[WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force

Fri Aug 7 03:38:32 UTC 2009

> Now discarding those sort of sources, let's say we have five  
> newspaper articles, and two mentions in books about this person  
> positively, and 245 newspaper articles and 18 mentions negative.   
> What would you do?

I would put the weight on the negative. I just realized this.

> The weight is clearly on the negative and that's how we should write  
> the article.

I think I was wrong, at least on some counts. I don't have experience  
citing articles, just making sure it isn't construed in a way that  
isn't an attack or full of WP:WEASELS, or WP:PEACOCKS. Sorry about that.

I hope this sidetrack was beneficial anyway.

Emily
On Aug 6, 2009, at 10:32 PM, WJhonson at aol.com wrote:

> Blog posts fail our requirement that an author of a piece be  
> previously
> published by a third-party publisher.  Blog posts are almost always by
> amateur writers, regardless of how long they've been blogging.  A true
> writer, has true writing credits by reputable publishing houses.
>
> Similarly newsletter articles have little to no valid editorial
> oversight.  Generally what you write, is what they print, and  
> sometimes
> there is a too-close relationship between the writer and the publisher
> which we would want to avoid.  True writers, have true writings,
> published by actual third-party reputable publishing houses.
> Newsletters would fail.
>
> Now discarding those sort of sources, let's say we have five newspaper
> articles, and two mentions in books about this person positively, and
> 245 newspaper articles and 18 mentions negative.  What would you do?
>
> What I would do, is try to distill the essence of those contributions
> into an article.  Obviously nobody, not even Barack warrants 270
> footnotes.  So we have to narrow it somewhat.  The way we should  
> narrow
> it however wouldn't be to balance the positive with the negative in
> this case.  The weight is clearly on the negative and that's how we
> should write the article.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Emily Monroe <bluecaliocean at me.com>
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2009 8:20 pm
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
>
>> What you're really saying is, "Isn't there a way to be nice even to
>> people who aren't nice?".
>
> No, I didn't. You misunderstood me. Let me explain.
>
> I'm more worried about uneven reporting.  If, say, there's one hundred
> blog posts and fifty newsletter articles about how horrible a person
> is, and twenty blog posts, ten newsletter articles, and a somewhat
> notable book saying "Hey, this person is actually pretty decent.", of
> course these sources containing positive information being somewhat
> more hard to find, being the minority, then the wikipedia article will
> focus ALL on the negative aspects on the person with a glossed over
> paragraph or two about "Some people disagree with this".
>
> I wasn't talking about violating WP:UNDUE. I wasn't talking about
> featured articles which has 150 inline citations, with an extensive
> bibliography besides. I was talking about long-forgotten articles
> which gets maybe more edits from the article creator (stereotypically
> somebody who isn't very experienced in "Wikipedia Ways") and the new
> page patroller, who notices the statement of notability, assumes good
> faith, tries to make it NPOV, tags the page, marks the page patrolled,
> and moves on, than anyone else who's human.
>
> Humans tend to unconsciously focus on the negative.  This is something
> we do automatically. It probably makes sense in terms of evolutionary
> history. It's better to avoid fire than get burned. It's better to
> avoid water than to drown. In modern history, it gets you more
> attention from a medical laymen, and so you are more likely to get
> attention from a medical expert (via getting means of transportation,
> peer pressure, etc.). It increases the ability to survive, but not
> write Wikipedia articles.
>
> Perhaps I'm thinking in black and white, or using the filter of "I
> have read way too many stub-to-start class articles which only the
> author and the new page patroller [me] has read and yet have not
> enough experience or ability to self-express to even participate in
> this discussion" improperly.
>
>> If the only verifiable information on a BLP is negative, then that
>> is what the article should contain.
>
>> We shouldn't add unverifiable information simply for balance.  That
>> sort of action would be untrue to our principles and policies.
>
> You're right.
>
>> "Starting over" won't change that.
>
> To interpret what you said literally, no, starting over an article
> doesn't usually change policy.
>
> To respond to what I think you were saying, I thought that was we
> achieve, to a lesser degree, when we userfy an article that could be
> speedied and yet appears to be made in good faith? On the other hand,
> with BLP, there's a point when the whole ethical question of "Should
> this even be in Wikipedia at all?" needs to be asked. In that case,
> the answer I would give is "Unless and until somebody can provide a
> WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, BLP compliant article, then the article doesn't
> belong in Wikipedia."
>
> Emily
>
>
> On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:37 PM, WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> What you're really saying is, "Isn't there a way to be nice even to
>> people who aren't nice?".
>> If the only verifiable information on a BLP is negative, then that is
>> what the article should contain.
>> We shouldn't add unverifiable information simply for balance.  That
>> sort of action would be untrue to our principles and policies.
>>
>> "Starting over" won't change that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Emily Monroe <bluecaliocean at me.com>
>> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2009 4:52 pm
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was
>>> bad.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> But what if the only verifiable information in the article is the
>> negative stuff, in spite of having other, less widely-reported
>> information available? If I had ran across that as a new page
>> patroller, I'd probably tag it as an attack page if it was severe
>> enough, but what about less severe, and/or older pages? Do we delete
>> and start over, or do we merely add the positive information?
>>
>> Hitler is an extreme example. Everybody in the mainstream knows  
>> Hitler
>> was bad. We just state why.
>>
>> Emily
>> On Aug 6, 2009, at 12:38 AM, WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, and that's why we have other rules which moderate the
>>> other
>>> rules.  And the BLP policy itself is a rule.  However if a piece of
>>> evidence is both verifiable, and widely reported and yet negative
>>> about
>>> a person, and that person vociferously objects to it's inclusion...
>>> than what?  That is the problem here.  We should not white-wash a
>>> piece
>>> of negative, verifiable, widely reported bit simply because it might
>>> affect a person, or even if they claim it does or has.  We're not  
>>> the
>>> nicey-nice patrol and shouldn't be forced to become it.  We're
>>> encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was bad.
>>>
>>> Will Johnson
>>>
>>> <<Not everything which is verifiable should be included in
>>> Wikipedia.>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net>
>>> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> Sent: Wed, Aug 5, 2009 10:30 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 wjhonson at aol.com wrote:
>>>> The language of the board resolution doesn't come down hard enough
>>>> on
>>>> the side of verifiable information.  That is, if something is
>>>> verifiable, even a direct quote from the subject themself, then  
>>>> that
>>>> information should be allowed to be included, and should not be
>>>> forcibly stopped from inclusion by aggressive article
>>>> patrollers-with-tools.  It seems to me that the way the language is
>>>> worded, the board is going to continue to allow harassment of those
>>>> editors conscientious to the evidence, at the expense of verifiable
>>>> evidence already broadcast widely across the net.
>>>
>>> I think that this is exactly why we need people working on BLP.
>>> Wikipedia
>>> has put so much emphasis on rules such as verifiability that some
>>> people think
>>> that the rules trump everything else.  Worse yet, the system is set
>>> up
>>> so that
>>> the rules *do* trump everything else; in a conflict between someone
>>> with a rule
>>> and someone who's trying to use judgment, the rule always wins,
>>> because
>>> you can always argue with someone's personal judgment, but the  
>>> rule's
>>> right there in print.
>>>
>>> BLP is sort of a hack to the system which says "we're going to force
>>> you to
>>> ignore the rules in this particular situation, because they *really*
>>> don't
>>> work".  It by no means covers every situation where the rules cause
>>> problems,
>>> but it's better than nothing and right now it's all we've got.
>>>
>>> Not everything which is verifiable should be included in Wikipedia.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l