The dignity of Wikipedia's subjects

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Tue May 06, 2014 1:15 pm

Link. I invite your critique of this edit to Wikipedia's biography policy.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue May 06, 2014 1:34 pm

Seems like a super-nice thing to do. Of course, some humans have less dignity to hold in regard than others. (I'm thinking here about people like Charles Manson, Pol Pot, Josef Mengele, Philippe Beaudette, and the like.)

KIDDING about that last one!

Off2riorob · Unread post by **Off2riorob** » Tue May 06, 2014 1:38 pm

seems like a good call, might keep a few of the worst cases out, its holding in, the weight of discussion just about strong enough to keep it in.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Tue May 06, 2014 1:56 pm

thekohser wrote:Seems like a super-nice thing to do. Of course, some humans have less dignity to hold in regard than others. (I'm thinking here about people like Charles Manson, Pol Pot, Josef Mengele, Philippe Beaudette, and the like.)

KIDDING about that last one!

No one's suggesting concern for our subjects' feelings trumps the encyclopedia's utility. Most decent editors of BLP's already take this into account. It's just that you run into the occasional person who argues that it's not something we may take into account. And often such encounters escalate to chronophagic nightmares.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Tue May 06, 2014 2:04 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:Most decent editors of BLP's already take this into account. It's just that you run into the occasional person who argues that it's not something we may take into account. And often such encounters escalate to chronophagic nightmares.

I think the larger problem is the number of people on Wikipedia who think that a living person is entitled to exactly as much dignity in an encyclopedia article as is Bulbasaur.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Tue May 06, 2014 2:04 pm

Off2riorob wrote:seems like a good call, might keep a few of the worst cases out, its holding in, the weight of discussion just about strong enough to keep it in.

It lasted 14 hours. Link

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Tue May 06, 2014 2:10 pm

Ah ha! REVERTED as "no consensus" by the notoriously foul administrator and Selena Gomez obsessor Kww!

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Tue May 06, 2014 2:13 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:I think the larger problem is the number of people on Wikipedia who think that a living person is entitled to exactly as much dignity in an encyclopedia article as is Bulbasaur.

Yep. Them. I'm fairly sure they're a minority, but I've no idea if they have enough weight of argument and numbers to stymie a Wikipedia consensus.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue May 06, 2014 6:46 pm

To be honest I have no respect at this point for any of Wikipedia's policies, BLP included. They only exist to be used as a Banhammer by POV pushing admnis. If the admins on the site are exempt from policy and are allowed to unlimited discretion to enforce the rules only when they don't apply to admins, I see no point in any of them. They may as well not exist. That is the primary reason I have no desire or intention to stop protesting my ban through the use of IP's or alternate accounts. If the policies don't apply to them, then there is no reason whatsoever I should follow them either. Free Kumioko!

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:21 am

The annual attempt to rename Hillary is under way.

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

Her people told Jimmy she would prefer the existing name, "Hillary Rodham Clinton", but a strict reading of Wikipedia's style guide favours "Hillary Clinton".

Wikipedia is overpopulated with sexist men, men who have no concept of identity issues and men who are slaves to rules even when the rules harm. Surprisingly, although last year there was a two thirds majority in favour of the move, the attempt failed.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:37 am

Anthonyhcole wrote:The annual attempt to rename Hillary is under way.

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

Her people told Jimmy she would prefer the existing name, "Hillary Rodham Clinton", but a strict reading of Wikipedia's style guide favours "Hillary Clinton".

Wikipedia is overpopulated with sexist men, men who have no concept of identity issues and men who are slaves to rules even when the rules harm. Surprisingly, although last year there was a two thirds majority in favour of the move, the attempt failed.

I support the idea that the subjects of biographies in Wikipedia should have a say in how those biographies are named. I would hope that, in a real encyclopaedia, the editors took the concerns of the subject into account and made their decisions in a consistent manner.

However, aside from one small section, your last paragraph, although true in a general sense is just silly in the context of this issue. Even the bit about "following the rules even when the rules harm" comes off over the top when considered against the fact that the blog entry is about one of the most powerful women in the world.

