Wikipedia's destiny
Locked
1234
... 12
1234
... 12
 
|
I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five days*.
As I feared, userboxes have proven to be the canary in the coal mine. Now it's articlespace that is being jerked around. Wikipedia ultimately must decide whether it wants to be Jimbo's personal fiefdom, or be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The two are clearly mutually exclusive at this point. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
On 2/21/06, Joshua Griisser <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the > encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking (via > [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five days*. > > As I feared, userboxes have proven to be the canary in the coal mine. Now > it's articlespace that is being jerked around. > > Wikipedia ultimately must decide whether it wants to be Jimbo's personal > fiefdom, or be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The two are > clearly mutually exclusive at this point. > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [hidden email] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > You do realize that angry people call the office of Wikimedia very angry? And that all sorts of people write in to the email addresses, which we then have to deal with via OTRS clamoring for libel damages, article deletion, and various sorts of things. This is just one way that we can help/deal with all these people, who frankly don't care for editing, and get Wikipedia on its way. Trust Jimbo: if something important gets deleted, you'll hear the community soon enough. -- Ben Emmel Wikipedia - User:Bratsche "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -- William Blake _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Joshua Griisser
On 2/22/06, Joshua Griisser <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the encyclopedia article >[[Brian Peppers]] - I belive the formal aproach is to complain about "damned deletionists" >not to mention his locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for >*five days*. > Yeah I don't get that back when the helpdesk recived such complaints we talk to the people made such edits as were required while staying with in the normal editing process then moved on (with the exception of newsmax where I made the mistake of telling them they could edit wikipedia which resulted in a revert war and the evential blocking of one newsmax employee). It seemed to work mostly. > As I feared, userboxes have proven to be the canary in the coal mine. Now it's >articlespace that is being jerked around. > > Wikipedia ultimately must decide whether it wants to be Jimbo's personal fiefdom, or be >"the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The two are clearly mutually exclusive at >this point. > Jimbo can't keep track of all the wikis. However any attempt to define Brian Peppers as a species will be resisted. -- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Joshua Griisser
Joshua Griisser wrote:
>I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five days*. > > I'm very confused by this one. I wrote a one-sentence, factual, verifiable, referenced stub reading something like the following (from memory): --- '''Brian Peppers''' is the subject of an [[internet fad]] due to his unusual appearance in a police [[mug shot]] photograph. ==References== * [[Urban Legends Reference Pages]] (snopes.com). [http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/peppers.asp "Who's a Pepper?"]. Accessed February 17, 2006. --- I fail to see how this could possibly be legally problematic. What's more, deleting it from the encyclopedia reduces our coverage of internet culture, which is currently an active area of academic research. There are some books on internet fads currently in press, scheduled to appear within the next year. If one of them mentions Brian Peppers, will we still prohibit an article in Wikipedia about it? I can see arguments against using Wikipedia to *create* fads, but that is clearly not the case here. Are we going to delete [[Star Wars kid]] if his family complains, too? After all, he too is famous against his own will, and in that case the famous video was even leaked onto the internet illegally (while in Brian Peppers case the famous photograph was officially posted by the State of Ohio on its website in accordance with state law). -Mark _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
Delirium wrote:
>I'm very confused by this one. I wrote a one-sentence, factual, >verifiable, referenced stub reading something like the following (from >memory): > > P.S.: The Wikimedia Foundation is now republishing a version of my article in its entirety here: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-February/040229.html Better scour the mailing list archives too! =] -Mark _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Joshua Griisser
G'day Josh, > I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the > encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking > (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five > days*. > > As I feared, userboxes have proven to be the canary in the coal mine. > Now it's articlespace that is being jerked around. > > Wikipedia ultimately must decide whether it wants to be Jimbo's > personal fiefdom, or be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". > The two are clearly mutually exclusive at this point. We were just discussing that ... Wikipedia *doesn't* want to be "the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". There's too much abuse, too much ranting from trolls with a sense of self-entitlement, encouraged by that tagline. I quite like the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, where good authors are always welcome". -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/266 - Release Date: 21/02/2006 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mark
