BLP extension suggestion

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

BLP extension suggestion

Ken Arromdee
On BLPN someone asked me what I'd suggest as a change to BLP policy to allow
cutting down the santorum article.

Here's my first attempt:

    Avoid victimization

    When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, *or
    writing about a person who is independently notable but where the
    biographical material is so prominent that it can significantly affect
    the subject*, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the
    material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared
    back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.
    This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose
    notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's
    actions, *or writing about a topic that is largely or entirely about
    the person being a victim of another's actions*. Wikipedia editors must
    not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to
    participating in or prolonging the victimization.

Additional material indicated by *s.

It seems like the most common objection is that we can't determine who is a
victim (to which my response is that I'm just extending an existing rule and
we seem to have no trouble doing it for the existing rule).

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BLP extension suggestion

gamaliel8
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Ken Arromdee <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>    Avoid victimization
>
>    When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, *or
>    writing about a person who is independently notable but where the
>    biographical material is so prominent that it can significantly affect
>    the subject*, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the
>    material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared
>    back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.
>    This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose
>    notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's
>    actions, *or writing about a topic that is largely or entirely about
>    the person being a victim of another's actions*. Wikipedia editors must
>    not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to
>    participating in or prolonging the victimization.
>
> Additional material indicated by *s.
>
> It seems like the most common objection is that we can't determine who is a
> victim (to which my response is that I'm just extending an existing rule and
> we seem to have no trouble doing it for the existing rule).

We'd have the same argument regardless of this new extension of the
rule.  What "damage" are we doing to Santorum not already done by Dan
Savage and the 132 reliable sources documenting this matter?

I don't think BLP needs this kind of mission creep.  It's important to
protect Santorum and others from malicious editing and bad sourcing
and undue weight, but it isn't our job to protect Santorum from Dan
Savage or the news media or the world.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BLP extension suggestion

WereSpielChequers-2
I'm not convinced that this particular neologism will have the staying
power of the one immortalising Sir Thomas Crapper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crapper

8 letters, three syllables doth not a four letter word make, and the
term itself is somewhat more obscure. I suspect that unless further
flames are added to the fire, such as it provoking a sea change in
Wikipedia policy,  it will fade into obscurity.

WereSpielChequers

On 3 June 2011 01:11, Rob <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Ken Arromdee <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>    Avoid victimization
>>
>>    When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, *or
>>    writing about a person who is independently notable but where the
>>    biographical material is so prominent that it can significantly affect
>>    the subject*, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the
>>    material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared
>>    back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.
>>    This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose
>>    notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's
>>    actions, *or writing about a topic that is largely or entirely about
>>    the person being a victim of another's actions*. Wikipedia editors must
>>    not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to
>>    participating in or prolonging the victimization.
>>
>> Additional material indicated by *s.
>>
>> It seems like the most common objection is that we can't determine who is a
>> victim (to which my response is that I'm just extending an existing rule and
>> we seem to have no trouble doing it for the existing rule).
>
> We'd have the same argument regardless of this new extension of the
> rule.  What "damage" are we doing to Santorum not already done by Dan
> Savage and the 132 reliable sources documenting this matter?
>
> I don't think BLP needs this kind of mission creep.  It's important to
> protect Santorum and others from malicious editing and bad sourcing
> and undue weight, but it isn't our job to protect Santorum from Dan
> Savage or the news media or the world.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BLP extension suggestion

Ken Arromdee
In reply to this post by gamaliel8
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Rob wrote:
> I don't think BLP needs this kind of mission creep.  It's important to
> protect Santorum and others from malicious editing and bad sourcing
> and undue weight, but it isn't our job to protect Santorum from Dan
> Savage or the news media or the world.

Santorum is not just being victimized by Dan Savage or the news media or the
world--he's being victimized by *us*.  That makes it our job.  Just because
it's an already existing campaign doesn't mean we have no responsibility
when a search for his name brings up this article as the #3 hit (and #2 if
you only search for his last name).

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BLP extension suggestion

Ken Arromdee
In reply to this post by WereSpielChequers-2
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> 8 letters, three syllables doth not a four letter word make, and the
> term itself is somewhat more obscure. I suspect that unless further
> flames are added to the fire, such as it provoking a sea change in
> Wikipedia policy,  it will fade into obscurity.