"Hillary Clinton" is the wrong choice because it isn't complete, not because some very powerful individual who can afford an army of PR professionals says it is.

Of course, knowing Wikipedia, there's also the case that at least half of the twits want to make it HC rather than HRC just to be contrary.

Because they are so important.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:49 am

Notvelty wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:The annual attempt to rename Hillary is under way.

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

Her people told Jimmy she would prefer the existing name, "Hillary Rodham Clinton", but a strict reading of Wikipedia's style guide favours "Hillary Clinton".

Wikipedia is overpopulated with sexist men, men who have no concept of identity issues and men who are slaves to rules even when the rules harm. Surprisingly, although last year there was a two thirds majority in favour of the move, the attempt failed.
I support the idea that the subjects of biographies in Wikipedia should have a say in how those biographies are named. I would hope that, in a real encyclopaedia, the editors took the concerns of the subject into account and made their decisions in a consistent manner.

However, aside from one small section, your last paragraph, although true in a general sense is just silly in the context of this issue. Even the bit about "following the rules even when the rules harm" comes off over the top when considered against the fact that the blog entry is about one of the most powerful women in the world.

"Hillary Clinton" is the wrong choice because it isn't complete, not because some very powerful individual who can afford an army of PR professionals says it is.

Of course, knowing Wikipedia, there's also the case that at least half of the twits want to make it HC rather than HRC just to be contrary.

Because they are so important.

Hilary Rodham Clinton is the right choice because it is her choice and it won't negatively affect the reader experience - calling her something else when we know her preference would be a gratuitous insult. As for my last sentence, it's all true and relevant to this instance. Sorry you don't get it, but I'm not a bit surprised.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:11 am

Anthonyhcole wrote:Hilary Rodham Clinton is the right choice because it is her choice and it won't negatively affect the reader experience - calling her something else when we know her preference would be a gratuitous insult. As for my last sentence, it's all true and relevant to this instance. Sorry you don't get it, but I'm not a bit surprised.

Basically correct, although I doubt it will matter. It's on Wikipedia, where it must be meddled, at all costs and with complete disregard for the subject or any actual "facts".

Ever seen a Reddit thing called The Button? No one has ever seen it count down to zero, someone always resets it. It's a magnet for ADHD meddlers.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:48 am

Anthonyhcole wrote:
Notvelty wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:The annual attempt to rename Hillary is under way.

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

Her people told Jimmy she would prefer the existing name, "Hillary Rodham Clinton", but a strict reading of Wikipedia's style guide favours "Hillary Clinton".

Wikipedia is overpopulated with sexist men, men who have no concept of identity issues and men who are slaves to rules even when the rules harm. Surprisingly, although last year there was a two thirds majority in favour of the move, the attempt failed.
I support the idea that the subjects of biographies in Wikipedia should have a say in how those biographies are named. I would hope that, in a real encyclopaedia, the editors took the concerns of the subject into account and made their decisions in a consistent manner.

However, aside from one small section, your last paragraph, although true in a general sense is just silly in the context of this issue. Even the bit about "following the rules even when the rules harm" comes off over the top when considered against the fact that the blog entry is about one of the most powerful women in the world.

"Hillary Clinton" is the wrong choice because it isn't complete, not because some very powerful individual who can afford an army of PR professionals says it is.

Of course, knowing Wikipedia, there's also the case that at least half of the twits want to make it HC rather than HRC just to be contrary.

Because they are so important.
Hilary Rodham Clinton is the right choice because it is her choice and it won't negatively affect the reader experience - calling her something else when we know her preference would be a gratuitous insult. As for my last sentence, it's all true and relevant to this instance. Sorry you don't get it, but I'm not a bit surprised.

It is my choice that you should refer to me as "Notvelty, The LorD and MaSter". Note the capitalisation.

I await with much anticipation your response.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:13 am

Notvelty wrote:It is my choice that you should refer to me as "Notvelty, The LorD and MaSter". Note the capitalisation.

I await with much anticipation your response.

