Wikipedia's destiny

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
226 messages Options
1 ... 3456789 ... 12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Jimmy Wales
Bryan Derksen wrote:
> Ben Emmel wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Woah, a whole _year_? I'd thought the article was just temporarily
> deleted while some details got sorted out. _Now_ I've got a serious
> grounds for objection.

The point here is not the article itself, it is the abuse of process
that was involved.

As I said in another post, I'm happy to reduce the time period from one
year, but what I'd really like to see first is for us to all take a
really serious look at WP:LIVING, and in particular a strengthening of
the "Presumption in favor of Privacy".

"In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm."
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be
sensationalist, or be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating
claims about people's lives."




--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

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

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Peter Mackay
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales
 

> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > I see we have still made little progress in deciding why exactly we
> > want to have rules on notability, or what notability means in the
> > Wikipedia context. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I do note that
> > many others seem to have very different views on why
> certain subjects
> > should or should not feature in Wikipedia.
> >
> > For what it's worth, I feel we should begin by posing ourselves the
> > question: How likely is it that someone will come to
> Wikipedia looking
> > for information on this topic. On Peppers, I would say "fairly
> > likely".
>
> That is certainly one question we should ask.
>
> Another question is: does human dignity matter at all?

On sober reflection, unless we are publishing articles on ALL lowgrade sex
offenders (and what Peppers is listed as doing seems to rank very low on the
scale of such things) then by having an article on him, we are singling him
out for demonisation and ridicule based on his looks. Sure, he's notable
after a fashion, but the casual reader might conclude that if we have an
article on Peppers, busted for forcing his affection on somebody, and not on
Joe Blow down the street just released after twenty years inside for rude
things with great aunts and fluffy white ducks, then we must know something
they don't. Particularly looking the way he does.

It's no great step to find his address on the Ohio database thing, and
before we know it we have crowds of the Wikicurious lurking outside his
house and dogging his steps when he goes shopping so as to get a photograph
for GFDL uploading. "For the good of the encyclopaedia. We're here to write
an encyclopaedia. Moral behaviour and civic responsibility take second
place."

Do we really want people to be Wikipediaed in much the same way as websites
are routinely Slashdotted?

Peter (Skyring)


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

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

geni
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
On 2/24/06, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Well, it still may be appropriate to do whatever would have been done,
> had the AfD been respected in the first place.

It was respected.

You see somewhere in the long running battle between the deletionists
and the inclusionists the inclusionists managed to get the idea that
if an article was recreated with substantially different content into
the policy. The version of the article that was kept had substantially
different content.

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

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

geni
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
On 2/24/06, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Bryan Derksen wrote:
> > I don't have any particular investment in the article (I think I voted
> > in an AfD on it), but what you just wrote here seems to me to be similar
> > to saying "there is no legitimate reason for an article on Mr. Peppers
> > other than the legitimate reason there's an article on him." It may not
> > be _nice_ to make fun of someone based on their appearance, but if it's
> > happening enough it becomes a valid subject for an article IMO. As
> > someone else pointed out there's an article on Ghyslain Raza as another
> > example of fame through mockery making a person notable.
>
> Yes to all that.  But there's a bit of a curious circularity now that
> we've become very very big and very very powerful.  *If* something has
> become notable enough *outside wikipedia* then yes, we can and should
> have an article about it.   But we should be very extreme in our caution
> that a Wikipedia entry not be used to *drive* the very notability upon
> which the entry is supposed to *depend*.

I think it is safe to say that snopes will do a good enough job of
driving it's notability along with various other less solid reference
works around the web.


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

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Philip Welch
In reply to this post by Peter Mackay

On Feb 23, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Peter Mackay wrote:

> On sober reflection, unless we are publishing articles on ALL  
> lowgrade sex
> offenders (and what Peppers is listed as doing seems to rank very  
> low on the
> scale of such things) then by having an article on him, we are  
> singling him
> out for demonisation and ridicule based on his looks.

