[WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] defused timebomb

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
Andrew Gray wrote:

> 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...
>
"Involved" could mean "back seat passenger in the other car". A police
report or court document is required as a source if we are to preserve
NPOV and verifiability.

--
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

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Ken Arromdee
Ken Arromdee wrote:

>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.
>
Saying that someone was accused is very different from making the
accusation..  In any event, did you even make an effort to separate the
living from the dead?

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
In reply to this post by Jeff Raymond
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Jeff Raymond 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!!!

It isn't knee jerk reaction time, it's [[WP:BLP]] time.


_______________________________________________
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

Jeff Raymond
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Jeff Raymond 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!!!
>
> It isn't knee jerk reaction time, it's [[WP:BLP]] time.

There's a difference?

-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

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
Thomas Dalton 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?).
>>    
>>
>WP:OFFICE is there is fix problems after we've received complaints. We
>should be aiming to fix the problems before anyone complains.
>
Of course, and OFFICE is one of the many steps between where we are and
any actual lawsuit.  There is plenty of time to respect the social
structures that allow us to work together.  If there are more than one
ways to deal with a given situation common social skills should tell you
to prefer the one that does the least harm, even if that is not the
easiest to apply.

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

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Oldak
Oldak Quill wrote:

>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.
>
That's the main point.  Keeping the article around for another week with
big warnings at the top would not have been harmful to anyone.  The
value of the list was dubious to start with.  People really interested
in this stuff would have been pushed to do some work if they wanted to
keep it.  Processes that keep activities transparent tend to be the good
ones.

>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.)
>
Here too I agree, especially when those processes require that people
sift through a lot of picky details.

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

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
David Gerard wrote:

>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.
>
Simply blanking without deletion means that anybody can fix it up, not
just admins.

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

fredbaud
In reply to this post by Pedro Sanchez-2

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Raymond [mailto:[hidden email]]
>Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 08:57 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] defused timebomb
>
>Ken Arromdee wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Jeff Raymond 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!!!
>>
>> It isn't knee jerk reaction time, it's [[WP:BLP]] time.
>
>There's a difference?
>
>-Jeff

If a person is familiar with [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] and knows how it ought to be applied in various situations, they may act swiftly and appropriately. Such behavior is to be distinguished from simple knee-jerk deletetion of drama. Well-sourced reports of dramatic events are quite acceptable on Wikipedia.

Fred



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