Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

[Ken Arromdee]

On Mon, 23 May 2011, geni wrote:
>> When you Google for Santorum's last name this Wikipedia article is the
>> second result. This means that people who are looking for legitimate
>> information about him are not going to find it right away - instead we are
>> going to feed them information about a biased smear campaign rather than the
>> former Senators BLP.
> Google's search results are entirely their business.

The fact that we need to be careful about BLPs because the BLPs rank high in
Google is our business.  This is not technically a BLP, and Santorum is
known for more than one thing, but I'd think it'd at least fall under the
*spirit* of "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a
way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

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

[Ken Arromdee]

On Mon, 23 May 2011, The Cunctator wrote:
>> The reason: Wikipedia is on the Internet.  If Wikipedia has an article
>> about something whose promoter specifically intends to spread it on the
>> Internet, it is impossible to separate reporting from participation.  It's
>> a loophole in the definition of neutrality that doing things which help
>> one side of a dispute doesn't break neutrality, simply because our
>> intentions are neutral--even though our effects are not.
> I agree. Let's remove all content on Wikipedia about the Internet.

"Is about the Internet" and "is mainly an Internet promotional campaign"
aren't the same thing.

Someone might write a book and want it promoted on the Internet, but the
fact that it's being promoted on the Internet is way down on the list of
important facts about that book.

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

[Fred Bauder-2]

> I agree. Let's remove all content on Wikipedia about the Internet.

My God! Larry Sanger was right!

Fred


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

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Mon, 23/5/11, Charles Matthews <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Charles Matthews <[hidden email]>

> > On 23 May 2011 02:24, Brian J Mingus<[hidden email]> 
> wrote:
> >> When you Google for Santorum's last name this
> Wikipedia article is the
> >> second result. This means that people who are
> looking for legitimate
> >> information about him are not going to find it
> right away - instead we are
> >> going to feed them information about a biased
> smear campaign rather than the
> >> former Senators BLP.
> > Google's search results are entirely their business.
> >
> Yes, I agree with that comment. As Google are aware, people
> try to game
> their "algorithm"; and their business model requires them
> to take action
> on that. Not our problem at all.
>
> The business of neologisms on WP was actually put into "How
> Wikipedia
> Works" (Chapter 7, "A Deletion Case Study"). At that time
> the example to
> hand was of the buzzword type, and the question was
> apparently whether
> WP's duty was to keep people informed of new jargon, or to
> be more
> distanced and only include a new term when it was clearly
> well established.
>
> To be a bit more nuanced about this instance: if there is a
> dimension in
> that article of a BLP, certain things follow at least at
> the margin
> about use of sources. And NPOV clearly requires that a
> successful
> campaign to "discredit" someone is reported in those terms.
> Here there
> is a fine line between "mockery" and "smear", and saying
> the latter by
> default omits the element of satire. In other words, there
> are people
> who take US domestic politics very seriously, and media
> stories very
> seriously (I think enWP tends to take the media as a whole
> too
> seriously, BTW, which is the media's estimation of itself)
> , and regard
> Google now as part of the media, and so come to the sort of
> conclusion
> that Brian does.
>
> OTOH we have our mission, and our policies, and should do
> our job. I'm
> prepared to take the flak if our pages contribute to
> information  (i.e.
> report within NPOV) on a "biased smear campaign" (or
> satirical
> googlebombing, whatever you prefer); as long as our article
> is not
> biased, and is not campaigning. Bear in mind that the COI
> is supposed to
> limit the use of enWP for activism of certain kinds. We do
> have the
> policies to prevent misuse of our pages.
>
> Charles

We discussed this a couple of days ago at our meet-up. I agree with some of
the other comments made here that this blurs and crosses the line between
reporting and participation.

