Encyclopedia or Gossip Rag

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

Encyclopedia or Gossip Rag

Marc Riddell
I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:

"In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught cheating
on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter."

Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at all,
in a gossip tabloid rag?

Marc Riddell


_______________________________________________
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: Encyclopedia or Gossip Rag

James Farrar
That rather depends on who the subject is.
On Oct 7, 2012 2:44 PM, "Marc Riddell" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
>
> "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught cheating
> on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter."
>
> Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at all,
> in a gossip tabloid rag?
>
> Marc Riddell
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Encyclopedia or Gossip Rag

Alex Sawczynec
In reply to this post by Marc Riddell
FYI to all -
The article being referenced here is [[Chris Hansen]], the reporter known
for hosting *To Catch a Predator.*

On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Marc Riddell <[hidden email]>wrote:

> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
>
> "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught cheating
> on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter."
>
> Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at all,
> in a gossip tabloid rag?
>
> Marc Riddell
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Encyclopedia or Gossip Rag

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by Marc Riddell
> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
>
> "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught
> cheating
> on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter."
>
> Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at
> all,
> in a gossip tabloid rag?
>
> Marc Riddell

Depends on reliability of the source and notability. If the subject was
Barack Obama and the sources were The Washington Post, The New York
Times, AND The Wall Street Journal, the mere report would be
encyclopedic.

If the subject was Joe the Plumber and the source was perezhilton.com/, no.

Answering your specific question requires reference to the factual
situation, but, no, we are not a "gossip rag."

Fred



_______________________________________________
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: Encyclopedia or Gossip Rag

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Marc Riddell
On Oct 7, 2012 2:44 PM, "Marc Riddell" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
>
> "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught cheating
> on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter."
>
> Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at all,
> in a gossip tabloid rag?

I'd prefer it if we didn't make that kind of decision ourselves. Has it
been reported in mainstream (non-gossip) media? (We have to make a
judgement about whether a particular source is respectable or not, but
that's better than making judgements on individual facts.)
_______________________________________________
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: Encyclopedia or Gossip Rag

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by Alex Sawczynec
Seems marginal, but it's not oversightable, for several reasons: It has a
reasonably reliable source (The National Enquirer has a good track record
in this area of interest); the subject and his date are public figures;
suppression would only make it worse.

The only part I have trouble with is the privacy consideration of
publishing such private information about reporters such as the female
reporter in this instance. I'm not sure merely being a reporter makes you
a public figure and opens up whatever someone chooses to expose about
your private life. For example, local TV reporters, who cares about their
private lives? Yet, supposedly they are fair game simply because they
regularly appear on camera.

Fred

> FYI to all -
> The article being referenced here is [[Chris Hansen]], the reporter known
> for hosting *To Catch a Predator.*
>
> On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Marc Riddell
> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
>>
>> "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught
>> cheating
>> on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter."
>>
>> Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at
>> all,
>> in a gossip tabloid rag?
>>
>> Marc Riddell
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



_______________________________________________
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: Encyclopedia or Gossip Rag

Marc Riddell
In reply to this post by Fred Bauder-2

>> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
>>
>> "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught
>> cheating
>> on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter."
>>
>> Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at
>> all,
>> in a gossip tabloid rag?
>>
>> Marc Riddell
>
on 10/7/12 9:55 AM, Fred Bauder at [hidden email] wrote:

> Depends on reliability of the source and notability. If the subject was
> Barack Obama and the sources were The Washington Post, The New York
> Times, AND The Wall Street Journal, the mere report would be
> encyclopedic.
>
> If the subject was Joe the Plumber and the source was perezhilton.com/, no.
>
> Answering your specific question requires reference to the factual
> situation, but, no, we are not a "gossip rag."
>
It was not my intention to suggest that we were a "gossip rag". It was my
intention to suggest that we are above that.

The reliability of the source should, in this case, be irrelevant. What
should be relevant is if the subject of the report has been publicly
hypocritical concerning the issue then, yes, is should be reported. But only
to stress the hypocrisy, not the "infidelity".