Perhaps we're singling him out for neutral, unbiased coverage based  
upon the widespread ridicule he has already received based on his looks?

A funny-looking sex offender isn't  notable. A gang of internet  
troglodytes pointing and laughing at a funny-looking sex offender  
very well may be. Being who and what they are, the troglodytes are  
unlikely to provide a fair accounting as to who Brian Peppers is and  
why they're making fun of him. That's supposed to be our job.

(I don't really care one way or another whether we have an article  
about him, I'm just bringing these points up in fairness.)

> It's no great step to find his address on the Ohio database thing, and
> before we know it we have crowds of the Wikicurious lurking outside  
> his
> house and dogging his steps when he goes shopping so as to get a  
> photograph
> for GFDL uploading. "For the good of the encyclopaedia. We're here  
> to write
> an encyclopaedia. Moral behaviour and civic responsibility take second
> place."

He's wheelchair-bound and lives in a nursing home.

Incidentally, I wish we did have mobs of Wikipedians out to take GFDL  
photographs of people we have articles on. It would save us from a  
lot of fair use problems.

> Do we really want people to be Wikipediaed in much the same way as  
> websites
> are routinely Slashdotted?

If by "Wikipediaed" you mean "having a fair and neutral biography  
about them written in a freely accessible online encyclopedia",  
absolutely!

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch



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

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Peter Mackay
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales
> "In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm."
> Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our
> job to be sensationalist, or be the primary vehicle for the
> spread of titillating claims about people's lives."

That's the job of WikiNews...

Pete, cub reporter http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:Skyring


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

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Bryan Derksen
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Bryan Derksen wrote:
>  
>> Woah, a whole _year_? I'd thought the article was just temporarily
>> deleted while some details got sorted out. _Now_ I've got a serious
>> grounds for objection.
>>    
>
> The point here is not the article itself, it is the abuse of process
> that was involved.
>  
My understanding of the process involved has changed several times since
I first involved myself in reaction. Initially, I thought you'd
instituted some sort of unique Jimbo decree that the article be put "on
hold" for a year and had used deletion as a way to do that. This was the
source of my vehement initial reaction - deletion is not a way to
"store" stuff. I wasn't aware of any of the many AfD/VfDs that had gone
before since there weren't notices in the talk page.

Then I found out that you'd deleted it "in process" after an AfD delete
result, and I started feeling quite embarrassed that I'd stuck my foot
in my mouth as a result of incomplete information. I may disagree with
the structure of AfD and many of its results but at least it's part of
Wikipedia's functioning that is being debated widely and may be changed.

Then I found out that the AfD delete result had been for a previous
version of the article and that the current version had _survived_ AfD,
suggesting your deletion was a unique "Jimbo thing" after all. I'm back
to being concerned that your intervention has inappropriately
short-circuited the development of what seems to be to be a legitimate
article, but having been burned by misunderstanding before I'm hesitant
to jump back in to the debate. So far I've just tried to ensure that the
Brian Pepper talk page has prominent links to the previous AfD pages to
hopefully keep my original misunderstanding from happening to others.

> As I said in another post, I'm happy to reduce the time period from one
> year, but what I'd really like to see first is for us to all take a
> really serious look at WP:LIVING, and in particular a strengthening of
> the "Presumption in favor of Privacy".
>  
Since I'm just an editor in the trenches and don't participate in all
the higher-level helpdesk/committee/Foundation stuff I may have a skewed
perspective on all this, but I worry that this post-Siegenthaler
biography tizzy is turning into a moral panic of some sort. I would
think that the existing verifiability and no original research policies
would be sufficient to deal with almost all of these sorts of cases
already. Going too far in deference to the privacy wishes of the
subjects of articles verges into POV territory.

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

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Mark
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>That is certainly one question we should ask.
>
>Another question is: does human dignity matter at all?
>  
>
That's a bit of a loaded question, and doesn't directly address the
issue actually at hand.