I have no sympathy for Santorum or his views. But based on past experience,
I also have little confidence that the main author's motivation in expanding
the article is anything other than political. They've created puff pieces on
politicians before (as well as hatchet jobs), in the service of outside
political agendas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Dickson (later deleted as a puff piece
of a non-notable politician, but only after the election, in which he was
said to have done surprisingly well)

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

Andreas

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

[GmbH]

On May 23, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

> --- On Mon, 23/5/11, Charles Matthews  
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> From: Charles Matthews <[hidden email]>
>
>>> On 23 May 2011 02:24, Brian J Mingus<[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>> When you Google for Santorum's last name this
>> Wikipedia article is the
>>>> second result. This means that people who are
>> looking for legitimate
>>>> information about him are not going to find it
>> right away - instead we are
>>>> going to feed them information about a biased
>> smear campaign rather than the
>>>> former Senators BLP.
>>> Google's search results are entirely their business.
>>>
>> Yes, I agree with that comment. As Google are aware, people
>> try to game
>> their "algorithm"; and their business model requires them
>> to take action
>> on that. Not our problem at all.
>>
>> The business of neologisms on WP was actually put into "How
>> Wikipedia
>> Works" (Chapter 7, "A Deletion Case Study"). At that time
>> the example to
>> hand was of the buzzword type, and the question was
>> apparently whether
>> WP's duty was to keep people informed of new jargon, or to
>> be more
>> distanced and only include a new term when it was clearly
>> well established.
>>
>> To be a bit more nuanced about this instance: if there is a
>> dimension in
>> that article of a BLP, certain things follow at least at
>> the margin
>> about use of sources. And NPOV clearly requires that a
>> successful
>> campaign to "discredit" someone is reported in those terms.
>> Here there
>> is a fine line between "mockery" and "smear", and saying
>> the latter by
>> default omits the element of satire. In other words, there
>> are people
>> who take US domestic politics very seriously, and media
>> stories very
>> seriously (I think enWP tends to take the media as a whole
>> too
>> seriously, BTW, which is the media's estimation of itself)
>> , and regard
>> Google now as part of the media, and so come to the sort of
>> conclusion
>> that Brian does.
>>
>> OTOH we have our mission, and our policies, and should do
>> our job. I'm
>> prepared to take the flak if our pages contribute to
>> information  (i.e.
>> report within NPOV) on a "biased smear campaign" (or
>> satirical
>> googlebombing, whatever you prefer); as long as our article
>> is not
>> biased, and is not campaigning. Bear in mind that the COI
>> is supposed to
>> limit the use of enWP for activism of certain kinds. We do
>> have the
>> policies to prevent misuse of our pages.
>>
>> Charles
>
>
> We discussed this a couple of days ago at our meet-up. I agree with  
> some of
> the other comments made here that this blurs and crosses the line  
> between
> reporting and participation.
>
> I have no sympathy for Santorum or his views. But based on past  
> experience,
> I also have little confidence that the main author's motivation in  
> expanding
> the article is anything other than political. They've created puff  
> pieces on
> politicians before (as well as hatchet jobs), in the service of  
> outside
> political agendas.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Dickson (later deleted as a  
> puff piece
> of a non-notable politician, but only after the election, in which  
> he was
> said to have done surprisingly well)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Peralta
>
> Andreas
>

I think this is an excellent analysis. I too have little sympathy for  
Santorum, but it strikes me that this neologism would have no real-
world notability if it wasn't attached to Santorum's name. In any  
other circumstance, a concept or neologism that has no notability  
outside of a larger, overarching concept would be relegated to a  
decently sized portion of the main article. Here, it's been given its  
own article, seemingly to make a political point.

I see that as the main thrust of the argument, not to delete, but to  
merge this back where it belongs-as an embarrassing but largely non-
notable (in and of itself) episode of Rick Santorum's larger career.  
Before anyone says no, can they honestly answer the question "Would  
this word have deserved an article without co-opting the name of a  
major celebrity?" with a yes? If so, I'm wrong. But I don't believe a  
reasonable person can.

Moreover, it is disingenuous to suggest that we can sit on our hands  
and pretend that our handling of this issue does not have broader  
implications on the standing of Wikipedia in the world. If we begin  
to be seen as a "media outlet" (that description being accurate or no  
is a discussion for a later time) that actively participates in  
lending undue weight to juvenile retribution, we're going to lose our  
claim to neutrality quickly. As it is, I think we need to  
(deliberately, there's no need for haste and conspiracy) start  
trimming this article to a reasonable size and merge it into Rick  
Santorum's article, in order to give it the larger context that the  
higher calling of fairness deserves.

I believe that's the responsibility of Wikipedia, and I'd urge other  
editors, regardless of your politics (because I know most of us would  
probably not consider voting for the man, but that's immaterial) to  
consider the argument here and agree. If so, I'll be happy to take  
this discussion to the talk page, where we can iron out a way to do  
this without doing a disservice to our commitment to impartiality.

