In a message dated 4/22/2008 10:37:08 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
wilydoppelganger(a)gmail.com writes:
Quoth the WP:BLP "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical
material about living persons is "do no harm".">>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
However this "rule of thumb" is being spouted out as the
"end-all-and-be-all" of the policy, which it's not.
There is no way we can collate disparate bits without doing "additional
harm" and also additional good by the way. Our actions do additions.
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
If you want to know the article to which Geni refers you need to read the di Stefano article, do that and it is obvious
if we fear editing this article because we are British and/or based in Britain surely it is time to review how we edit
Thanks,
SqueakBox
-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 7:50pm
To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 57, Issue 60
Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikien-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why? (Nathan)
2. Re: [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why? (Thomas Dalton)
3. Re: [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why? (geni)
4. Re: [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why? (Sam Blacketer)
5. Re: [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why? (Thomas Dalton)
6. Re: [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why? (David Gerard)
7. Re: [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why? (Thomas Dalton)
8. Re: [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why? (Matthew Brown)
9. Re: [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why? (Ron Ritzman)
10. Re: [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why? (David Gerard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:01:48 -0400
From: Nathan
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why?
To: fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net, "English Wikipedia"
Message-ID:
<7e948df10804211201y683eb9d6ldd1e9c39f7ea80c9(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Clearly notable folks have articles that stay despite the obvious risk of
tendentious editing. Giovanni di Stefano is one of those. I have no problem
monitoring this article for uncited and controversial additions, and
apparently neither do you and a number of other people. The issue of
deleting BLPs on people of marginal notability is separate - clearly the
proposal as written (and intended) wouldn't apply to di Stefano at this
point. There is no way the AfD can be interpreted as "no consensus." At
least its more or less out of the way - there can be no question in the
future that this article ought to remain, despite the risks outlined in
Doc's essay. Bonus for the project is that the GdS issue provided the
impetus to change policy so that many other marginal notability BLPs can be
deleted, so no one has to watch them forever.
Nathan
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> > It gets better - there is a proposal on WT:BLP to change the normal
> > operation of a consensus discussion so that, for BLP articles, its
> > backwards. If this proposal makes its way into policy, the outcome will
> > be
> > this: if an editor nominates a BLP article for deletion, and no
> consensus
> > for deletion is achieved, it will be deleted. I personally can't see how
> > that makes sense, but apparently a few of the folks on WT:BLP can. Maybe
> > we
> > need a new process - Articles for Keep, where all nominated articles are
> > deleted unless enough people come by to make argue for keeping them.
> >
> > Nathan
>
> I can certainly understand. We have about 200 folks who want to keep
> Giovanno di Stefano, a monstrosity that is entirely uncontrollable. I
> wonder how many of them are willing to spend hours, week, months, years
> monitoring it.
>
> Fred
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:03:18 +0100
From: "Thomas Dalton"
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why?
To: fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net, "English Wikipedia"
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> I can certainly understand. We have about 200 folks who want to keep
> Giovanno di Stefano, a monstrosity that is entirely uncontrollable. I
> wonder how many of them are willing to spend hours, week, months, years
> monitoring it.
Firstly, I haven't seen anyone actually give any reasons to delete
other than the subject demanding it. Secondly, this article is no more
uncontrollable than any other BLP about a controversial figure, and we
manage just fine with those.
Our principles have to take precedence over being nice to people,
otherwise we might as well just give up now.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:02:12 +0100
From: geni
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why?
To: fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net, "English Wikipedia"
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 21/04/2008, Fred Bauder wrote:
> I can certainly understand. We have about 200 folks who want to keep
> Giovanno di Stefano, a monstrosity that is entirely uncontrollable. I
> wonder how many of them are willing to spend hours, week, months, years
> monitoring it.
What about researching it?
In any case wikipedia currently hosts at least one article that would
appear to be in contempt of a UK court ruling which some might feel is
more of a concern.
--
geni
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:32:13 +0100
From: "Sam Blacketer"
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why?
To: "English Wikipedia"
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:02 PM, geni wrote:
>
>
> In any case wikipedia currently hosts at least one article that would
> appear to be in contempt of a UK court ruling which some might feel is
> more of a concern.
>
In fact the information is spread on several articles. It seems that no
English court has attempted to enforce contempt of court on foreign
publications (though one Judge seems keen to try it with defamation
actions). Would the article talk pages benefit from a reminder that the law
on whether British editors are subject to the injunction is as yet untested,
or would this just draw attention?