How's it going to fall itno obscurity?  20 years from now a search for his
name will still bring up our article about shit.  Unless we do something to
avoid an overinflated Google rank for the article, it can never fade away,
ever, because of us.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BLP extension suggestion

WereSpielChequers-2
Over a hundred years after Thomas Crapper plied his trade as a plumber
his name and especially the first four letters of it are still in
daily use.  But I would be surprised if in twenty years time santorum
is still used in the sense Dan Savage intended, and I hope that at
some point in the future Wikipedia will come to the view that
notability can sometimes be transient. Of course there is the
possibility that this neologism has more staying power than I thought,
but in any event Mr Santorum is better off with articles like
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_84/-203455-1.html and a neutrally
written Wikipedia article explaining that his name was used for this
neologism as an attack on him rather than just leaving it to sites
that explain the word without the context of why it was coined.

As for the Google rank, I don't know how search engines will work in
years to come, but I would be surprised if they didn't consider such
things as when a webpage was last updated.

WSC



On 3 June 2011 16:28, Ken Arromdee <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, WereSpielChequers wrote:
>> 8 letters, three syllables doth not a four letter word make, and the
>> term itself is somewhat more obscure. I suspect that unless further
>> flames are added to the fire, such as it provoking a sea change in
>> Wikipedia policy,  it will fade into obscurity.
>
> How's it going to fall itno obscurity?  20 years from now a search for his
> name will still bring up our article about shit.  Unless we do something to
> avoid an overinflated Google rank for the article, it can never fade away,
> ever, because of us.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BLP extension suggestion

gamaliel8
In reply to this post by Ken Arromdee
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Ken Arromdee <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Santorum is not just being victimized by Dan Savage or the news media or the
> world--he's being victimized by *us*.  That makes it our job.  Just because
> it's an already existing campaign doesn't mean we have no responsibility
> when a search for his name brings up this article as the #3 hit (and #2 if
> you only search for his last name).

We're just recording what has already been discussed in 132 reliable
sources.  We're not "victimizing" him any more than we are victimizing
Silvio Berlusconi
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlusconi#Sexual_scandals) or John
Edwards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair)
or John Kerry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_military_service_controversy)
or Anthony Weiner
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Weiner#Twitter_controversy).
The Kerry example is especially pertinent as both it and the Santorum
article are an entire Wikipedia article about things that other people
made up about the subject of the article.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BLP extension suggestion

Ken Arromdee
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Rob wrote:

> We're just recording what has already been discussed in 132 reliable
> sources.  We're not "victimizing" him any more than we are victimizing
> Silvio Berlusconi
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlusconi#Sexual_scandals) or John
> Edwards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair)
> or John Kerry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_military_service_controversy)
> or Anthony Weiner
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Weiner#Twitter_controversy).
> The Kerry example is especially pertinent as both it and the Santorum
> article are an entire Wikipedia article about things that other people
> made up about the subject of the article.

Part of it is a matter of degree.  The article on the John Kerry controversy
isn't the #2 search for "Kerry" on the Internet.

Part of it is that we're talking about different types of things.  The Kerry
controversy is ultimately about factual claims, and therefore whether our
article harms John Kerry depends on whether we give undue weight to those
claims.  This one isn't about factual claims; it's about creating an
unpleasant association, so avoiding undue weight isn't enough to keep it
from doing harm.

And there aren't 132 reliable sources; there was a post on BLPN which
analyzed the problems with a bunch of sources (several were self-published,
for instance.  Of course they had to be left in as part of a "compromise"),
but there are so many "sources" that nobody could possibly check them all.
Furthermore, the large number of sources is itself part of the abuse of the
system--sources are often links and raise the page's Google rank, just like
including big templates.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BLP extension suggestion

gamaliel8
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Ken Arromdee <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Part of it is a matter of degree.  The article on the John Kerry controversy
> isn't the #2 search for "Kerry" on the Internet.

And whenever people mention this, they conveniently forget to mention
that the #1 result is Dan Savage's website.  We didn't put it out
there and we aren't perpetuating it.  Wikipedia entries are typically
near the top of *any* search result.  Sometimes when I create an
article on a historical figure it shoots to the top of the results
with a day or less, even above pages that have been around for years,
edu sites, archives, etc.

> Part of it is that we're talking about different types of things.  The Kerry
> controversy is ultimately about factual claims, and therefore whether our
> article harms John Kerry depends on whether we give undue weight to those
> claims.  This one isn't about factual claims; it's about creating an
> unpleasant association, so avoiding undue weight isn't enough to keep it
> from doing harm.

I don't understand this kind of hairsplitting.  Documenting
fabrications is acceptable, but only the right kind of fabrications?
Aren't, say, the "factual claims" of Birthers about creating
"unpleasant associations" with Obama?  The last thing we need in
Wikipedia is more systemic bias, and this is what that hairsplitting
would lead to.