The more specific issue facing us is: To what extent ought we to censor
Wikipedia out of concern for human dignity?

-Mark

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

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Tony Sidaway-3
On 2/24/06, Delirium <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The more specific issue facing us is: To what extent ought we to censor
> Wikipedia out of concern for human dignity?
>

Quite a lot, I should hope.

We're in the business of education, not titillation.  We should feel
comfortable in drawing the line pretty sharply on the side of
education.  If a private individual, which this man certainly is,
suffers indignity because of our actions, then we should definitely
spend some time reconsidering our actions.

A year seems about right.  if the article really is so necessary to
Wikipedia that we should disregard or set aside such concerns.  Or
five years.  Let's not rush in making such a difficult and possibly
very damaging decision.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Mark Gallagher-5
In reply to this post by Mark

G'day Mark,

> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>>That is certainly one question we should ask.
>>
>>Another question is: does human dignity matter at all?
>
> That's a bit of a loaded question, and doesn't directly address the
> issue actually at hand.
>
> The more specific issue facing us is: To what extent ought we to censor
> Wikipedia out of concern for human dignity?

You're right, that *is* a better question (although I think you're being
a bit mischeivous with "censor", there).

I'm a bit concerned that sometimes Wikipedians have a habit of writing
articles or including information, not because it's the right thing to
do, but just basically as a way of saying "you can't tell US what to do,
mate" whenever the subject of an article complains.  In our rush to send
a big "FUCK YOU" to any censors, real or imagined, we can ignore what's
editorially or morally appropriate.  As the man who has to deal with the
angry 'phone calls and possible press issues afterwards, it's quite
clear why Jimbo might object to that sort of thing.


--
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: 268.0.0/268 - Release Date: 23/02/2006

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

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Daniel R. Tobias
In reply to this post by Joshua Griisser
On 22 Feb 2006 at 19:13, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Joshua Griisser wrote:
> > I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the
> > encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]]
>
> It wasn't unilateral.  It was an in-process deletion of recreated AfD'd
> content.  Read FCYTravis' history of the article on the talk page.

>From the history, I see that, while the first few AfDs were indeed
overwhelmingly in favor of deletion, and from what I hear about the
content of the article at that time, it almost certainly deserved it.
However, later versions became much more balanced and reasonable, and
sentiment in the AfDs was turning more toward keeping.  So, unless
you hold to the view that "AfD is Forever", etched in stone and
unchangeable for all time, there is some cause for rethinking the
deletion at this point.  After all, you yourself reopened the AfD for
[[Jeremy Rosenfeld]] after a "Keep" result you disagreed with, so you
clearly *don't* hold the opinion that AfDs are infallible or
irreversible.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


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

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Mark
In reply to this post by Mark Gallagher-5
Mark Gallagher wrote:

>I'm a bit concerned that sometimes Wikipedians have a habit of writing
>articles or including information, not because it's the right thing to
>do, but just basically as a way of saying "you can't tell US what to do,
>mate" whenever the subject of an article complains.  In our rush to send
>a big "FUCK YOU" to any censors, real or imagined, we can ignore what's
>editorially or morally appropriate.  As the man who has to deal with the
>angry 'phone calls and possible press issues afterwards, it's quite
>clear why Jimbo might object to that sort of thing.
>  
>
That may be why some people support it, but I think it's ascribing too
much bad faith to accuse most of us of supporting publishing information
simply as a way of saying "fuck you".

I, personally, believe correct, verifiable information on a subject
someone might be looking for is nearly always a net positive, and that
withholding such information is almost always a net negative.  
Publicly-available information is a cat that can't be put back into a
bag, and refusing to provide it in a neutral, verifiable manner does
nothing but: 1) increase the prominence of misinformation from
alternative sources; and 2) increase inequality in access to information.