Chromancer


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

[Tom Morris-5]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 21:56, Ken Arromdee <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The reason: Wikipedia is on the Internet.  If Wikipedia has an article
> about something whose promoter specifically intends to spread it on the
> Internet, it is impossible to separate reporting from participation.  It's
> a loophole in the definition of neutrality that doing things which help
> one side of a dispute doesn't break neutrality, simply because our
> intentions are neutral--even though our effects are not.
>

(Warning: POV ahead.)

Using that logic, we should probably shut down every page on WP about
politics, religion, alternative medicine and anything even vaguely
controversial. There are factions within those movements or groups who
stand to benefit from people knowing less rather than more about them.
The Church of Scientology would probably object on the same lines as
you have that the mere existence of the article "Xenu" can never be
neutral because they would rather there not be an article at all. Our
effect is to make Scientology seem more ridiculous to outsiders.

Similarly, there are probably Pentecostalist movements who would
rather people not read the sections of the article on "Glossolalia"
about how linguists and neuroscientists have studied people speaking
in tongues and found that they aren't actually speaking a language
with any actual semantic structure but rather a "meaningless but
phonologically structured human utterance, believed by the speaker to
be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any
natural language, living or dead". By including this material, we are
in effect biased against movements who would rather people knew less
about the scientific underpinnings (or rather lack thereof) of an
impressive-looking religious practice.

A great many people when asked their views on homeopathy think it is
basically a form of herbal medicine. There are undoubtedly homeopaths
who financially benefit from this confusion and are quite happy that
people associate their extremely dubious pseudoscience with herbal
medicine, which is basically a ragtag bag of stuff that does and does
not work (the stuff that does work often becomes known simply as
'medicine').

In general, there are a lot of fields where people use and benefit
from other people's ignorance.

Neutrality isn't an excuse for ensuring inconvenient material doesn't
turn up on Google search results because it might be biased.

A reductio ad absurdum: imagine there is a voter who intends to vote
purely based on some very arbitrary property of a political candidate
like, say, the colour of their suit. Most informed people would say
that this is a poor use of one's vote and one is not living up to
one's moral duties to make an informed and meaningful decision about
policy with one's vote. In order to enforce this kind of
outcomes-based neutrality, should we remove all photographs of
candidates on Wikipedia in the run up to elections in order to
encourage people to vote based on policy rather than appearance. And
what if there is a candidate who is specifically trying to benefit
from being aesthetically pleasing? Should we make his picture bigger
to ensure the race is fair?

Determining neutrality on the basis of outcome could have such
perverse consequences for article policy that it really seems like a
tough row to hoe.

--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>

Please don't print this e-mail out unless you want a hard copy of
it. If you do, go ahead. I won't stop you. Nor will I waste your
ink/toner with 300+ lines of completely pointless and legally
unenforceable cargo cult blather about corporate confidentiality.

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Tue, 24/5/11, GmbH <[hidden email]> wrote:
> From: GmbH <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
> To: "English Wikipedia" <[hidden email]>
> Date: Tuesday, 24 May, 2011, 1:11
>
> On May 23, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