> And there aren't 132 reliable sources; there was a post on BLPN which
> analyzed the problems with a bunch of sources (several were self-published,
> for instance.  Of course they had to be left in as part of a "compromise"),
> but there are so many "sources" that nobody could possibly check them all.
> Furthermore, the large number of sources is itself part of the abuse of the
> system--sources are often links and raise the page's Google rank, just like
> including big templates.

That post you mentioned cherry picked a few sources out of the 132.
14 in that post were from The Stranger, the newspaper where Dan
Savage's columns originate.  The published writing of one of the two
principal players in this matter is absolutely a reliable source for
this article, as it's been long-established that people are an RS for
their own views.  The other 20 don't meet the gold standard, but
neither are they worthy of being immediately dismissed without
discussion.  But even if we throw all of them out, that still leaves
98 reliable sources that are not in dispute: major newspapers,
academic books, etc.  Nitpicking them isn't enough, you just dismiss
them out of hand with scare quotes and then try to use that fact
against it.  Shouldn't an article be well-sourced?  If you don't think
they've been properly "checked", then post on BLPN and we'll both get
some people together to check them.  That's what we do here, it's part
of the editing process.  And adding reliable sources isn't good
anymore, it's doubleplusungood "abuse"?  This way lies madness if we
try to apply this to the encyclopedia. If you want to discuss actual
gaming of the system, we can, but let's not label proper editing and
reliable sourcing as "abuse".

The most frustrating thing about this discussion is the way that
editors of long standing feel free to slur everyone that disagrees
with them.  As the conflict moves from talk page to noticeboard to
mailing list and back again (start an RFC already and let's centralize
this nonsense!)  these editors have attacked normal editing as "abuse"
and slurred other editors as rabid anti-Santorum partisans and gay
activists.  I really thought we were better than this.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BLP extension suggestion

James Farrar
On 4 June 2011 04:47, Rob <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Ken Arromdee <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Part of it is a matter of degree.  The article on the John Kerry controversy
>> isn't the #2 search for "Kerry" on the Internet.
>
> And whenever people mention this, they conveniently forget to mention
> that the #1 result is Dan Savage's website.

As may be.

The Wikipedia article for the word ranks above the article for the
person; ergo, something is wrong.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BLP extension suggestion

WereSpielChequers-2
I've just tested two searches in google. "Rick Santorum" had our
article on the person in second place and our article on the neologism
in third place. For "Santorum" we again had the second and third
spots, but the order was reversed. In both cases Google gave prime
place to a website about the neologism,  that website is not part of
wikimedia.

If I was Rick Santorum I'd be asking Google why both queries gave the
number one hit they they gave, but that surely is between him and
Google.

As for Kerry, the first Wikipedia hit is for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Kerry and there are several other
people places and things called Kerry in the first few pages. On that
search I didn't spot either a negative page about him, or our article
about the controversy, so I don't know which comes higher in Google
ranking for Kerry. But for "kerry swift boat" the first two hits are
both Wikipedia. In my experience Wikipedia articles often come top or
close to it in Google searches, and if I was Rick Santorum I would be
hoping that the Wikipedia article on the neologism one day overtook
the article that currently comes up top in a "Santorum" or "Rick
Santorum" search.

WSC

On 4 June 2011 09:31, James Farrar <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 4 June 2011 04:47, Rob <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Ken Arromdee <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Part of it is a matter of degree.  The article on the John Kerry controversy
>>> isn't the #2 search for "Kerry" on the Internet.
>>
>> And whenever people mention this, they conveniently forget to mention
>> that the #1 result is Dan Savage's website.
>
> As may be.
>
> The Wikipedia article for the word ranks above the article for the
> person; ergo, something is wrong.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BLP extension suggestion

David Gerard-2
On 4 June 2011 11:43, WereSpielChequers <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I've just tested two searches in google.


IMPORTANT: when testing Google searches, use another browser where
you're logged out and there are no Google cookies!

Search results vary *widely* between generic results for your location
and your personal optimised results. If you're a Wikipedian, this is
likely to have reached Google and it will then supply you with what it
thinks are more helpful results.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BLP extension suggestion

Ken Arromdee
In reply to this post by WereSpielChequers-2
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> But for "kerry swift boat" the first two hits are
> both Wikipedia.

Anyone searching for that is specifically searching for the controversy,
not just searching for Kerry.  If the santorum article only showed up when
searching for "santorum sexual slang" there wouldn't be any problem.

> if I was Rick Santorum I would be
> hoping that the Wikipedia article on the neologism one day overtook
> the article that currently comes up top in a "Santorum" or "Rick
> Santorum" search.

... because the Wikipedia article is better than another page that's even
worse.

Talk about damning with faint praise.  He might prefer the Wikipedia article
over the other one, because even if it harms him, it doesn't harm him as
much as the other one.  Trying merely to be less harmful than other web
pages is an abominably low standard.  We can do better than that.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BLP extension suggestion

Ken Arromdee
In reply to this post by gamaliel8
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Rob wrote:

>> Part of it is that we're talking about different types of things.  The Kerry
>> controversy is ultimately about factual claims, and therefore whether our
>> article harms John Kerry depends on whether we give undue weight to those
>> claims.  This one isn't about factual claims; it's about creating an
>> unpleasant association, so avoiding undue weight isn't enough to keep it
>> from doing harm.
> I don't understand this kind of hairsplitting.  Documenting
> fabrications is acceptable, but only the right kind of fabrications?
> Aren't, say, the "factual claims" of Birthers about creating
> "unpleasant associations" with Obama?  The last thing we need in
> Wikipedia is more systemic bias, and this is what that hairsplitting
> would lead to.
"Person X is like shit" is unpleasant in a very different way from "person
X is a liar".  The latter creates an unpleasant association with that person
only to the degree that that person is believed to have committed unpleasant
activities.  The former creates an unpleasant association on an emotional
level.

You can write a balanced article that reports the claim that Obama is a liar
without making the audience think Obama is a liar.  You cannot do this
when the article is about comparing a person to shit.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BLP extension suggestion

gamaliel8
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Ken Arromdee <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Rob wrote:
>>>
>>> Part of it is that we're talking about different types of things.  The
>>> Kerry
>>> controversy is ultimately about factual claims, and therefore whether our
>>> article harms John Kerry depends on whether we give undue weight to those
>>> claims.  This one isn't about factual claims; it's about creating an
>>> unpleasant association, so avoiding undue weight isn't enough to keep it
>>> from doing harm.
>>
>> I don't understand this kind of hairsplitting.  Documenting
>> fabrications is acceptable, but only the right kind of fabrications?
>> Aren't, say, the "factual claims" of Birthers about creating
>> "unpleasant associations" with Obama?  The last thing we need in
>> Wikipedia is more systemic bias, and this is what that hairsplitting
>> would lead to.
>
> "Person X is like shit" is unpleasant in a very different way from "person
> X is a liar".  The latter creates an unpleasant association with that person
> only to the degree that that person is believed to have committed unpleasant
> activities.  The former creates an unpleasant association on an emotional
> level.
>
> You can write a balanced article that reports the claim that Obama is a liar
> without making the audience think Obama is a liar.  You cannot do this
> when the article is about comparing a person to shit.

If you don't think the Birther claims work on an emotional level, then
you haven't been paying attention to them.  All such conspiracy claims
work on an emotional level, as their adherents have proven impervious
to the intervention of logic and facts.  You're trying to make a
distinction between two kinds of "claims" that does not exist.  How do
we incorporate that kind of hairsplitting into policy?  And if we
managed to do so, it would create a systemic bias, favoring one kind
of targeted fabrication over another.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BLP extension suggestion

David Levy-8
In reply to this post by Ken Arromdee
Ken Arromdee wrote:

> Anyone searching for ["kerry swift boat"] is specifically searching for the
> controversy, not just searching for Kerry.

"Kerry" has common meanings unrelated to John Kerry on any level (and
no common meanings along the lines of the sexual connotation
arbitrarily assigned to "santorum").  All of this is beyond our
control.

> If the santorum article only showed up when searching for "santorum
> sexual slang" there wouldn't be any problem.

I've seen no evidence that there *is* a problem (of our creation).

> [T]he Wikipedia article is better than another page that's even worse.
>
> Talk about damning with faint praise.  He might prefer the Wikipedia article
> over the other one, because even if it harms him, it doesn't harm him as
> much as the other one.  Trying merely to be less harmful than other web
> pages is an abominably low standard.  We can do better than that.

How does the Wikipedia article harm him?  The webpages created out of
malice will continue to exist (and appear in Google search results)
regardless of our actions.  The existence of an article documenting
the matter in a neutral, dispassionate manner (and making clear that
the association stems from an organized campaign against Rick
Santorum) actually benefits him.

> "Person X is like shit" is unpleasant in a very different way from "person
> X is a liar".  The latter creates an unpleasant association with that person
> only to the degree that that person is believed to have committed unpleasant
> activities.  The former creates an unpleasant association on an emotional
> level.