On 2/22/06, Delirium <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > Delirium wrote: > > > > >I'm very confused by this one. I wrote a one-sentence, factual, > > >verifiable, referenced stub reading something like the following (from > > >memory): > > > > > > > > P.S.: The Wikimedia Foundation is now republishing a version of my > > article in its entirety here: > > http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-February/040229.html > > > > Better scour the mailing list archives too! =] > > > > -Mark > > > > _______________________________________________ > > WikiEN-l mailing list > > [hidden email] > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > Mr Peppers other than people on a couple of websites chose to make fun of his appearance. In the latest AfD, one voter said words to effect of we're just making fun of his appearance. Surely, Wikipedia should have higher purposes than mocking the disabled which his article has generally tended to be. In general, we need to pay much more attention to people's privacy than we have. As one of the world's most popular Internet sites, articles on people generally tend to be high up on the first page of a Google search. If people do a Google search for a potential employee or date, our articles come up fairly quickly. If we have an article alleging criminal or other antisocial behavior, we need to ensure that the case is well-known and highly verifiable through reliable sources. We therefore need to ensure that if we have articles on people for a negative reason, our policies on verifiability and reliable sources are applied vigorously. As well, our editorial red pencils should be vigilant about negative claims about individuals and if they don't have a reliable source/s or don't comply with NPOV, they should be taken out. Our longterm credibility as a biographical source and much else depends on it. We now have a reasonable degree of prominence and we should endeavour to use it responsibly. Regards *Keith Old* _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
On 2/22/06, Keith Old <[hidden email]> wrote:
> If he did, well done to him. There is no legitimate reason for an article on > Mr Peppers other than people on a couple of websites chose to make fun of > his appearance. In the latest AfD, one voter said words to effect of we're > just making fun of his appearance. Surely, Wikipedia should have higher > purposes than mocking the disabled which his article has generally tended to > be. > The article has not tended to do that. > In general, we need to pay much more attention to people's privacy than we > have. As one of the world's most popular Internet sites, articles on people > generally tend to be high up on the first page of a Google search. If people > do a Google search for a potential employee or date, our articles come up > fairly quickly. If we have an article alleging criminal or other antisocial > behavior, we need to ensure that the case is well-known and highly > verifiable through reliable sources. > [[Brian Peppers]] forfilled both of those depending on your defintion of well know. > We therefore need to ensure that if we have articles on people for a > negative reason, our policies on verifiability and reliable sources are > applied vigorously. As well, our editorial red pencils should be vigilant > about negative claims about individuals and if they don't have a reliable > source/s or don't comply with NPOV, they should be taken out. > Um yeah that is kinda what was going on with [[Brain Peppers]]. -- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
On 2/21/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 2/22/06, Keith Old <[hidden email]> wrote: > > If he did, well done to him. There is no legitimate reason for an > article on > > Mr Peppers other than people on a couple of websites chose to make fun > of > > his appearance. In the latest AfD, one voter said words to effect of > we're > > just making fun of his appearance. Surely, Wikipedia should have higher > > purposes than mocking the disabled which his article has generally > tended to > > be. > > > > The article has not tended to do that. > > > In general, we need to pay much more attention to people's privacy than > we > > have. As one of the world's most popular Internet sites, articles on > people > > generally tend to be high up on the first page of a Google search. If > people > > do a Google search for a potential employee or date, our articles come > up > > fairly quickly. If we have an article alleging criminal or other > antisocial > > behavior, we need to ensure that the case is well-known and highly > > verifiable through reliable sources. > > > > [[Brian Peppers]] forfilled both of those depending on your defintion > of well know. > > > We therefore need to ensure that if we have articles on people for a > > negative reason, our policies on verifiability and reliable sources are > > applied vigorously. As well, our editorial red pencils should be > vigilant > > about negative claims about individuals and if they don't have a > reliable > > source/s or don't comply with NPOV, they should be taken out. > > > > Um yeah that is kinda what was going on with [[Brain Peppers]]. > -- > geni > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [hidden email] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > I hold the opinion that any article on this man is not going to be NPOV, since the only reason he is popular is because Peppers is unfortuantely stricken with a condition that makes him look funny. Our editorial standards should be such that we don't have to stoop to have an article designed to inflicy more problems on the article subject. -- Ben Emmel Wikipedia - User:Bratsche "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -- William Blake _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I hold the opinion that any article on this man is not going to be NPOV, > since the only reason he is popular is because Peppers is unfortuantely > stricken with a condition that makes him look funny. Not entirely - the person has a Snopes.com entry, and is a registered sex offender in Ohio. I'm not endorsing it one way or another (for now), but it's certainly not a "slam dunk" case. -Andrew (User:Fuzheado) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ben Emmel