--
Sam Blacketer
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:42:13 +0100
From: "Thomas Dalton"
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why?
To: "English Wikipedia"
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 21/04/2008, Sam Blacketer wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:02 PM, geni wrote:
> >
> >
> > In any case wikipedia currently hosts at least one article that would
> > appear to be in contempt of a UK court ruling which some might feel is
> > more of a concern.
> >
>
>
> In fact the information is spread on several articles. It seems that no
> English court has attempted to enforce contempt of court on foreign
> publications (though one Judge seems keen to try it with defamation
> actions). Would the article talk pages benefit from a reminder that the law
> on whether British editors are subject to the injunction is as yet untested,
> or would this just draw attention?
Could people please provide links when they bring up a specific example?
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:46:21 +0100
From: "David Gerard"
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why?
To: "English Wikipedia"
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 21/04/2008, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 21/04/2008, Sam Blacketer wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:02 PM, geni wrote:
> > > In any case wikipedia currently hosts at least one article that would
> > > appear to be in contempt of a UK court ruling which some might feel is
> > > more of a concern.
> > In fact the information is spread on several articles. It seems that no
> > English court has attempted to enforce contempt of court on foreign
> > publications (though one Judge seems keen to try it with defamation
> > actions). Would the article talk pages benefit from a reminder that the law
> > on whether British editors are subject to the injunction is as yet untested,
> > or would this just draw attention?
> Could people please provide links when they bring up a specific example?
They're in the UK (as are you and I), so I for one don't want to know.
And I make a point of not touching the articles of UK-based article
subjects with any reputation for litigousness - there's quite enough
admins based in the US to deal with that sort of thing.
- d.
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:51:05 +0100
From: "Thomas Dalton"
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why?
To: "English Wikipedia"
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> They're in the UK (as are you and I), so I for one don't want to know.
> And I make a point of not touching the articles of UK-based article
> subjects with any reputation for litigousness - there's quite enough
> admins based in the US to deal with that sort of thing.
You can't avoid something if you're not aware of it. I'd rather know
it's there, even if I decide it's safest not to touch it.
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:05:13 -0700
From: "Matthew Brown"
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why?
To: fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net, "English Wikipedia"
Message-ID:
<42f90dc00804211405u4269aee3xb0e11e317ced0692(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> I can certainly understand. We have about 200 folks who want to keep
> Giovanno di Stefano, a monstrosity that is entirely uncontrollable. I
> wonder how many of them are willing to spend hours, week, months, years
> monitoring it.
I'd rather change our policies to permanently protect a short, baldly
factual and uncontroversial stub than change our policies to delete an
article on someone of quite unquestioned importance who actively
courts press attention and about whom there is much information
published by reliable sources.
That said, I am in favor of an easier standard for deleting marginal
BLPs - which this is not.
-Matt
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:34:53 -0400
From: "Ron Ritzman"
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why?
To: "English Wikipedia"
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Nathan wrote:
> It gets better - there is a proposal on WT:BLP to change the normal
> operation of a consensus discussion so that, for BLP articles, its
> backwards. If this proposal makes its way into policy, the outcome will be
> this: if an editor nominates a BLP article for deletion, and no consensus
> for deletion is achieved, it will be deleted. I personally can't see how
> that makes sense, but apparently a few of the folks on WT:BLP can.
If they're going to do this then it needs to be in a venue besides
AFD. Perhaps call it "BLPs for discussion". That way "normal noms"
where the issue is notability etc. can proceed with the usual rules.
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:50:31 +0100
From: "David Gerard"
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Another BLP deletion... Why?
To: "English Wikipedia"
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 22/04/2008, Ron Ritzman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Nathan wrote:
> > It gets better - there is a proposal on WT:BLP to change the normal
> > operation of a consensus discussion so that, for BLP articles, its
> > backwards. If this proposal makes its way into policy, the outcome will be
> > this: if an editor nominates a BLP article for deletion, and no consensus
> > for deletion is achieved, it will be deleted. I personally can't see how
> > that makes sense, but apparently a few of the folks on WT:BLP can.
> If they're going to do this then it needs to be in a venue besides
> AFD. Perhaps call it "BLPs for discussion". That way "normal noms"
> where the issue is notability etc. can proceed with the usual rules.
That's actually a really good idea.
- d.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 57, Issue 60
****************************************
http://jameswharris.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/electric-cars-and-wikipedia/
(and here I repeat myself)
Wikipedia gained its present hideous popularity through convenience -
an encyclopedia with a ridiculously wide topic range, with content
good enough to be useful no matter how often we stress it's not
"reliable" (certified checked) as such.
