[WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
28 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

Pedro Sanchez-2
I just blanked, and deleted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death

We had names of many famous people, stating they were responsible for
someone else dying.
** Not a single reference **

I was told that I should have AFD it instead

The potential for libel was huge, afd was likely to come as no
consensus or delete.
Wikimedia can't take the risk of being sued for the sake of process.

So I deleted the entry to hide history, and drop a note stating should
anybody readd content it must be with references.

Probably many people will complain and ask for my head, just telling
you people why I did it.

-- drini

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

Mark
Pedro Sanchez wrote:

> I just blanked, and deleted
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death
>
> We had names of many famous people, stating they were responsible for
> someone else dying.
> ** Not a single reference **
>
> I was told that I should have AFD it instead
>
> The potential for libel was huge, afd was likely to come as no
> consensus or delete.
> Wikimedia can't take the risk of being sued for the sake of process.
>
> So I deleted the entry to hide history, and drop a note stating should
> anybody readd content it must be with references.
>
> Probably many people will complain and ask for my head, just telling
> you people why I did it.
>  
I don't particularly object, but I also don't see what would be wrong
with listing it on AFD.  It's been there for quite a while, so it seems
very unlikely that the world would end if it got deleted a week from now
instead of immediately.

-Mark


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

Re: [WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Pedro Sanchez-2
Pedro Sanchez wrote:

>I just blanked, and deleted
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death
>
>We had names of many famous people, stating they were responsible for
>someone else dying.
>** Not a single reference **
>
>I was told that I should have AFD it instead
>
>The potential for libel was huge, afd was likely to come as no
>consensus or delete.
>Wikimedia can't take the risk of being sued for the sake of process.
>
>So I deleted the entry to hide history, and drop a note stating should
>anybody readd content it must be with references.
>
>Probably many people will complain and ask for my head, just telling
>you people why I did it.
>
That sounds terribly unilateral.  AFD would have been more prudent.  
Altering the title would have been more sensible, given that some were
apparently only accused, and never convicted.

I don't know how long the list was but being a "list" it should be
enough if there are sources on the listed pages themselves.  Nobody puts
sources on the index or Table of Contents of a book, because the sources
would already be at more appropriate places.

The "huge" potential for libel is a product of your imagination.  I'm
not saying that there is none at all, but it is certainly much less than
what you imagine.  In any event, other ways of fixing the article would
also have eliminated that problem.  I don't know when the page was
started but its talk page has been there four months; there was no urgency.

The chronic bad blood in the deletion process is precisely because of
people who take drastic and sudden unilateral action when they could
have taken the time to think of softer ways of dealing with a problem.

It would be a peaceful gesture if you restored the page, and initiated
alternative solutions.

Ec


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

Re: [WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

Ken Arromdee
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> >I just blanked, and deleted
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death
> >
> >We had names of many famous people, stating they were responsible for
> >someone else dying.
> >** Not a single reference **
> >
> >I was told that I should have AFD it instead
> That sounds terribly unilateral.  AFD would have been more prudent.  
> Altering the title would have been more sensible, given that some were
> apparently only accused, and never convicted.

Remember [[WP:BLP]].  Anything making accusations about living people without
a source should be deleted immediately.


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

Re: [WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

Mark Ryan
In reply to this post by Pedro Sanchez-2
On 21/01/07, Pedro Sanchez <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I just blanked, and deleted
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death
>
> We had names of many famous people, stating they were responsible for
> someone else dying.
> ** Not a single reference **
>
> I was told that I should have AFD it instead
>
> The potential for libel was huge, afd was likely to come as no
> consensus or delete.
> Wikimedia can't take the risk of being sued for the sake of process.
>
> So I deleted the entry to hide history, and drop a note stating should
> anybody readd content it must be with references.
>
> Probably many people will complain and ask for my head, just telling
> you people why I did it.
>
> -- drini

Sounds a pretty sensible way to go about it.

~Mark Ryan

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Pedro Sanchez-2
> I just blanked, and deleted
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death
>
> We had names of many famous people, stating they were responsible for
> someone else dying.
> ** Not a single reference **

Well done. You have improved Wikipedia.