> > We discussed this a couple of days ago at our meet-up.
> I agree with 
> > some of
> > the other comments made here that this blurs and
> crosses the line 
> > between
> > reporting and participation.
> >
> > I have no sympathy for Santorum or his views. But
> based on past 
> > experience,
> > I also have little confidence that the main author's
> motivation in 
> > expanding
> > the article is anything other than political. They've
> created puff 
> > pieces on
> > politicians before (as well as hatchet jobs), in the
> service of 
> > outside
> > political agendas.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Dickson (later
> deleted as a 
> > puff piece
> > of a non-notable politician, but only after the
> election, in which 
> > he was
> > said to have done surprisingly well)
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Peralta
> >
> > Andreas
> >
>
> I think this is an excellent analysis. I too have little
> sympathy for 
> Santorum, but it strikes me that this neologism would have
> no real-
> world notability if it wasn't attached to Santorum's name.
> In any 
> other circumstance, a concept or neologism that has no
> notability 
> outside of a larger, overarching concept would be relegated
> to a 
> decently sized portion of the main article. Here, it's been
> given its 
> own article, seemingly to make a political point.
>
> I see that as the main thrust of the argument, not to
> delete, but to 
> merge this back where it belongs-as an embarrassing but
> largely non-
> notable (in and of itself) episode of Rick Santorum's
> larger career. 
> Before anyone says no, can they honestly answer the
> question "Would 
> this word have deserved an article without co-opting the
> name of a 
> major celebrity?" with a yes? If so, I'm wrong. But I don't
> believe a 
> reasonable person can.
>
> Moreover, it is disingenuous to suggest that we can sit on
> our hands 
> and pretend that our handling of this issue does not have
> broader 
> implications on the standing of Wikipedia in the world. If
> we begin 
> to be seen as a "media outlet" (that description being
> accurate or no 
> is a discussion for a later time) that actively
> participates in 
> lending undue weight to juvenile retribution, we're going
> to lose our 
> claim to neutrality quickly. As it is, I think we need
> to 
> (deliberately, there's no need for haste and conspiracy)
> start 
> trimming this article to a reasonable size and merge it
> into Rick 
> Santorum's article, in order to give it the larger context
> that the 
> higher calling of fairness deserves.
>
> I believe that's the responsibility of Wikipedia, and I'd
> urge other 
> editors, regardless of your politics (because I know most
> of us would 
> probably not consider voting for the man, but that's
> immaterial) to 
> consider the argument here and agree. If so, I'll be happy
> to take 
> this discussion to the talk page, where we can iron out a
> way to do 
> this without doing a disservice to our commitment to
> impartiality.
>
> Chromancer

Well, as of today, [[Santorum (neologism)]] has taken over the no. 1 AND 2
spots in the Google results for "Santorum". Both the old and new article
title appear, in spots 1 and 2.

It's even overtaken the original Googlebomb site set up by Savage, which is
now back in fourth place. To wit:

1.

Santorum (neologism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(neologism) - Cached

2.

Santorum (sexual neologism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(sexual_neologism) - Cached - Similar

3.

Rick Santorum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Richard John "Rick" Santorum (born May 10, 1958) is a former United States ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum - Cached - Similar

4.

Santorum
www.spreadingsantorum.com/ - Cached - Similar


I've no idea how the Wikipedia article manages to get itself represented
twice, with two different titles (one of which redirects to the other).
Personally, I think redirecting the thing to Santorum's BLP and covering
it there would be the "encyclopedic" thing to do.

The comparison to Bowdlerise, Orwellian etc. is IMO unrealistic. Those
neologisms have stood the test of time, and have been used un-consciously in
prose. "Santorum" is a conscious joke word.

Andreas

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

[The Cunctator]

Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else.

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> --- On Tue, 24/5/11, GmbH <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > From: GmbH <[hidden email]>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
> > To: "English Wikipedia" <[hidden email]>
> > Date: Tuesday, 24 May, 2011, 1:11
> >
> > On May 23, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > > We discussed this a couple of days ago at our meet-up.
> > I agree with
> > > some of
> > > the other comments made here that this blurs and
> > crosses the line
> > > between
> > > reporting and participation.
> > >
> > > I have no sympathy for Santorum or his views. But
> > based on past
> > > experience,
> > > I also have little confidence that the main author's
> > motivation in
> > > expanding
> > > the article is anything other than political. They've
> > created puff
> > > pieces on
> > > politicians before (as well as hatchet jobs), in the
> > service of
> > > outside
> > > political agendas.
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Dickson (later
> > deleted as a
> > > puff piece
> > > of a non-notable politician, but only after the
> > election, in which
> > > he was
> > > said to have done surprisingly well)
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Peralta
> > >
> > > Andreas
> > >
> >
> > I think this is an excellent analysis. I too have little
> > sympathy for
> > Santorum, but it strikes me that this neologism would have
> > no real-
> > world notability if it wasn't attached to Santorum's name.
> > In any
> > other circumstance, a concept or neologism that has no
> > notability
> > outside of a larger, overarching concept would be relegated
> > to a
> > decently sized portion of the main article. Here, it's been
> > given its
> > own article, seemingly to make a political point.
> >
> > I see that as the main thrust of the argument, not to
> > delete, but to
> > merge this back where it belongs-as an embarrassing but
> > largely non-
> > notable (in and of itself) episode of Rick Santorum's
> > larger career.
> > Before anyone says no, can they honestly answer the
> > question "Would
> > this word have deserved an article without co-opting the
> > name of a
> > major celebrity?" with a yes? If so, I'm wrong. But I don't
> > believe a
> > reasonable person can.
> >
> > Moreover, it is disingenuous to suggest that we can sit on
> > our hands
> > and pretend that our handling of this issue does not have
> > broader
> > implications on the standing of Wikipedia in the world. If
> > we begin
> > to be seen as a "media outlet" (that description being
> > accurate or no
> > is a discussion for a later time) that actively
> > participates in
> > lending undue weight to juvenile retribution, we're going
> > to lose our
> > claim to neutrality quickly. As it is, I think we need
> > to
> > (deliberately, there's no need for haste and conspiracy)
> > start
> > trimming this article to a reasonable size and merge it
> > into Rick
> > Santorum's article, in order to give it the larger context
> > that the
> > higher calling of fairness deserves.
> >
> > I believe that's the responsibility of Wikipedia, and I'd
> > urge other
> > editors, regardless of your politics (because I know most
> > of us would
> > probably not consider voting for the man, but that's
> > immaterial) to
> > consider the argument here and agree. If so, I'll be happy
> > to take
> > this discussion to the talk page, where we can iron out a
> > way to do
> > this without doing a disservice to our commitment to
> > impartiality.
> >
> > Chromancer
>
>
> Well, as of today, [[Santorum (neologism)]] has taken over the no. 1 AND 2
> spots in the Google results for "Santorum". Both the old and new article
> title appear, in spots 1 and 2.
>
> It's even overtaken the original Googlebomb site set up by Savage, which is
> now back in fourth place. To wit:
>
> 1.
>
> Santorum (neologism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(neologism)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_%28neologism%29>- Cached
>
> 2.
>
> Santorum (sexual neologism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(sexual_neologism)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_%28sexual_neologism%29>- Cached - Similar
>
> 3.
>
> Rick Santorum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Richard John "Rick" Santorum (born May 10, 1958) is a former United States
> ...
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum - Cached - Similar
>
> 4.
>
> Santorum
> www.spreadingsantorum.com/ - Cached - Similar
>
>
> I've no idea how the Wikipedia article manages to get itself represented
> twice, with two different titles (one of which redirects to the other).
> Personally, I think redirecting the thing to Santorum's BLP and covering
> it there would be the "encyclopedic" thing to do.
>
> The comparison to Bowdlerise, Orwellian etc. is IMO unrealistic. Those
> neologisms have stood the test of time, and have been used un-consciously
> in
> prose. "Santorum" is a conscious joke word.
>
> Andreas
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

[Fred Bauder-2]

> I've no idea how the Wikipedia article manages to get itself represented
> twice, with two different titles (one of which redirects to the other).
> Personally, I think redirecting the thing to Santorum's BLP and covering
> it there would be the "encyclopedic" thing to do.
>
> The comparison to Bowdlerise, Orwellian etc. is IMO unrealistic. Those
> neologisms have stood the test of time, and have been used un-consciously
> in
> prose. "Santorum" is a conscious joke word.
>
> Andreas

Well, too much. I'm on-board for fighting fascism, but not using
Wikipedia as a vehicle. We need to have a policy discussion on-wiki about
this.

I've been actually reading the sources cited; this is interesting and
useful information, but needs to be handled more appropriately by both
Wikipedia and Google. We need to bring the creator, and protector, of the
article into the discussion too.

Fred


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

[Fred Bauder-2]

> Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else.

You've got one word right, "our". You are responsible for this.

Fred


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

[George Herbert]

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else.
>
> You've got one word right, "our". You are responsible for this.

No, he (and we) are not.  Dan Savage is responsible for this.


--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]

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

[The Cunctator]

Huh?