Many people object to many things Wikipedia publishes, and make
arguments for why we should make a special rule against publishing a
specific type of information.  Among other cases are:
* Information some organizations consider non-public, such as Mormon
temple rites, Freemason ceremonies, and so on.
* Leaked information alleged to be damaging to the national security of
one or another country (e.g. details on how military training in
specific countries operates).
* Photographs deemed by some cultures to be highly offensive (e.g.
[[en:clitoris]] or the Jyllands-Posten Muhammed cartoons).

In each of those cases, the eventual decision has been to continue
publishing the information, which I think is the correct decision.  I
don't see how we can reasonably begin to limit what we publish for moral
reasons, especially since Wikipedians come from all over the world, with
vast differences in their moral views.  I also don't think it would be
ethical to do so, anyway.

-Mark

P.S. -- Lest the above get misconstrued into an overly radical
inclusionist viewpoint, I should point out that I do support a weak
notability criterion.  If someone is so non-famous that the only people
who might seek information on them are actually connected with the
person somehow (friends, family, employers, potential employers, friends
of friends, and so on), then an encyclopedia is not the proper place for
information on them.  That covers many of the speedy-delete cases
(garage bands, high-school students, and so on).

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

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Ben Lowe
btw, [[Brian Peppers]] got unlocked about 20 minutes ago..... any theories?

On 2/24/06, Delirium <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Mark Gallagher wrote:
>
> >I'm a bit concerned that sometimes Wikipedians have a habit of writing
> >articles or including information, not because it's the right thing to
> >do, but just basically as a way of saying "you can't tell US what to do,
> >mate" whenever the subject of an article complains.  In our rush to send
> >a big "FUCK YOU" to any censors, real or imagined, we can ignore what's
> >editorially or morally appropriate.  As the man who has to deal with the
> >angry 'phone calls and possible press issues afterwards, it's quite
> >clear why Jimbo might object to that sort of thing.
> >
> >
> That may be why some people support it, but I think it's ascribing too
> much bad faith to accuse most of us of supporting publishing information
> simply as a way of saying "fuck you".
>
> I, personally, believe correct, verifiable information on a subject
> someone might be looking for is nearly always a net positive, and that
> withholding such information is almost always a net negative.
> Publicly-available information is a cat that can't be put back into a
> bag, and refusing to provide it in a neutral, verifiable manner does
> nothing but: 1) increase the prominence of misinformation from
> alternative sources; and 2) increase inequality in access to information.
>
> Many people object to many things Wikipedia publishes, and make
> arguments for why we should make a special rule against publishing a
> specific type of information.  Among other cases are:
> * Information some organizations consider non-public, such as Mormon
> temple rites, Freemason ceremonies, and so on.
> * Leaked information alleged to be damaging to the national security of
> one or another country (e.g. details on how military training in
> specific countries operates).
> * Photographs deemed by some cultures to be highly offensive (e.g.
> [[en:clitoris]] or the Jyllands-Posten Muhammed cartoons).
>
> In each of those cases, the eventual decision has been to continue
> publishing the information, which I think is the correct decision.  I
> don't see how we can reasonably begin to limit what we publish for moral
> reasons, especially since Wikipedians come from all over the world, with
> vast differences in their moral views.  I also don't think it would be
> ethical to do so, anyway.
>
> -Mark
>
> P.S. -- Lest the above get misconstrued into an overly radical
> inclusionist viewpoint, I should point out that I do support a weak
> notability criterion.  If someone is so non-famous that the only people
> who might seek information on them are actually connected with the
> person somehow (friends, family, employers, potential employers, friends
> of friends, and so on), then an encyclopedia is not the proper place for
> information on them.  That covers many of the speedy-delete cases
> (garage bands, high-school students, and so on).
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Peter Mackay
In reply to this post by Mark
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Delirium
> I, personally, believe correct, verifiable information on a
> subject someone might be looking for is nearly always a net
> positive, and that withholding such information is almost
> always a net negative.  
> Publicly-available information is a cat that can't be put
> back into a bag, and refusing to provide it in a neutral,
> verifiable manner does nothing but: 1) increase the
> prominence of misinformation from alternative sources; and 2)
> increase inequality in access to information.