Anyone saying that article shouldn't be speedied is just
wikilawyering. Try genuine lawyering, which would tell you that such
an article is borderline illegal. If that's not a good reason to
speedy something, then I don't know what is.

In many cases it is fine to essentially use the Wikipedia articles as
the sources for the items in the list. In the case of accusing people
of killing someone, it is absolutely not.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

Oldak
In reply to this post by Pedro Sanchez-2
On 21/01/07, Pedro Sanchez <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I just blanked, and deleted
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death
>
> We had names of many famous people, stating they were responsible for
> someone else dying.
> ** Not a single reference **
>
> I was told that I should have AFD it instead
>
> The potential for libel was huge, afd was likely to come as no
> consensus or delete.
> Wikimedia can't take the risk of being sued for the sake of process.
>
> So I deleted the entry to hide history, and drop a note stating should
> anybody readd content it must be with references.
>
> Probably many people will complain and ask for my head, just telling
> you people why I did it.

I don't think you did the *wrong* thing, but I think we should always
aim to stick to process. The fact that we have processes to delete
articles and to remove libelous content (OFFICE) should protect us. If
the risk was that great, I'm sure someone in the office would have
done something (perhaps you should have e-mailed?).

--
Oldak Quill ([hidden email])

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

Thomas Dalton
> I don't think you did the *wrong* thing, but I think we should always
> aim to stick to process. The fact that we have processes to delete
> articles and to remove libelous content (OFFICE) should protect us. If
> the risk was that great, I'm sure someone in the office would have
> done something (perhaps you should have e-mailed?).

WP:OFFICE is there is fix problems after we've received complaints. We
should be aiming to fix the problems before anyone complains.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Oldak
On 21/01/07, Oldak Quill <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't think you did the *wrong* thing, but I think we should always
> aim to stick to process.


e.g. [[WP:BLP]], which says shoot this sort of rubbish on sight, then
rebuild with an incredibly hardarsed attitude to references.


- d.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

fredbaud
In reply to this post by Pedro Sanchez-2

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:[hidden email]]
>Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 01:27 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] defused timebomb
>
>Pedro Sanchez wrote:
>
>>I just blanked, and deleted
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death
>>
>>We had names of many famous people, stating they were responsible for
>>someone else dying.
>>** Not a single reference **
>>
>>I was told that I should have AFD it instead
>>
>>The potential for libel was huge, afd was likely to come as no
>>consensus or delete.
>>Wikimedia can't take the risk of being sued for the sake of process.
>>
>>So I deleted the entry to hide history, and drop a note stating should
>>anybody readd content it must be with references.
>>
>>Probably many people will complain and ask for my head, just telling
>>you people why I did it.
>>
>That sounds terribly unilateral.  AFD would have been more prudent.  
>Altering the title would have been more sensible, given that some were
>apparently only accused, and never convicted.
>
>I don't know how long the list was but being a "list" it should be
>enough if there are sources on the listed pages themselves.  Nobody puts
>sources on the index or Table of Contents of a book, because the sources
>would already be at more appropriate places.
>
>The "huge" potential for libel is a product of your imagination.  I'm
>not saying that there is none at all, but it is certainly much less than
>what you imagine.  In any event, other ways of fixing the article would
>also have eliminated that problem.  I don't know when the page was
>started but its talk page has been there four months; there was no urgency.
>
>The chronic bad blood in the deletion process is precisely because of
>people who take drastic and sudden unilateral action when they could
>have taken the time to think of softer ways of dealing with a problem.
>
>It would be a peaceful gesture if you restored the page, and initiated
>alternative solutions.
>
>Ec

I looked at the deleted material. Most entries are not controversial. However, all entries on the page fall under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and may thus properly be deleted by any person without limit. This is a case where a user has taken responsibility. They should be commended.

