---- Magnus Manske <magnus.manske(a)web.de> wrote:
> poore5(a)adelphia.net wrote:
> > Hello Magnus,
> >
> > Could you explain a little more about how you plan to use the tool?
> >
> > I have some concerns about using it on Biographies of living people on Wikipedia-en. We have too much unverified information added to these article. I strongly believe that each article needs to be examined closely to verify the content meets our Wikipedia:BLP guidelines before it is added to a template.
> >
> Well, it can't run fully automatically, there has to be a user making
> the changes. I could prevent the tool from showing a template for people
> with no death date (=probably living;-) if there's great concern about
> that. Otherwise, the tool doesn't generate new data; it merely tries to
> extract the data already in the article and put it into a form that is
> more machine-readable.
>
> Magnus
I thought you said something about doing whole categories. I got the impression that the tool would convert a whole group of articles, over course one after another.
Who would use the tool? Does a human need to verify each fact (not sure of a better word) before it goes into the template?
If not I'm concerned about some false information slipping through.
Otherwise it sounds great. : - )
Take care,
Sydney aka FloNight
---- Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke
>
> I removed the jokes. Mikka reverted. My reasoning:
> * no reliable sources for these being considered representative of the
> classes of joke discussed
> * this is about the concept of the joke, it is not [[List of jokes]]
> (and most especially not [[List of randomly selected and generally
> abysmal jokes]])
> * several are gratuitously offensive. It should be possible to read
> the article on joke, be told that racist jokes exist, but not be
> subjected to them unless you visit a separate article
> * WP:NOT a joke book
> * cruft, cruft, cruft and more cruft. Most are drive-bys.
>
> Guy (JzG)
Agree all around.
Sydney
---- Magnus Manske <magnus.manske(a)web.de> wrote:
> Kirill Lokshin schrieb:
> > On 7/11/06, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske(a)web.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Are we prefering {{Persondata}} or {{Infobox biography}}?
> >>
> >> Should they be merged, somehow?
> >>
> >> I'm asking this because I'm writing a tool to generate Persondata from
> >> article text as a copy&paste text. Can scan whole categories at once.
> >>
> >
> > One ({{Persondata}}) is raw metadata, but is applicable to _all_
> > biographies; the other ({{Infobox biography}}) is designed for display
> > to users, but has been replaced in certain types of biographies
> > (politicians, royalty, military leaders) with more specialized
> > templates.
> >
> I'll stick to Persondata, then.
> > Ideally, we could have a tool that would be able to parse at least the
> > major infobox types and fill out the persondata fields; but I'm not
> > sure how much work it would be, considering that there is a certain
> > variation in how different infoboxes deal with particular data.
> >
> >
> I've done raw text extraction for the German Personendaten. While the en
> version is still experimental, it works OK in many cases:
> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/persondata.php?category=1984_deaths
>
> I could add popular infoboxes (any suggestions?) and German
> Personendaten, if a de article exists.
>
> Magnus
Hello Magnus,
Could you explain a little more about how you plan to use the tool?
I have some concerns about using it on Biographies of living people on Wikipedia-en. We have too much unverified information added to these article. I strongly believe that each article needs to be examined closely to verify the content meets our Wikipedia:BLP guidelines before it is added to a template.
Regards,
Sydney Poore
Are we prefering {{Persondata}} or {{Infobox biography}}?
Should they be merged, somehow?
I'm asking this because I'm writing a tool to generate Persondata from
article text as a copy&paste text. Can scan whole categories at once.
Magnus
With apologies, since I last indicated I wouldn't continue a digression
that had moved off-topic, I didn't expect such charges to be made about
me and feel that I should respond publicly. This, however, will
definitely be my last post in this particular discussion regardless, and
if anyone wants to get personal in response I'll ignore it.
Philip Welch wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2006, at 1:24 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>>> Jury nullification also reduced the effectiveness of the American
>>> prohibition of alcohol. Similarly, juries in African-American
>>> communities have apparently been known to acquit black defendants of
>>> certain crimes (particularly drug crimes) in response to perceived
>>> racism on the part of the police.
>>
>> When I pointed out the real meaning of jury nullification I certainly
>> had no intention of starting a racially charged digression. While the
>> possibility of disparate enforcement of the law along racial lines is
>> certainly a serious issue, I've never heard that African-American
>> juries
>> regularly acquit criminals on the basis of race.
>
> I had no such intention either, I was simply repeating something I
> had read previously. I certainly did not mean to imply that "African-
> American juries regularly acquit criminals on the basis of race",
> because it is not the race of the defendant per se, but rather the
> defendant's perceived status as a victim of racism, that is the basis
> of such acquittals. Or at least so I have been led to believe.
However you care to phrase it, I was expressing skepticism about the
reality of the claimed phenomenon. Think of it as a [citation needed],
if you like. You say you read it somewhere, but don't say where. Feel
free to enlighten me off-list if you can.
