>
>> I'm not really sure this is the most efficient way to deal with that.
>> The community deals with a lot of things on its own. Sometimes, we need
>> the ArbCom to sort out a particularly nasty mess. More often, consensus
>> swings pretty clearly one way or the other. Taking an -entire class- of
>> articles out of the hands of the community (and don't be fooled, if this
>> does become policy, any edits to BLP's will depend on who first yells
>> "It's a BLP issue!" and becomes immune to reversal until the ArbCom can
>> get around to saying it's not) is a major shift in policy, practice, and
>> basic philosophy, and I think (with all due respect) that such a shift
>> requires more than Fred Bauder saying "I said it's so, now deal with it."
>>     
>
>
> I think you've won the point, now tell us how you suggest dealing with the problem.
>
> Fred
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>   
I have a few different suggestions. They're just brainstorming of a
sort, so I'm not even necessarily saying they're great, but they might
make a good starting point. They're also not all necessarily mutually
exclusive, a lot could probably be used together.

1. Set up some kind of secondary arbitration committee, which deals
solely with BLP-type issues.

Pros: This won't put more load onto an already heavily-burdened ArbCom,
and could be a good way to resolve such matters without them blowing up
(like they tend to do now.)

Cons: Since we do have so many living bios, a body like this could still
become overwhelmed if it's responsible for all such disputes. It also
takes a lot of decision-making out of the hands of the community at
large, which I imagine a lot of people would object to.

2. Leave it as-is. (That's always an option, after all.)

Pros: Doesn't really require any change at all. We can always hope the
community will, with time, come to some sort of agreement or consensus.

Cons: "As-is" seems to be causing a lot of heated disagreements between
very sincere editors, and many argue that it's also resulting in (take
your pick) the retention of a lot of unacceptable BLP articles, or
alternatively in the deletion of a lot of perfectly acceptable ones.

3. Ask OFFICE (Jimbo or the Foundation) to take a more active role.

Pros: These are people who are generally highly-trusted for good
judgment, and really do have the authority to act unilaterally if they
believe it to be necessary. When OFFICE takes an action, there's
absolutely no doubt-you don't touch it until and unless you talk to them
and they say it's alright.

Cons: Wouldn't scale well. Those responsible for implementing office
actions have a lot of other responsibilities as well, and it would
probably become an inordinate demand on their time to ask them to deal
with all such cases. Also takes a lot of decision-making power out of
the hands of the community, which again, may become controversial.

4. Clarify the BLP policy. There seems to be a serious dichotomy between
those who interpret it largely as written ("unsourced or poorly-sourced
controversial information about a living person should be removed
on-sight, and if that's all there is and has ever been to an article, it
should be deleted at once") and those who seem to interpret an extended
version of it ("we shouldn't have negative biographies of living
persons, even if that really -does- reflect the balance of coverage by
reliable sources.")

Pros: I think, no matter which one of the other solutions we choose, we
should do this. More than anything, the problem seems to be between
those who say "BLP means what the BLP page says it means" and those who
say "Well, there's more to it than that." If there is more to it than
that, it should lay that out explicitly.

Cons: Such a discussion would probably be a heated, difficult one, as
we've seen. However, I think it's necessary, even so-better to have one
such discussion than rehash it again and again every time such an issue
comes up.

5. Change AfD to default to "delete" if a discussion on a BLP comes out
no consensus and the nomination was based on BLP concerns. A clear
consensus to keep would be required to keep in such cases.

Pros: This was suggested before, and seemed to have at least a decent
degree of support. Could ease some concerns about marginal bios being
kept. Leaves the decision in the hands of the community (it just changes
what the default is if the community comes to no clear decision).

Cons: Might not be able to achieve a genuine consensus. Could also
result in good bios being discarded, especially when (as often happens)
an article is greatly improved midway through an AfD, resulting in
earlier arguments leaning toward "delete" and later ones toward "keep",
and the whole thing coming out with no clear consensus.

That's a start anyway. As I said, any of these may be anywhere from
helpful to utterly stupid, but I hope they'll at least be a good
starting point for the thought process.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070523/bc4d5cb7/attachment.pgp