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>wrote:

> > Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else.
>
> You've got one word right, "our". You are responsible for this.
>
> Fred
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

[Charles Matthews]

On 24/05/2011 18:49, George Herbert wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Fred Bauder<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>> Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else.
>> You've got one word right, "our". You are responsible for this.
> No, he (and we) are not.  Dan Savage is responsible for this.
>
Right - and an egregious case of bullying it is, based on a distinctive
surname. (Fred's comparison with ED is not off-beam, just missing the
point IMO.) I'm clear that, in human terms, I have a low opinion of it.
If our article doesn't give the data that would make it possible to come
up with an informed opinion on Savage's campaign on that level, then it
is failing. Too much to ask whether it could do the same on the issues
of whether this kind of campaigning actually changes minds, or
discredits freedom of speech, etc. These things are more interesting,
when it comes down to it, but constraints on OR mean the article is
really just a compilation of quotes from journalism.

Charles



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

[George Herbert]

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Charles Matthews
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 24/05/2011 18:49, George Herbert wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Fred Bauder<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>> Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else.
>>> You've got one word right, "our". You are responsible for this.
>> No, he (and we) are not.  Dan Savage is responsible for this.
>>
> Right - and an egregious case of bullying it is, based on a distinctive
> surname. (Fred's comparison with ED is not off-beam, just missing the
> point IMO.) I'm clear that, in human terms, I have a low opinion of it.
> If our article doesn't give the data that would make it possible to come
> up with an informed opinion on Savage's campaign on that level, then it
> is failing. Too much to ask whether it could do the same on the issues
> of whether this kind of campaigning actually changes minds, or
> discredits freedom of speech, etc. These things are more interesting,
> when it comes down to it, but constraints on OR mean the article is
> really just a compilation of quotes from journalism.

I don't know that it's been reviewed in analytical terms at that
level.  It's so offensive on one level that academics and political
commentators seem to just shy away from it rather than addressing the
rather deep "Hey, what does this say about society/politics/etc".

If that exists then it almost certainly should be covered in the
article.  I am not aware that it does, but this is outside my core
areas of competence (though I was pretty aware of it when it started).


--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]

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

[Fred Bauder-2]

> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Charles Matthews
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 24/05/2011 18:49, George Herbert wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Fred Bauder<[hidden email]>
>>>  wrote:
>>>>> Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else.
>>>> You've got one word right, "our". You are responsible for this.
>>> No, he (and we) are not.  Dan Savage is responsible for this.
>>>
>> Right - and an egregious case of bullying it is, based on a distinctive
>> surname. (Fred's comparison with ED is not off-beam, just missing the
>> point IMO.) I'm clear that, in human terms, I have a low opinion of it.
>> If our article doesn't give the data that would make it possible to
>> come
>> up with an informed opinion on Savage's campaign on that level, then it
>> is failing. Too much to ask whether it could do the same on the issues
>> of whether this kind of campaigning actually changes minds, or
>> discredits freedom of speech, etc. These things are more interesting,
>> when it comes down to it, but constraints on OR mean the article is
>> really just a compilation of quotes from journalism.
>
> I don't know that it's been reviewed in analytical terms at that
> level.  It's so offensive on one level that academics and political
> commentators seem to just shy away from it rather than addressing the
> rather deep "Hey, what does this say about society/politics/etc".
>
> If that exists then it almost certainly should be covered in the
> article.  I am not aware that it does, but this is outside my core
> areas of competence (though I was pretty aware of it when it started).
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> [hidden email]

We could try cooking up some serious analysis, perhaps by political
scientists or journalists. So what are the serious questions to be
addressed?

Fred



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

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Tue, 24/5/11, George Herbert <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't know that it's been reviewed in analytical terms at
> that
> level.  It's so offensive on one level that academics
> and political
> commentators seem to just shy away from it rather than
> addressing the
> rather deep "Hey, what does this say about
> society/politics/etc".

There is some academic analysis of this sort in

Value war: public opinion and the politics of gay rights
By Paul Ryan Brewer

Pages 80ff, especially the chapter "The rewards and risks of signaling"
starting on page 81 (covering the rewards and risks for political actors
signaling their stance on gay issues to the electorate). Unfortunately, I
can't see the relevant page in Google Books, and amazon has no preview.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=U34pJTdF-VcC&pg=PA81&dq=%22The+Rewards+and+risks+of+signaling%22&hl=en&ei=RgPcTeeYH4f_-gbZwdypDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Rewards%20and%20risks%20of%20signaling%22&f=false

The work is actually cited in the article, but only for the "frothy mixture"
quote.