As Rob noted, the claims regarding Obama's birthplace have resonated
on an emotional level to a huge extent.  And I would argue that the
potential damage was far greater, given their widespread perception as
literal truths.  (People might draw an unpleasant association between
Rick Santorum and the concept described via the neologism, but no one
has been led to believe that he literally *is* "the frothy mixture of
lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.")

> You can write a balanced article that reports the claim that Obama is a liar
> without making the audience think Obama is a liar.  You cannot do this when
> the article is about comparing a person to shit.

I see no material distinction preventing us from documenting the
matter in a balanced fashion.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BLP extension suggestion

Carcharoth
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:51 PM, David Levy <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I see no material distinction preventing us from documenting the
> matter in a balanced fashion.

The trouble is, the article is overwritten. This is not a phenomenon
restricted to this article, it is common in many "political" or
"activist" articles, where some editors try to use *every* source out
there to write an article several pages long (sometimes in an attempt
to avoid arguments about what to include and what not to include, at
other times maybe just by being carried away, or simply by not wanting
or knowing how to exercise judgment on what to include and when less
is more).

I repeat, a shorter article (if done to high standards) would be *just
as balanced* and would send the message that this is not a topic that
really needs lots written about it. One of the fundamental elements of
editorial judgment is to decide what to leave out and how to
*summarise* parts of the topic rather than drawing in everything that
has been written about the topic.

You see many FA-level articles where the main writer has read numerous
sources and made a judgment (based on the proportions of coverage
given by the main source) on where and how to summarize. That needs
doing here.

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BLP extension suggestion

David Levy-8
Carcharoth wrote:

> The trouble is, the article is overwritten.

To be clear, I'm not endorsing any particular prose (or the absence
thereof).  I'm addressing Ken Arromdee's assertion that it's
impossible to present a balanced article on this subject.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BLP extension suggestion

Andreas Kolbe
In reply to this post by Carcharoth
If you try making the article more succinct, Carcharoth, you may well find editors reverting 
you and claiming that you are "deleting reliably sourced material" and censoring what you 
don't like. What policy would you cite in response?

In a way that is a new problem. Most of our policies are arguably still biased against 
such deletions, reflecting a time when many articles were stubs and we were glad to have 
any material at all. We have no policy or guideline arguing for succinctness (except 
the COATRACK essay perhaps). People are traditionally free to write as much as they 
like about anything that has taken their fancy. We have an incredibly detailed article on 
toilet paper orientation and other obscure subjects that would never make it into a regular 
encyclopedia. "Due weight" only applies to subtopics within an article, not to notable topics 
as such. 

If the bulk of something is cut in an article, you just go and create a sub-article, pointing to 
the 100 sources that have written about it, and create an 8,000-word article about "tail", 
while "dog" remains at 500 words.

The trouble is, this in-depth coverage of obscure topics is also part of what people like 
about Wikipedia. That it can be and is abused for activism, just by sheer weight of 
coverage, is obvious. I just don't see an easy solution. We have no policy that an editor 
must not use every last source available, and I don't think instituting one is feasible. 

A. 
--- On Sat, 4/6/11, Carcharoth <[hidden email]> wrote:From: Carcharoth <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP extension suggestion
To: "English Wikipedia" <[hidden email]>
Date: Saturday, 4 June, 2011, 23:57

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:51 PM, David Levy <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I see no material distinction preventing us from documenting the
> matter in a balanced fashion.

The trouble is, the article is overwritten. This is not a phenomenon
restricted to this article, it is common in many "political" or
"activist" articles, where some editors try to use *every* source out
there to write an article several pages long (sometimes in an attempt
to avoid arguments about what to include and what not to include, at
other times maybe just by being carried away, or simply by not wanting
or knowing how to exercise judgment on what to include and when less
is more).

I repeat, a shorter article (if done to high standards) would be *just
as balanced* and would send the message that this is not a topic that
really needs lots written about it. One of the fundamental elements of
editorial judgment is to decide what to leave out and how to
*summarise* parts of the topic rather than drawing in everything that
has been written about the topic.

You see many FA-level articles where the main writer has read numerous
sources and made a judgment (based on the proportions of coverage
given by the main source) on where and how to summarize. That needs
doing here.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BLP extension suggestion

Andreas Kolbe
In reply to this post by gamaliel8
--- On Sat, 4/6/11, Rob <[hidden email]> wrote:
(start an RFC already and let's centralize
this nonsense!) 


SlimVirgin started an RfC yesterday, at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal_to_rename.2C_redirect.2C_and_merge_content
A.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l