On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2008/7/3 Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com>om>:
Quite realistically, I don't think this morphing into a discussion of
the ArbCom in general is helpful anyway. We really should be focusing
on -this particular bad decision- by the ArbCom. The ArbCom does do a
lot of good, and they are as human as the rest of us. The main problem
is this specific instance.
Yes, let's get back on topic.
Would you like to summarise what you think is bad about the decision?
_______________________________________________
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
Certainly. A brief summary would be that I see this as harmful to
NPOV. NPOV is one of our core founding principles, and should trump
-all- other concerns, even BLP. This decision seems, instead, to raise
something else as more important than that critical, core part of our
mission, neutrality. Concerns of harm should be primary when they -do
not- impact neutrality, or when neutrality is also harmed by excessive
negative information about a living person, but should never be when
concerns of "harm" and "neutrality" are in genuine conflict..
Tellingly, the ArbCom decision does not even mention NPOV.
Further, just because an article is a BLP does not mean that there
cannot be a legitimate content dispute about what to include or not
include. This gives a rather powerful weapon to the hands of the
"don't include it" side in any given debate, unbalancing the consensus
process. This, again, is harmful to neutrality and our normal
community processes of deciding how to best write a good NPOV article.
There are threats of severe sanctions against those who -undo- actions
taken under this policy, but again quite tellingly, no similar threats
against those who use this policy to stifle legitimate disputes rather
than to remove blatantly bad material.
I think the problems caused by this policy and previous
interpretations much like it are already visible. In many articles, it
has been argued that we should not include a real name despite its
wide dissemination by highly reliable sources. NPOV and NOR would
demand that we -follow- our sources' example, whether we personally
agree with it or not. Our goal should be to spread, not suppress,
information, provided that it can be verified through reliable sources
and follows our other content guidelines. We should never suppress
reliable information on the basis of "harm" if it violates no other
content policies-if a source has already spread the information, it's
already available to the public, and if it can't be sourced or is OR,
well, we don't even need BLP to say "That doesn't belong in an
article", though it is helpful to say in the case of a BLP, unsourced
information should be removed with increased speed and vigor.
Those of us concerned about BLP at its inception were assured that it
was mainly intended to prevent another repeat like the Seigenthaler
incident, to remove -unsourced or poorly sourced- information about
living persons. Despite our concerns about creep, we were assured that
a tight leash would be kept on this thing, and so we assented. After
all, who could argue anything but that "John Smith is a member of the
Nazi Party", with no sourcing, should be removed immediately and,
unless sourceable, permanently? However, it is now being used to
stifle -legitimate- dissent. Many believe real names should be used
when reliable sources provide them. Certainly legitimate disputes can
arise over whether -well sourced- negative information can be included
in an article. (What if highly reliable sources confirm that our Mr.
Smith really is a neo-Nazi?)
It is time for that scope creep to be reined in, not expanded. BLP
enforcement should apply to -unsourced or poorly sourced- negative or
possibly controversial information. To everything else, where reliable
sources do exist, consensus-seeking should be the order of the day, as
with any content dispute. We should not tie one side's hand behind
their back in a legitimate content dispute backed by reliable sources.
In this decision, the ArbCom involves itself directly in policymaking
and indirectly in content disputes, two areas it has traditionally and
very properly avoided. It should have stayed out. The expanded scope
of the BLP policy does not enjoy anything like community consensus,
even though its original form did.
--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.