>> Otherwise, to find actual examples of racial jury nullification I think
>> you have to look at the *white* juries...this explains why
>> some of jury nullification's most ardent advocates are found in the
>> political fringe where white racists, survivalist militia groups, and
>> radical "constitutionalists" meet.
>>
>> That's all I'll have to say about this, since the discussion no longer
>> directly relates to Wikipedia.
>
> There's nothing better than to call jury nullification advocates
> racist and then wash your hands of the entire affair. (I was trying
> to be neutral in my presentation of what I had heard, but what the
> hell--if I'm on a jury, I'm not putting someone in prison for getting
> caught with some weed on them, no matter what the law says.
> Apparently this means I'm a racist.)
No, it doesn't mean you're racist, nor did I say any such thing. What it
actually means is that if you honestly answer questions that are
appropriately asked, and if the judge and attorneys are at all
competent, you'll be disqualified from serving on any jury for a
marijuana possession case.
You seem proud of your neutral presentation, with some justification,
since it wasn't immediately apparent to me that you advocate jury
nullification. So I wasn't calling you a racist, and I didn't say that
all jury nullification advocates are racist, either. Some are as I have
said, and I make no apologies for pointing out some of the concept's
most undesirable applications. Consider it a caution about the
associations it carries, if you want to continue extolling its virtues.
> Ironically, you're responding to a message in which I cited jury
> nullification as an antidote to police racism. I have to commend you
> on a masterful job of trolling, Michael Snow. You skillfully combined
> the race card, pretending to be the good guy, and a
> passive-aggressive tone to subtly take this discussion beyond the
> edge of reason, all with the utmost civility. I'm actually rather
> impressed.
As I said, it wasn't clear that you were advocating jury nullification
as an "antidote" to anything. In fact, by qualifying the racism as
"perceived", you could just as easily have been questioning whether
there was any racism, challenging the legitimacy of jury nullification
and, more to the point, the conduct of African-American juries
supposedly engaging in it. It wasn't me that brought up race, but since
it was brought up I thought it needed to be pointed out that the
analysis has other racial contexts as well. So I don't feel that I've
done anything to "take this discussion beyond the edge of reason", but
if that's where it's gone, hopefully this can bring it back.
--Michael Snow
Interesting one:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060705/dcw049.html?.v=57
Now, how do we keep the well-intentioned clueless from alienating
them? Particularly given the directions in the second-last para are
very nice and really just the thing.
- d.
> From: "Matt Brown" <morven(a)gmail.com>
> On 7/9/06, Sarah <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> The policy is based on common sense, not dogma. When you send a
>> letter
>> to a newspaper for publication, you're expected to supply your name,
>> address, and telephone number so that someone from the newspaper can
>> check that you really did send it.
>
> I've had letters published in many different newspapers and other
> publications. While all or almost all require such information, I
> have never, ever had any of them check back.
>
> I'd imagine if I was claiming to be a well-known individual, they
> MIGHT check it, but even then, I have my doubts whether they would do
> so every single time.
I've had perhaps six letters published in the Boston Globe over the
last fifteen years. They require the city you live in and a telephone
number for verification. I've been telephoned for verification twice.
I'm not sure exactly what they were verifying--all they did was ask
if I was who I said to be, and ask if they had permission to publish
the letter.
I haven't been called the last three or four times. I don't know
whether they have anything on file or whether they just didn't bother.
Just a data point.
I personally think there's a BIG difference between occasional,
casual checking and the _ability_ to verify, and no checking at all.
On the other hand, in the case of, say, a Usenet post that appears to
be from, say, a university professor named Dr. John Doe at XYZ
University whose email address is john.doe(a)xyz.edu, whose email
address is available from an online directory at www.xyz.edu... if
you email that address and say "Are you Dr. John Doe and did you post
this?" and he replies "Yes," that's perfectly reasonable
verifiability, at least as good as a published letter to the editor.
A news story with a credited reporter's name, with a by-line in which
the newspaper's name appears (i.e. not a stringer), in which the
reporter says "so-and-so said thus-and-such" is a much higher level
of verifiability, though.
Philip Welch wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2006, at 5:34 AM, Matt Brown wrote:
>
>>> Jury nullification does not
>>> involve a judge or some other higher authority nullifying the decision
>>> of the jury. Jury nullification refers to the ability of the jury to
>>> reach a verdict contrary to the law and the instructions of the court.
>>> Fans of the concept like to cite John Peter Zenger's acquittal on a
>>> charge of libel as an example of this.
>>
>> Exactly right, to the best of my knowledge. The American legal system
>> and others like it treats this as an unfixable bug in the jury system;
>> despite all exhortations to the contrary, the jury can reach any
>> conclusions it likes for whatever reason it wishes. Some activists
>> and others, however, try and push the idea that juries' ability to
>> ignore laws they disagree with is a feature, not a bug.