Some public information, such as contained in registers of sex offenders or
sale prices on house transfers, is generally relatively difficult to find
and search. Sure, it's public info, but it's not readily available.

Having a Wikipedia article - a notorious Wikipedia article - is a different
thing. For one thing, it will tend to rank high on a Google search, whereas
that Ohio register doesn't seem to be at all prominent. For another, the
mere fact that there *is* an article when so many more notorious sex
offenders go unmentioned here sends a message, and not one that I think
Wikipedia should be sending.

The reason the subject of the article was in WP is not because of his
crime(s), but because of his appearance. To my mind, by including the
article, we are not presenting a professional face to the world.

And saying that the subject is now notorious and therefore notable is a
circular argument.

Peter (Skyring)


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

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Mark
Peter Mackay wrote:

>Some public information, such as contained in registers of sex offenders or
>sale prices on house transfers, is generally relatively difficult to find
>and search. Sure, it's public info, but it's not readily available.
>
>Having a Wikipedia article - a notorious Wikipedia article - is a different
>thing. For one thing, it will tend to rank high on a Google search, whereas
>that Ohio register doesn't seem to be at all prominent.
>

Are you at all familiar with the subject we're discussing?  Have you
actually tried searching Google for "Brian Peppers"?  Information on him
is quite readily available, quite apart from any obscure sex-offender
registry.  Wikipedia is not even the highest-ranked result (snopes.com
is), and there are *161,000* hits.  It's not as if Wikipedia pulled some
obscure sex offender out of a registry and catapulted him to
notoriety---he was catapulted to notoriety by fark.com,
somethingawful.com, ytmnd.com, and various other high-traffic places on
the internet, and we just reported that fact.

>The reason the subject of the article was in WP is not because of his
>crime(s), but because of his appearance. To my mind, by including the
>article, we are not presenting a professional face to the world.
>  
>
Neither of those is the reason.  The subject of the article is in WP for
the same reason [[en:Star Wars kid]] is: because he gained notoriety as
the result of an internet fad.

>And saying that the subject is now notorious and therefore notable is a
>circular argument.
>  
>
It's not circular at all.  If Wikipedia had made him notable, that would
be circular.  However, he became notable through no action of our own,
and now we're documenting it, like we document everything people might
look for information on.

-Mark

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

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Peter Mackay
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Delirium
> Sent: Friday, 24 February 2006 16:55
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny
>
> Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> >Some public information, such as contained in registers of sex
> >offenders or sale prices on house transfers, is generally relatively
> >difficult to find and search. Sure, it's public info, but
> it's not readily available.
> >
> >Having a Wikipedia article - a notorious Wikipedia article - is a
> >different thing. For one thing, it will tend to rank high on
> a Google
> >search, whereas that Ohio register doesn't seem to be at all
> prominent.
> >
>
> Are you at all familiar with the subject we're discussing?  
> Have you actually tried searching Google for "Brian Peppers"?

Your tone leaves a lttle to be desired, but yes, I know what we are talking
about and yes, I Googled him before posting.

>  Information on him is quite readily available, quite apart
> from any obscure sex-offender registry.  Wikipedia is not
> even the highest-ranked result (snopes.com is), and there are
> *161,000* hits.  It's not as if Wikipedia pulled some obscure
> sex offender out of a registry and catapulted him to
> notoriety---he was catapulted to notoriety by fark.com,
> somethingawful.com, ytmnd.com, and various other high-traffic
> places on the internet, and we just reported that fact.

I'm well aware of this, but it's immaterial. There's a lot of stuff on the
Internet, but we don't use the fact that information is available or even
prominent on the Internet as the overarching criterion for inclusion.