Britannica and Brockhaus may be theoretically higher quality, but are
not right there on everyone's desktop - they fail on practical
availability. Worse is better. Most of Wikipedia's readers (the people
who make it #9 site in the world) wouldn't have opened a paper
encyclopedia since high school. Wikipedia fills a niche that was
previously ignored when not botched.
So the paper encyclopedias put their content online. Can they provide
a better website than Wikipedia? Ignoring the process, just looking at
the resulting body of text? Can they produce content on the range of
topics people look for on Wikipedia fast enough at their advertised
quality level and keep it up to date? To what extent can they compete
with Wikipedia without becoming Wikipedia? What would that entail?
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a
completely unintentional side effect."
- d.
Anybody know which article he is referring to and more interestingly which
editor?
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/19/hide-…
I thought we had a balanced view all my pub talk on eco is gleamed from
Wikipedia, so either I' m too naive (still :-D), that guy was really pushing
it or its an article I have somehow missed.
mike
Hello,
I have some correspondence with the Canadian photographer Jean Marc
Carisse to license one of his photos for free use by of the licenses
that Wikipedia support. He sent the photo to my email, but with an
attached copyright notice that he insists it remains there on the
actual image. I'm having hard time explaining to him that it's even
useless, since licensing the photo for free use would mean the ability
to modify it, provided that owner copyright is maintained.
Does Wikipedia allows publishing photos that contain copyright notices
stickied to them, rather than on the image's page?
Regards,
Usamah
Some editors have recently argued that the "No free image. Do you have
one? Please click here." placeholders should be removed. There's
currently a discussion going on at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Image_placeho….
If you have any opinions one way or the other it would be great if you
could comment there.
Thanks.
Adam
In a message dated 4/14/2008 6:33:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cbeckhorn(a)fastmail.fm writes:
I don't think there is much support in contempory critical theory for
the idea that a writer can write without presenting a point of view, or
that a reader can read without a point of view. >>
----------------
We are however, not "writers writing". We are "editors editing".
Without this agreement, we won't have a place from which to argue.
If you believe you are a writer, an author, a creator of new and interesting
expression, then you don't belong on Wikipedia.
Will Johnson
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolcmp00300000002850)
A few iterations of the inclusionism/deletionism debate back, we seem
to have settled on merging articles as a sort of happy medium.
Increasingly, though, it seems to me that mergism and redirectionism
is proving more destructive to our content and its growth than
deletion was.
I'll limit myself to fiction articles, since that's where I've seen
the worst effects, though I'd love to hear from people who edit in
other areas. [[List of characters in Gilmore Girls]] was the target of
a wealth of merges of characters, such that no characters in the show
have individual articles anymore. And, indeed, the old character
articles were crappy in-universe messes of the sort we want to clean up.
The problem is that it is easy for any of the major series regular
characters to have an article written about them. Gilmore Girls was a
critical darling of a show, actors regularly gave interviews, all
seasons are on DVD with a decent number of special features that
provide out-of-universe information. The information is clearly and
transparently there. The articles could have eventually been improved.
But the articles did not satisfy notability in their old forms, and so
are now gone. And, worse than gone, they're redirects - which means
that a newbie user is going to have a much harder time figuring out
how to go about fixing them. Redlinks at least cry out to be fixed.
Redirects avoid being fixed. And since the characters now exist in a
list, incremental improvement is a real challenge. The format of the
articles doesn't lend itself to expansion into new areas, as it seems
weird to have only one entry on a list have out-of-universe
information. Furthermore, the nature of a list os succinctness -
expanding an entry with a lot of information is unwanted.
Deletion at least left a visible hole in our coverage that anybody
could see and fix. Redirects, through a combination of unclear
interface ("How do I fix/make a redirect" is just about the most
common question asked by my non-wiki using friends when they try to
edit) and an institutional resistance to un-merging that is almost as
bad as abusive G4 speedies, redirectionism seems to me to destroy our
coverage of areas more severely than deletion.
The real culprit here is WP:N, which does not do nearly enough to
protect articles on topics that obviously could pass its standard of
notability, but do not yet. The anti-eventualist bias of this
requiring of multiple independent sources to be cited before an
article can avoid deletion is appalling. We need to remember that
articles grow slowly, and that a mediocre start is still a better
foundation for an article than a redirect.
-Phil