Fred



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

Re: [WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by Oldak
Oldak Quill wrote:
<snip>
> I don't think you did the *wrong* thing, but I think we should always
> aim to stick to process.
>

No, no, and just plain... no. "Process" is what killed Nupedia. The OP
has our sincere thanks for removing another of our drive-by-stupidity
magnets. Seriously. Next thing you know [[snopes.com]] or [[The Straight
Dope]] will have entire sections labelled "according to Wikipedia..."
where they debunk all of the unreferenced tripe that's lying around.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP


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

signature.asc (554 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

Jeff Raymond
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

> Oldak Quill wrote:
> <snip>
>> I don't think you did the *wrong* thing, but I think we should always
>> aim to stick to process.
>>
>
> No, no, and just plain... no. "Process" is what killed Nupedia. The OP
> has our sincere thanks for removing another of our drive-by-stupidity
> magnets. Seriously. Next thing you know [[snopes.com]] or [[The Straight
> Dope]] will have entire sections labelled "according to Wikipedia..."
> where they debunk all of the unreferenced tripe that's lying around.

Process merely makes things run smoother and keeps people from doing
dumb things more often than not.

Meanwhile, I've already restored about 5 of those in the article, and
I'll try to get to more later.  a quick post somewhere saing "we know
these things are true, can we find sources" and it'd be done in 5
minutes.  Instead, knee-jerk reaction time, whee!!!

Maybe some people would like to pitch in?  The Google cache is right here:

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:FBnIbSOEGeoJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: [hidden email]
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
        Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
        - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

Andrew Gray
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
On 21/01/07, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't know how long the list was but being a "list" it should be
> enough if there are sources on the listed pages themselves.  Nobody puts
> sources on the index or Table of Contents of a book, because the sources
> would already be at more appropriate places.

With a book, we can reliably know that there are sources elsewhere. To
keep an article like this reliable, we either need to source it on
that page or else keep checking the section saying "In 1972, she was
involved in a car accident which left two dead." is still there on
another page...

"Sources on the other page" is fine enough, but perhaps a more
practical use of this system would be to have *categories*, not a
list; if the original article has the content change, they zap the cat
as well, and they disappear from our "list". Plus we don't need to
clutter it with sources.

(As an aside - our users tend to treat categories as a rather
simplistic list, anyway, so the difference ought to be limited...)

> The "huge" potential for libel is a product of your imagination.  I'm
> not saying that there is none at all, but it is certainly much less than
> what you imagine.  In any event, other ways of fixing the article would
> also have eliminated that problem.  I don't know when the page was
> started but its talk page has been there four months; there was no urgency.

Stupid things have been going on for a long time, sure. It doesn't
mean we shouldn't respond to them swiftly and cleanly when we discover
them.

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

Oldak
In reply to this post by Alphax (Wikipedia email)
On 21/01/07, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> No, no, and just plain... no. "Process" is what killed Nupedia. The OP
> has our sincere thanks for removing another of our drive-by-stupidity
> magnets. Seriously. Next thing you know [[snopes.com]] or [[The Straight
> Dope]] will have entire sections labelled "according to Wikipedia..."
> where they debunk all of the unreferenced tripe that's lying around.

Just to clarify: Keeping to established processes when it comes to
contentious actions (deletion process, etc.) is important to ensuring
the project works day-to-day, flows well and reduces editor annoyance.

Having too much process (for example, when it is not necessary) is not
good. It takes away from the ease and enjoyability of volunteering for
Wikipedia. More importantly, it stops users taking spontaneous
decisions which are usually beneficial to the project (I, for one, am
less likely to do something if there are lots of hoops to jump
through.)

--
Oldak Quill ([hidden email])

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Jeff Raymond
On 21/01/07, Jeff Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Meanwhile, I've already restored about 5 of those in the article, and
> I'll try to get to more later.  a quick post somewhere saing "we know
> these things are true, can we find sources" and it'd be done in 5
> minutes.  Instead, knee-jerk reaction time, whee!!!


That knee-jerk reaction was absolutely a right process per WP:BLP -
blank the unsourced silly thing, then add back sources with hard
verifiability.


- d.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

fredbaud
In reply to this post by Pedro Sanchez-2

>I don't think you did the *wrong* thing, but I think we should always
>aim to stick to process. The fact that we have processes to delete
>articles and to remove libelous content (OFFICE) should protect us. If
>the risk was that great, I'm sure someone in the office would have
>done something (perhaps you should have e-mailed?).
>
>--
>Oldak Quill ([hidden email])

He did follow process, the process in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

Office is 3 people. The bulk of the work needs to be done by the users.