> >The reason the subject of the article was in WP is not
> because of his
> >crime(s), but because of his appearance. To my mind, by
> including the
> >article, we are not presenting a professional face to the world.
> >  
> >
> Neither of those is the reason.  The subject of the article
> is in WP for the same reason [[en:Star Wars kid]] is: because
> he gained notoriety as the result of an internet fad.

With all due respect, this is tosh. He's notorious because of his face.
Saying he's notorious for any other reason is evading the point.
 
> >And saying that the subject is now notorious and therefore
> notable is a
> >circular argument.
> >  
> >
> It's not circular at all.  If Wikipedia had made him notable,
> that would be circular.

I think we'll have to disagree on this. Having a Wikipedia article - a
notorious Wikipedia article - makes a person even more notorious. We're part
of the process, even if you think we have no impact.

>  However, he became notable through
> no action of our own, and now we're documenting it, like we
> document everything people might look for information on.

Let them look for it on Snopes then. I'm with Jimbo on this one. We don't
need to assist in demonising people. Let's have some standards, please.

Peter (Skyring)


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

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Stan Shebs
In reply to this post by Mark
Delirium wrote:

>  Have you
>actually tried searching Google for "Brian Peppers"?  Information on him
>is quite readily available, quite apart from any obscure sex-offender
>registry.  Wikipedia is not even the highest-ranked result (snopes.com
>is), and there are *161,000* hits.
>
I only see 92,000, while "Stan Shebs" gets 115,000. So how is it
that he's notable enough to have an article and I'm not? I even
have actual accomplishments to describe, albeit no bizarre
physical features to snicker at (or at least I haven't noticed
any pointing and giggling :-) ).

Stan

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

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Mark
Stan Shebs wrote:

>I only see 92,000, while "Stan Shebs" gets 115,000. So how is it
>that he's notable enough to have an article and I'm not? I even
>have actual accomplishments to describe, albeit no bizarre
>physical features to snicker at (or at least I haven't noticed
>any pointing and giggling :-) ).
>  
>
In any case, it's in the multiple tens of thousands, so I think we can
agree that the original Wikipedia article writer didn't dig up Brian
Peppers from the obscurity of the Ohio sex offenders registry.

As for why you don't have an article, I would've thought that is fairly
obvious.  Unless you're famous in some area I don't know about, it would
seem not very many people have commented publicly about you.  If they
have, or if you do something that causes a few thousands of people to
write about you, then I should think you ought to have a Wikipedia article.

-Mark

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

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Peter Mackay
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Delirium
>
> Stan Shebs wrote:
>
> >I only see 92,000, while "Stan Shebs" gets 115,000. So how
> is it that
> >he's notable enough to have an article and I'm not? I even
> have actual
> >accomplishments to describe, albeit no bizarre physical features to
> >snicker at (or at least I haven't noticed any pointing and
> giggling :-)
> >).
> >  
> >
> In any case, it's in the multiple tens of thousands, so I
> think we can agree that the original Wikipedia article writer
> didn't dig up Brian Peppers from the obscurity of the Ohio
> sex offenders registry.

Nevertheless, that's the only source we have. Everything else merely
references it or comments on it.

> As for why you don't have an article, I would've thought that
> is fairly obvious.  Unless you're famous in some area I don't
> know about, it would seem not very many people have commented
> publicly about you.

115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the face.

> If they have, or if you do something
> that causes a few thousands of people to write about you,
> then I should think you ought to have a Wikipedia article.

115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the face. Start writing.

Pete, deservedly obscure


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

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Mark
Peter Mackay wrote:

>>As for why you don't have an article, I would've thought that
>>is fairly obvious.  Unless you're famous in some area I don't
>>know about, it would seem not very many people have commented
>>publicly about you.
>>    
>>
>
>115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the face.
>  
>
Did you look at any of them?  Note in my quote I said "not very many
people have commented about you", which empirically appears to be true:
Almost all of those hits are either for other people named Stan Shebs,
or to posts written by our Stan Shebs himself (e.g. on Wikipedia or on
mailing lists).

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

-Mark

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1 ... 3456789 ... 12