Andreas

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

[The Cunctator]

There's also this:
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/9/4/9/p259493_index.html
*Natality in the Private, Public, and Political Spheres: When Santorum
Becomes santorum<http://www.allacademic.com/one/www/research/index.php?cmd=www_search&offset=0&limit=5&multi_search_search_mode=publication&multi_search_publication_fulltext_mod=fulltext&textfield_submit=true&search_module=multi_search&search=Search&search_field=title_idx&fulltext_search=%3Cb%3ENatality+in+the+Private%2C+Public%2C+and+Political+Spheres%3A+When+Santorum+Becomes+santorum%3C%2Fb%3E&PHPSESSID=b31c93e7de3f2d30f62ec1c7e0beeb34>
*

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> --- On Tue, 24/5/11, George Herbert <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I don't know that it's been reviewed in analytical terms at
> > that
> > level.  It's so offensive on one level that academics
> > and political
> > commentators seem to just shy away from it rather than
> > addressing the
> > rather deep "Hey, what does this say about
> > society/politics/etc".
>
> There is some academic analysis of this sort in
>
> Value war: public opinion and the politics of gay rights
> By Paul Ryan Brewer
>
> Pages 80ff, especially the chapter "The rewards and risks of signaling"
> starting on page 81 (covering the rewards and risks for political actors
> signaling their stance on gay issues to the electorate). Unfortunately, I
> can't see the relevant page in Google Books, and amazon has no preview.
>
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=U34pJTdF-VcC&pg=PA81&dq=%22The+Rewards+and+risks+of+signaling%22&hl=en&ei=RgPcTeeYH4f_-gbZwdypDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Rewards%20and%20risks%20of%20signaling%22&f=false
>
> The work is actually cited in the article, but only for the "frothy
> mixture"
> quote.
>
> Andreas
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Tue, 24/5/11, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:
> From: Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>
 

> > I've no idea how the Wikipedia article manages to get
> itself represented
> > twice, with two different titles (one of which
> redirects to the other).
> > Personally, I think redirecting the thing to
> Santorum's BLP and covering
> > it there would be the "encyclopedic" thing to do.
> >
> > The comparison to Bowdlerise, Orwellian etc. is IMO
> unrealistic. Those
> > neologisms have stood the test of time, and have been
> used un-consciously
> > in
> > prose. "Santorum" is a conscious joke word.
> >
> > Andreas
>
> Well, too much. I'm on-board for fighting fascism, but not
> using
> Wikipedia as a vehicle. We need to have a policy discussion
> on-wiki about
> this.
>
> I've been actually reading the sources cited; this is
> interesting and
> useful information, but needs to be handled more
> appropriately by both
> Wikipedia and Google. We need to bring the creator, and
> protector, of the
> article into the discussion too.

As was just pointed out to me on the article talk page, the article has survived
three AfDs. Since the last one in December last year, however, it has grown
from about 1500 words to 4800, as well as having captured the two top spots
in Google.

[[Santorum controversy]] covers the same ground as well.

We do come across as just a *bit* partial here.

Andreas


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

[Ian Woollard]

On 23/05/2011, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Google's search results are entirely their business.

Actually not entirely, we do have quite a bit of control.

In an absolute worse case we could noindex the entire article (I'm not
suggesting it, in fact I strongly recommend against it).

But google pay attention to how many articles link to it, and there's
an enormous 'political neologism' template at the end of the article,
which makes them all mutually link.

I can't estimate how much link juice that pushes into the article, but
it may well be substantial, there's probably relatively few Wikipedia
articles that link to the term otherwise, terms don't usually get that
many links, but I don't know how many external links in there are, or
how much link juice they supply.

There is probably a reasonably strong argument for nofollowing
internal 'link farms' like that, I don't see that one term should
inherit another's link juice, but I couldn't see any obvious way to
nofollow internal links when I checked briefly.

> --
> geni

--
-Ian Woollard

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

[Shane Simmons]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 02:53, Ian Woollard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In an absolute worse case we could noindex the entire article (I'm not
> suggesting it, in fact I strongly recommend against it).
>

Actually, per the settings defined at DefaultSettings.php,[1] specifically
the  $wgExemptFromUserRobotsControl settings, The Index/Noindex magic words
are disabled in articlespace. Rightfully so - a vandal do tons of damage to
our place in search results otherwise.


[1]
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/includes/DefaultSettings.php?view=markup

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