Fred



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

Re: [WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

fredbaud
In reply to this post by Pedro Sanchez-2

>Process merely makes things run smoother and keeps people from doing
>dumb things more often than not.
>
>Meanwhile, I've already restored about 5 of those in the article, and
>I'll try to get to more later.  a quick post somewhere saing "we know
>these things are true, can we find sources" and it'd be done in 5
>minutes.  Instead, knee-jerk reaction time, whee!!!
>
>Maybe some people would like to pitch in?  The Google cache is right here:
>
>http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:FBnIbSOEGeoJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
>
>-Jeff

Yes, please pitch in. This monstrosity has been nominated for deletion.

Fred




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

Re: [WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

Kat Walsh
In reply to this post by fredbaud
On 1/21/07, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> >I don't think you did the *wrong* thing, but I think we should always
> >aim to stick to process. The fact that we have processes to delete
> >articles and to remove libelous content (OFFICE) should protect us. If
> >the risk was that great, I'm sure someone in the office would have
> >done something (perhaps you should have e-mailed?).
> >
> >--
> >Oldak Quill ([hidden email])
>
> He did follow process, the process in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
>
> Office is 3 people. The bulk of the work needs to be done by the users.

Definitely concur. The office is the *last* resort, not the first.

-Kat

--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

Daniel P. B. Smith
In reply to this post by Pedro Sanchez-2
> From: Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]>

> I don't know how long the list was but being a "list" it should be
> enough if there are sources on the listed pages themselves.  Nobody  
> puts
> sources on the index or Table of Contents of a book, because the  
> sources
> would already be at more appropriate places.

The book analogy does not hold because are integral entities. Once a  
book is printed, the table of contents doesn't change independently  
from the rest of the book.

In theory, I agree that "it should be enough if there are sources on  
the listed pages themselves," but in practice this is _far_ from  
being the case. People simply add names to the list. Just because the  
name is a blue link, it doesn't mean the person who added the name  
even glanced at the linked article.

It is common for the linked article not even to _mention_ the list  
topic. It is _extremely rare_ for the mention to have an inline  
citation of a confirming source. It is probably _less than an even  
chance_ that the page has a general reference or external link that  
is identifiable by inspection as a obvious source that ought to  
confirm the specific fact.

Just for laughs, let me look at a list I've never checked: the  
section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 
List_of_Swarthmore_College_people headed Arts, film, theatre, and  
broadcasting, blue links only.

Peter Bart: Article says he graduated from Swarthmore, but statement  
has no inline citation. No "references" section. None of the seven  
external links explicitly says "bio." The most plausible place to  
look seems to be the imdb profile link? Nope, the imdb profile does  
not say anything about his education. The next most likely would be  
"Variety's website," maybe he has a bio or profile there? Nope, that  
link is just to http://www.variety.com. Conclusion: not easy to find  
a confirming source.

Al Camines: Article says he graduated from Swarthmore, but statement  
has no inline citation. Article is completely unreferenced.

David Dye: Article does not mention Swarthmore at all.

Judith Edelman: Article says she graduated from Swarthmore, but  
statement has no inline citation. Article has no references section.  
Article has a single external link, to her profile at Compass  
Records. Linked page is not her bio, but has the start of an  
"about..." article. That "about" page is a bio... and does say "She  
followed one of her brothers, coincidentally a bluegrass-loving  
fiddler, to Swarthmore College."

H. C. Robbins Landon: article says he studied music at Swarthmore  
College and Boston University, but statement has no inline citation.  
Article has no references at all and no external links.

So, of the first five entries checked,
a) I was only able to trace _one_ of them to a published source,
b) One of them did not even _assert_ the fact asserted by the list.

This is pretty typical.


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

Re: [WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

Steve Block-3
In reply to this post by Pedro Sanchez-2
Pedro Sanchez wrote:

> Probably many people will complain and ask for my head, just telling
> you people why I did it.

Good call.  You made a decision and you gave notice, allowing that
decision to be reviewed.  That's a good call on two counts.


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 20/01/07 22:31


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
12