On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I hold the opinion that any article on this man is not going to be NPOV, > since the only reason he is popular is because Peppers is unfortuantely > stricken with a condition that makes him look funny. I don't think you will be able to use that to get [[Joseph Merrick]] through AFD >Our editorial standards > should be such that we don't have to stoop to have an article designed to > inflicy more problems on the article subject. > The article wasn't designed to do that -- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andrew Lih
On 2/21/06, Andrew Lih <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel <[hidden email]> wrote: > > I hold the opinion that any article on this man is not going to be NPOV, > > since the only reason he is popular is because Peppers is unfortuantely > > stricken with a condition that makes him look funny. > > Not entirely - the person has a Snopes.com entry, and is a registered > sex offender in Ohio. > > I'm not endorsing it one way or another (for now), but it's certainly > not a "slam dunk" case. > > -Andrew (User:Fuzheado) > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [hidden email] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > No, I do agree that it's not a open-and-shut decision. But like Jimbo said, if we still care about this article in a year, then we can argue then. It's a pretty good way to find out notability. My logic goes like this: a person with a disability is not inherently notable, a sex offender is not inherently notable, so a combination of the two is only barely notable. Given that we should have high editorial standards, I think our Brian Peppers slips beneath our bar. If I was him, or a member of his family, I certainly wouldn't want it up there. -- Ben Emmel Wikipedia - User:Bratsche "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -- William Blake _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by geni
On 2/21/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I don't think you will be able to use that to get [[Joseph Merrick]] > through AFD Brian Peppers doesn't have nine books about him, nor a Tony-award winning play, an Oscar-winning movie, and a TV special. On a side note, the Merrick article needs a POV check. Can we be guessing on whether he never found love? -- Ben Emmel Wikipedia - User:Bratsche "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -- William Blake _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ben Emmel
On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 2/21/06, Andrew Lih <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > I hold the opinion that any article on this man is not going to be NPOV, > > > since the only reason he is popular is because Peppers is unfortuantely > > > stricken with a condition that makes him look funny. > > > > Not entirely - the person has a Snopes.com entry, and is a registered > > sex offender in Ohio. > > > > I'm not endorsing it one way or another (for now), but it's certainly > > not a "slam dunk" case. > > No, I do agree that it's not a open-and-shut decision. But like Jimbo said, > if we still care about this article in a year, then we can argue then. It's > a pretty good way to find out notability. My logic goes like this: a person > with a disability is not inherently notable, a sex offender is not > inherently notable, so a combination of the two is only barely notable. > Given that we should have high editorial standards, I think our Brian > Peppers slips beneath our bar. We can debate whether the math should be 0.5 x 0.5 or 0.5 + 0.5 But you did not address the fact that it has become such a referenced urban legend that it made it into Snopes.com's files. > If I was him, or a member of his family, I certainly wouldn't want it up > there. But that has never been a criteria for inclusion or exclusion. -Andrew (User:Fuzheado) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ben Emmel
On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 2/21/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > I don't think you will be able to use that to get [[Joseph Merrick]] > > through AFD > > > Brian Peppers doesn't have nine books about him, nor a Tony-award winning > play, an Oscar-winning movie, and a TV special. > Ah so we are back to the good old notibilty criteria. Now generaly at this point an inclusionist should turn up and propose some incredibily liberal criteria then refuse to budge makeing further debate tricky. > On a side note, the Merrick article needs a POV check. Can we be guessing on > whether he never found love? No he complained about it at one point. I think there is a mention of it on the BBC website. I think he hoped to meet a blind woman. -- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andrew Lih
On 2/21/06, Andrew Lih <[hidden email]> wrote:
> But you did not address the fact that it has become such a referenced > urban legend that it made it into Snopes.com's files. > > > If I was him, or a member of his family, I certainly wouldn't want it up > > there. > > But that has never been a criteria for inclusion or exclusion. > > -Andrew (User:Fuzheado) > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [hidden email] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > Snopes has a lot of stuff that I don't think would populate the annals of Wikipedia. And while the wishes of one don't determine the inclusion, they're something that we should at least keep in mind. Please realize that I'm not entirely sure on whether the article should be kept or deleted. Obviously, we're going to wait for a year anyways. -- Ben Emmel Wikipedia - User:Bratsche "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -- William Blake _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ben Emmel
I will be writing a Tony-award-winning musical about Brian Peppers within
the next year entitled "0.5 + 0.5 = My Heart: The Brian Peppers Story". I will then petition Jimbo to unblock the page. That, my friends, is *bold*. On 2/21/06, Ben Emmel <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On 2/21/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > I don't think you will be able to use that to get [[Joseph Merrick]] > > through AFD > > > Brian Peppers doesn't have nine books about him, nor a Tony-award winning > play, an Oscar-winning movie, and a TV special. > > On a side note, the Merrick article needs a POV check. Can we be guessing > on > whether he never found love? > -- > Ben Emmel > Wikipedia - User:Bratsche > "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." > -- William Blake > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [hidden email] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mark Gallagher-5
Mark Gallagher wrote:
> We were just discussing that ... Wikipedia *doesn't* want to be "the > free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". There's too much abuse, too > much ranting from trolls with a sense of self-entitlement, encouraged by > that tagline. > > I quite like the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, where good authors are > always welcome". > > > -- > Mark Gallagher > "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" > - Danger Mouse Wouldn't that be a better tagline for Wikibooks? :P -- Minh Nguyen <[hidden email]> AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: [hidden email]; Blog: http://mxn.f2o.org/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Joshua Griisser
Just a number of observations on this topic.
1. If a person is a topic of sufficient attention, for whatever reason, Wikipedia should have an article on that person. 2. I thought Delerium's stub was quite accurate & NPOV. 3. The edit history of this article had 675 edits -- including Delerium's. Sheesh. 4. I am reminded of a strategy I mentioned in another thread -- a. Silently acquiese to opponent's edits; after all, there's many other articles in need of attention. b. Wait x number of weeks. c. Revert opponent's edits while carefully leaving any later contributions intact. d. Repeat steps 2 & 3 as often as needed. and of the variations other people mentioned. 5. When I hear that this person's family is concerned about the article, are they more worried about the picture of his appearance, or that he was declared guilty in a court of law for a sex crime -- specifically on the charge of "Gross Sexual Imposition" & an attempt to do the same? 6. And just what is "Gross Sexual Imposition"? For the curious, I found a definition at http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/training/pubs/cert/unit2-2C_rev0506.pdf -- which defines it as involuntary sexual groping, with the usual conditions that apply to a definition of rape: use or threat of use of force, whether the parties involved are married[*], whether the victim was capable of consenting to this act, & if the victim was less than 13 years of age. FWIW, when I Googled for the specific part of the Ohio Revised Code that he was convicted under, I found a hit that explains this is one crime that explicitly cannot be expunged from his record. 7. Looking at this guy's picture & considering the crime he was convicted of, I have to wonder if this wasn't some mean-spirited practical joke gone badly wrong, & for which he is being mangled by the gears of justice. (Of course this kind of thing happens -- & not only in the US: I remember reading about a case in the UK where a pair of homeless bums were arrested & convicted of being notorious IRA bombers, despite the fact both were obviously incapable of holding a normal job or even attempting to apply for one, let alone managing such a demanding chore as making & setting these complicated devices.) 8. Again, FWIW I went to school with a guy with a similar deformity similar this one. He exhibited normal intelligence. If the findings of the court were accurate, then he knew what he was doing: coercing another person to being groped. 9. Are we more worried about providing verifiable information in Wikipedia, or if people are going to object to the nature of our information? After all, are we going to back off from stating that Vice-President Cheney shot Whittington in the face with a shotgun, & that Whittington later apologized to Cheny & his family for the accident? Geoff [*] I am not expressing an opinion on this clause of the relevant section of the Ohio Revised Code. I am merely reporting what it says. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mark Gallagher-5
On 2/22/06, Mark Gallagher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> We were just discussing that ... Wikipedia *doesn't* want to be "the > free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". There's too much abuse, too > much ranting from trolls with a sense of self-entitlement, encouraged by > that tagline. > > I quite like the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, where good authors are > always welcome". Oh, very well said. '''Support''' Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
«
Return to English Wikipedia
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |