On 5/6/05, Rick <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com> wrote: All I'm arguing here is that we shouldn't try to exercise publishing power without responsibility; in other words, we shouldn't be bullies. If this were some newsworthy public figure trying to delete accurate, relevant, well-referenced, notable material about himself and threatening us with legal action, I might agree that we should revert him, argue with him, and ignore the threats. But this person we're ganging up on here is a non-notable, private individual who has done no harm other than to make a fool and a nuisance of himself on Usenet. Weve inserted his real name into an article; we've attached it to a slur; we've reverted him trying to delete it; we've protected the page so he can't delete it; we've ridiculed him when he contacted this mailing list for help; we've reverted the deletion that an admin tried to make; and now we're going to ban him for making legal threats. Which part of this exactly isn't bullying? To make matters worse, the only reason you don't take his legal threats seriously is that he's made them before and nothing came of them. In other words, you're not taking him seriously because he's ineffectual and powerless. That's exactly when we should back off, not put the boot in further. There's nothing worse than a powerful journalist who uses his or her position in the manner described above, and we've all become people who have, in many ways, just as much power (but without any of the infrastructural restraints journalists have), which means we have to exercise self-restraint and be decent. What's wrong with being decent all of a sudden? Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 5/6/05, Josh Gordon <joshua.p.gordon(a)gmail.com> wrote: been example Josh, we're not supposed to use Usenet as a source except for material about itself. This is like using Stormfront as a source for an article about itself (which we can do), then mentioning that they give out an award for Jewish Supremacist of the Year, and adding the real name of this year's winner - a private individual, who's been given the award because he's been harassing Stormfront. And when that person writes to us and asks that we remove his name from the Stormfront article, and explains that he was only given the award because he's been making a nuisance of himself with Stormfront, we ridicule him, we protect the article so he can't remove his name, and then we threaten to ban him! The bottom line is that Usenet can only be used as a source of information *about itself* because it does not count as a reputable, credible, or authoritative source, and while the Kook of the Year reference is about Usenet, the name of the complainant is not. He is a private, non-notable individual, except in Usenet terms, where he has achieved notability, but we are *not allowed to use Usenet as a source for the claim of notability*, because in so doing, we're using Usenet as a secondary source, which is not allowed under [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. So we have admins violating core policy here in order to keep this non-notable man's name in a silly article about a silly subject, even though he's asked us to remove it and has said it could harm his business. Mperel made a good point about this elsewhere: "So does this mean you would support listing the name of high school girls awarded the name "slut" by their male peers under the respective high school articles, since it would simply be reporting the verifiable fact that boys at high school xyz have called girl abc a "slut"?" --MPerel Sarah

There's nothing worse than a powerful journalist who uses his or her position in the manner described above, and we've all become people who have, in many ways, just as much power (but without any of the infrastructural restraints journalists have), which means we have to exercise self-restraint and be decent. What's wrong with being decent all of a sudden?

On 5/6/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote: David, I take your point about him, but I've tried to make it clear that I'm not arguing about the individual, but about policy. Our secondary sources have to be authoritative, reliable, credible, and in some sense reputable. We can use Usenet as a source about itself, including as a source about its awards, but we can't use it to name individuals, because that's using Usenet as a source for claims about that person's notability. He isn't notable except in Usenet terms. Please see Mperel's argument about naming schoolgirls who've been labeled sluts at such-and-such a school, on that school's page. It's a very good analogy, yet we wouldn't dream of doing it.

Sean Barrett said: I think I'd have to protect the page. Wikipedia isn't a place for recording petty gossip.

[...] What's wrong with being decent all of a sudden?

Right. If he's named as a kook (or anything) somewhere vaguely reputable, we can use it. But we can't allow Usenet to determine who is or isn't notable.