>
> Juries under the American legal system cannot be held accountable for
> their decisions in any way. (As I recall, this may be a holdover from
> English law.) There was one case in colonial America where a colonial
> journalist, Zenger, was tried for sedition and libel for certain
> things he published about the governor of New York Colony. In
> addition to establishing the American precedent that truth is a
> defense to libel, this trial was also an early example of jury
> nullification--the laws as written and established by precedent led
> to a guilty verdict, but the jury refused to convict.
>
> Jury nullification also reduced the effectiveness of the American
> prohibition of alcohol. Similarly, juries in African-American
> communities have apparently been known to acquit black defendants of
> certain crimes (particularly drug crimes) in response to perceived
> racism on the part of the police.
When I pointed out the real meaning of jury nullification I certainly
had no intention of starting a racially charged digression. While the
possibility of disparate enforcement of the law along racial lines is
certainly a serious issue, I've never heard that African-American juries
regularly acquit criminals on the basis of race. The only case I know of
is O.J. Simpson, assuming you believe him to have been acquitted in
contradiction to the facts, and even then there's a significant
celebrity element to consider in addition to race. (Please note, a hung
jury because of one recalcitrant juror is *not* an acquittal, the
defendant can easily be retried. The primary reason jury nullification
would be effective is because double jeopardy prohibits appeals or
retrials from an acquittal in a criminal case.)
Otherwise, to find actual examples of racial jury nullification I think
you have to look at the *white* juries, during the early years of the
civil rights movement and going back to Jim Crow times, that acquitted
whites of various violent acts against African-Americans and their
allies. The problem has subsided and recently it has been possible to
secure convictions for some long-ago atrocities, but this explains why
some of jury nullification's most ardent advocates are found in the
political fringe where white racists, survivalist militia groups, and
radical "constitutionalists" meet.
That's all I'll have to say about this, since the discussion no longer
directly relates to Wikipedia.
--Michael Snow
G'day Michael,
> This is what confused me. If, as it would seem, you're equating the
> response from gamers with that of a jury, then you've got the concept
> of jury nullification exactly backwards. Jury nullification does not
> involve a judge or some other higher authority nullifying the
> decision of the jury. Jury nullification refers to the ability of the
> jury to reach a verdict contrary to the law and the instructions of
> the court. Fans of the concept like to cite John Peter Zenger's
I do indeed have it exactly backwards. And I don't even have the excuse
of never having heard of the concept before (though I don't know too
much about it). Call it an elaborate brainfart!
> acquittal on a charge of libel as an example of this.
I suppose you could argue that the IAR principle[0] is Wikipedia's
equivalent, then.
[0] In keeping with my decision to name Important Stuff "principles",
and other stuff "policy" ...
--
Mark Gallagher
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
---- Sarah <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/9/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/10/06, Sarah <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Erik, the important point about newspapers is that all but the tiniest
> > > have processes in place to detect errors, and particularly legal
> > > problems, prior to publication. We can only hope they use the
> > > processes correctly; if they don't, that's not our fault. But
> > > Wikipedia has no such process, which is why we rely on what we call
> > > "reliable sources" who do.
> >
> > Our own history is an example. Virtually all of it is documented
> > through electronic mailing lists and edits to the wiki. It is possible
> > to fake mailing list posts just like it is possible to fake them on
> > Usenet. So, are we going to dispute that Larry Sanger wrote the "Let's
> > make a wiki" post on those grounds?
> >
> > We need to be very careful that dogma does not take the
> > place of common sense.
> >
> The policy is based on common sense, not dogma. When you send a letter
> to a newspaper for publication, you're expected to supply your name,
> address, and telephone number so that someone from the newspaper can
> check that you really did send it. Nothing like that exists for
> Usenet. It's all very well to say that if X didn't write the post, and
> we quote from it, X will tell us soon enough. But what happens if X
> claims that, in purporting to quote him, and in leaving that unchecked
> quote on Wikipedia for months until he spotted it, we have damaged him
> in some way? Newspapers have processes in place to avoid this
> scenario, and they have libel insurance for when things go wrong. We
> have none of those things, which is why we piggy-back on other
> people's, by using only material that has already been checked.
>
> Sarah
Almost without exception Media sources outside the Internet have well established codes of ethics and other standards that the individuals and institutions must follow.
For example: when a media outlet publishes or broadcasts some new piece of information about a person or an agency, it is expected per ethical and industry standards that some one will make contact and get a response before publication/broadcast.
Wikipedia has no way to verify information, seek clarity, or simply get a response. For this reason it is essential that we stick with reliable third party sources and sparingly use primary sources to fill in details for already verified incidents.
Sydney Poore aka FloNight
Georgetown KY