Marc


_______________________________________________
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: Encyclopedia or Gossip Rag

Thomas Dalton
I disagree. Determining that someone had been hypocritical and therefore
their actions are more notable than they would otherwise have been is the
kind of judgement call we should be leaving to the secondary sources.
On Oct 7, 2012 3:29 PM, "Marc Riddell" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> >> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
> >>
> >> "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught
> >> cheating
> >> on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter."
> >>
> >> Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at
> >> all,
> >> in a gossip tabloid rag?
> >>
> >> Marc Riddell
> >
> on 10/7/12 9:55 AM, Fred Bauder at [hidden email] wrote:
>
> > Depends on reliability of the source and notability. If the subject was
> > Barack Obama and the sources were The Washington Post, The New York
> > Times, AND The Wall Street Journal, the mere report would be
> > encyclopedic.
> >
> > If the subject was Joe the Plumber and the source was perezhilton.com/,
> no.
> >
> > Answering your specific question requires reference to the factual
> > situation, but, no, we are not a "gossip rag."
> >
> It was not my intention to suggest that we were a "gossip rag". It was my
> intention to suggest that we are above that.
>
> The reliability of the source should, in this case, be irrelevant. What
> should be relevant is if the subject of the report has been publicly
> hypocritical concerning the issue then, yes, is should be reported. But
> only
> to stress the hypocrisy, not the "infidelity".
>
> Marc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Encyclopedia or Gossip Rag

Thomas Morton
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On 7 October 2012 14:56, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Oct 7, 2012 2:44 PM, "Marc Riddell" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
> >
> > "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught
> cheating
> > on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter."
> >
> > Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at
> all,
> > in a gossip tabloid rag?
>
> I'd prefer it if we didn't make that kind of decision ourselves. Has it
> been reported in mainstream (non-gossip) media? (We have to make a
> judgement about whether a particular source is respectable or not, but
> that's better than making judgements on individual facts.)
> ______
>

We do it all the time.

I write historical biographies (amongst other things) and if I recorded all
of the detail discussed in the numerous reliable sources (i.e. books) used
for each then I would still be writing the first one (and just about got to
the length of a medium novel!).

Editorial judgement is a key skill for any competent WP editor, and we
should focus less on rigid rules (which encourage the inclusion of trivia)
and more on good editorial judgement.

In this case, good editorial judgement suggests that this is relative
trivia. It is not really related to his reason for notability and is
distinctly about his private life. It also seems to be something along the
lines of an allegation mostly covered in tabloid gossip.

I'd suggest that with good editorial judgement this is something we would
pause for some time before covering, if at all, whilst BLP applies.

Tom
_______________________________________________
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: Encyclopedia or Gossip Rag

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by Marc Riddell
>
>>> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
>>>
>>> "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught
>>> cheating
>>> on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter."
>>>
>>> Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at
>>> all,
>>> in a gossip tabloid rag?
>>>
>>> Marc Riddell
>>
> on 10/7/12 9:55 AM, Fred Bauder at [hidden email] wrote:
>
>> Depends on reliability of the source and notability. If the subject was
>> Barack Obama and the sources were The Washington Post, The New York
>> Times, AND The Wall Street Journal, the mere report would be
>> encyclopedic.
>>
>> If the subject was Joe the Plumber and the source was perezhilton.com/,
>> no.
>>
>> Answering your specific question requires reference to the factual
>> situation, but, no, we are not a "gossip rag."
>>
> It was not my intention to suggest that we were a "gossip rag". It was my
> intention to suggest that we are above that.
>
> The reliability of the source should, in this case, be irrelevant. What
> should be relevant is if the subject of the report has been publicly
> hypocritical concerning the issue then, yes, is should be reported. But
> only
> to stress the hypocrisy, not the "infidelity".
>
> Marc

But you see, that is what is missing. His exposés are of pedophiles while
the "scandal" is consenting adults. Where's the hypocrisy?

Fred



_______________________________________________
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: Encyclopedia or Gossip Rag

Marc Riddell

>>>> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
>>>>
>>>> "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught
>>>> cheating
>>>> on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter."
>>>>
>>>> Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at
>>>> all,
>>>> in a gossip tabloid rag?
>>>>
>>>> Marc Riddell
>>>
>> on 10/7/12 9:55 AM, Fred Bauder at [hidden email] wrote:
>>
>>> Depends on reliability of the source and notability. If the subject was
>>> Barack Obama and the sources were The Washington Post, The New York
>>> Times, AND The Wall Street Journal, the mere report would be
>>> encyclopedic.
>>>
>>> If the subject was Joe the Plumber and the source was perezhilton.com/,
>>> no.
>>>
>>> Answering your specific question requires reference to the factual
>>> situation, but, no, we are not a "gossip rag."
>>>
>> It was not my intention to suggest that we were a "gossip rag". It was my
>> intention to suggest that we are above that.
>>
>> The reliability of the source should, in this case, be irrelevant. What
>> should be relevant is if the subject of the report has been publicly
>> hypocritical concerning the issue then, yes, is should be reported. But
>> only
>> to stress the hypocrisy, not the "infidelity".
>>
>> Marc
>
on 10/7/12 11:29 AM, Fred Bauder at [hidden email] wrote:

> But you see, that is what is missing. His exposés are of pedophiles while
> the "scandal" is consenting adults. Where's the hypocrisy?
>
> Fred

If he were notable for being openly and loudly championing and insisting
upon monogamy in a marriage relationship then, if credibly sourced, it could
be reported in an article about him. But, the emphasis would be on his
hypocrisy, not his infidelity.

Marc


_______________________________________________
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: Encyclopedia or Gossip Rag

Wyatt Lucas
In reply to this post by Thomas Morton
How is the very likely possibility of infidelity "relative trivia"? I consider it fairly relevant to a section named "Personal life". Also, your analogy with historical biographies is flawed, because the inclusion of this allegation barely makes the article increase in size at all.

--
~~yutsi
Sent from my iPhone.

On Oct 7, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Thomas Morton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 7 October 2012 14:56, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 7, 2012 2:44 PM, "Marc Riddell" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
>>>
>>> "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught
>> cheating
>>> on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter."
>>>
>>> Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at
>> all,
>>> in a gossip tabloid rag?
>>
>> I'd prefer it if we didn't make that kind of decision ourselves. Has it
>> been reported in mainstream (non-gossip) media? (We have to make a
>> judgement about whether a particular source is respectable or not, but
>> that's better than making judgements on individual facts.)
>> ______
>>
>
> We do it all the time.
>
> I write historical biographies (amongst other things) and if I recorded all
> of the detail discussed in the numerous reliable sources (i.e. books) used
> for each then I would still be writing the first one (and just about got to
> the length of a medium novel!).
>
> Editorial judgement is a key skill for any competent WP editor, and we
> should focus less on rigid rules (which encourage the inclusion of trivia)
> and more on good editorial judgement.
>
> In this case, good editorial judgement suggests that this is relative
> trivia. It is not really related to his reason for notability and is
> distinctly about his private life. It also seems to be something along the
> lines of an allegation mostly covered in tabloid gossip.
>
> I'd suggest that with good editorial judgement this is something we would
> pause for some time before covering, if at all, whilst BLP applies.
>
> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Encyclopedia or Gossip Rag

Fred Bauder-2
As you evidence, the matter is notable to a significant portion of the
population.

As to how someone else can consider the matter not notable, perhaps
speciation is occurring...

Fred

> How is the very likely possibility of infidelity "relative trivia"? I
> consider it fairly relevant to a section named "Personal life". Also,
> your analogy with historical biographies is flawed, because the inclusion
> of this allegation barely makes the article increase in size at all.
>
> --
> ~~yutsi
> Sent from my iPhone.
>
> On Oct 7, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Thomas Morton <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7 October 2012 14:56, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 7, 2012 2:44 PM, "Marc Riddell" <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
>>>>
>>>> "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught
>>> cheating
>>>> on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter."
>>>>
>>>> Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at
>>> all,
>>>> in a gossip tabloid rag?
>>>
>>> I'd prefer it if we didn't make that kind of decision ourselves. Has
>>> it
>>> been reported in mainstream (non-gossip) media? (We have to make a
>>> judgement about whether a particular source is respectable or not, but
>>> that's better than making judgements on individual facts.)
>>> ______
>>>
>>
>> We do it all the time.
>>
>> I write historical biographies (amongst other things) and if I recorded
>> all
>> of the detail discussed in the numerous reliable sources (i.e. books)
>> used
>> for each then I would still be writing the first one (and just about
>> got to
>> the length of a medium novel!).
>>
>> Editorial judgement is a key skill for any competent WP editor, and we
>> should focus less on rigid rules (which encourage the inclusion of
>> trivia)
>> and more on good editorial judgement.
>>
>> In this case, good editorial judgement suggests that this is relative
>> trivia. It is not really related to his reason for notability and is
>> distinctly about his private life. It also seems to be something along
>> the
>> lines of an allegation mostly covered in tabloid gossip.
>>
>> I'd suggest that with good editorial judgement this is something we
>> would
>> pause for some time before covering, if at all, whilst BLP applies.
>>
>> Tom
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l