Also bear in mind that your disreputable ancient Roman figures are long dead. Their livelihoods aren't going to be harmed because someone calls them smelly. ;-)

On 5/6/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote: > slimvirgin(a)gmail.com (slimvirgin(a)gmail.com) [050507 05:25]:

> > Right. If he's named as a kook (or anything) somewhere vaguely > > reputable, we can use it. But we can't allow Usenet to determine who > > is or isn't notable.

> On that basis, we wouldn't have articles about Usenet at all. We do, > therefore your assertion that Usenet notability is not notability at all > ever is evidently not the case.

I'm struggling to understand why people can't see the difference here between using something as a primary and a secondary source. We can use Usenet as a source of information about itself, and about its awards. What we can't do is use it as a secondary source of information about someone or something else. Even if it's true that

You can't know this. Most people who post do so anonymously, and even if you know their real names, what does that tell you? They're not credible, published sources just because they post to Usenet.

David, if you're saying Usenet is sometimes an acceptable source, and that we ought to judge its validity on a case-by-case basis (as a secondary source), I'll have to ask you to show me where in any of our policy documents that is stated or implied, because my understanding of all the relevant policies is that they are worded precisely so that these issues are *not* judged by individual editors on a case-by-case basis. Usenet is only allowed as primary-source material in articles about itself, and then only in very limited ways, carefully worded, balanced by other sources.

Sean Barrett (sean(a)epoptic.org) [050507 07:27]: Indeed. For example, it is *impossible* to tell the story of [[Scientology]] over the last decade without reference to Usenet. The CoS has made groups.google.com unreliable, but the relevant posts put on the Web are frequently (and properly) used as Wikipedia sources.

Just for the record, where is the policy stating that Usenet /cannot/ be used? I'm not being sarcastic; I genuinely don't know.

So, to summarize, there is no policy stating that Usenet is forbidden as a source. Some people (you, for instance) do not consider it to be reputable source, but nothing forbids some other people (me, for instance) from disagreeing. And, most importantly, there is no policy permitting anti-Usenetters to delete Usenet-based material /just because/ it originated on Usenet.

slimvirgin(a)gmail.com (slimvirgin(a)gmail.com) [050507 09:33]: Although in practice, this would be disruption to make a point. Why are you hardly being agreed with?

Tony Sidaway (minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com) [050507 09:54]: I found it very useful for [[The Eye of Argon]], for instance.

On Sat, 7 May 2005, Deathphoenix wrote: This conversation has been reprinted many times, most notably in the O'Reilly book _Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution_. Reference to specific posts at Google are not necessary. Geoff _______________________________________________

On 5/6/05, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote: Sean, did you read WP:NOR? For example, see this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication.…, though you also need to read the whole thing through. Also read [[WP:NPOV]]. Both state that sources must be published by reputable/credible publishers. I believe [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] says the same thing, though it's a while since I've read it. We've also had this discussion many, many times on this list, and the consensus seems to be that WP sources must be published and must be credible.

On 5/6/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote: I'm struggling to understand why people can't see the difference here between using something as a primary and a secondary source. We can use Usenet as a source of information about itself, and about its awards. What we can't do is use it as a secondary source of information about someone or something else. Even if it's true that John Smith won the KOM award, we shouldn't include Smith's name, because to do so is to use Usenet as a *source of information regarding a subject other than itself*. The sentence: "John Smith was honored as KOM," is about that Usenet group, but it is also about someone else.

On 5/6/05, Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com> wrote: That's not what I meant. I was using the name John Smith only as an example. My argument about Edmond is that we shouldn't name him at all, not that we should give him a pseudonym.

As I was overruled about removing the name entirely, I asked for unprotection and added names of notable people who've won awards from this group (Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Pierre Salinger, Gary Glitter) so that Edmond's name stands out less.

There's nothing worse than a powerful journalist who uses his or her position in the manner described above, and we've all become people who have, in many ways, just as much power (but without any of the infrastructural restraints journalists have), which means we have to exercise self-restraint and be decent. What's wrong with being decent all of a sudden?