It's not apples and apples. In one case we have a real person wanting to include her real maiden name in her real surname; in the other we have you.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:52 am

Anthonyhcole wrote:
Notvelty wrote:It is my choice that you should refer to me as "Notvelty, The LorD and MaSter". Note the capitalisation.

I await with much anticipation your response.
It's not apples and apples. In one case we have a real person wanting to include her real maiden name in her real surname; in the other we have you.

So there is a line. And indeed what you require is that, aside from just an "x wants it so" there must also be a reasonable basis for that request. In this case the reasonable basis is that it is her maiden name and it would be added, in accordance with fairly common practice, to her surname.

Nothing at all to do with bullshit identity politics or some ridiculous notion that one of the most powerful people in the world is a victim.

I do note that "othering" of someone with a different point of view to you, though. Apparently, I'm not a human being and therefore am not able to choose how someone can refer to me - all because even though I come to the same conclusion on HRC's name, I arrive at it by a different path (or indeed the same path, but I manage to be a little less hysterical about it).

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 7:21 am

Notvelty wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
Notvelty wrote:It is my choice that you should refer to me as "Notvelty, The LorD and MaSter". Note the capitalisation.

I await with much anticipation your response.
It's not apples and apples. In one case we have a real person wanting to include her real maiden name in her real surname; in the other we have you.
So there is a line. And indeed what you require is that, aside from just an "x wants it so" there must also be a reasonable basis for that request. In this case the reasonable basis is that it is her maiden name and it would be added, in accordance with fairly common practice, to her surname.

Nothing at all to do with bullshit identity politics or some ridiculous notion that one of the most powerful people in the world is a victim.

I do note that "othering" of someone with a different point of view to you, though. Apparently, I'm not a human being and therefore am not able to choose how someone can refer to me - all because even though I come to the same conclusion on HRC's name, I arrive at it by a different path (or indeed the same path, but I manage to be a little less hysterical about it).

Are you requesting a name change? Tony has no role in our vast hierarchy of power users, Mods, Admins, and Trustees. Please submit to the Proper People.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 7:34 am

Notvelty wrote:....Nothing at all to do with bullshit identity politics...

We disagree.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 8:26 am

Notvelty wrote:Apparently, I'm not a human being and therefore am not able to choose how someone can refer to me

Are you for real with this ridiculous argument? If you're unable to distinguish the difference between your screen name on a forum and the real name of a person being discussed in an encyclopedia, then you have a problem.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 9:18 am

Hex wrote:
Notvelty wrote:Apparently, I'm not a human being and therefore am not able to choose how someone can refer to me
Are you for real with this ridiculous argument? If you're unable to distinguish the difference between your screen name on a forum and the real name of a person being discussed in an encyclopedia, then you have a problem.

It's the way I've decided I want to be identified. Apparently, I'm not allowed because bigots have decided not to allow me to define my own identity.

(Fucking ridiculous isn't it? Good, then how about we stop pretending that personal preference is anything other than one consideration of many? And stop pretending that an incredibly powerful individual is a victim.)

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 12:15 pm

Notvelty wrote:
Hex wrote:
Notvelty wrote:Apparently, I'm not a human being and therefore am not able to choose how someone can refer to me
Are you for real with this ridiculous argument? If you're unable to distinguish the difference between your screen name on a forum and the real name of a person being discussed in an encyclopedia, then you have a problem.
It's the way I've decided I want to be identified. Apparently, I'm not allowed because bigots have decided not to allow me to define my own identity.

(Fucking ridiculous isn't it? Good, then how about we stop pretending that personal preference is anything other than one consideration of many? And stop pretending that an incredibly powerful individual is a victim.)

Making yourself look stupid today, Notvelty. It's a rare thing for you. I do it sometimes, too. Best to just drop the shovel and stop digging.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:05 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:
thekohser wrote:Seems like a super-nice thing to do. Of course, some humans have less dignity to hold in regard than others. (I'm thinking here about people like Charles Manson, Pol Pot, Josef Mengele, Philippe Beaudette, and the like.)

KIDDING about that last one!
No one's suggesting concern for our subjects' feelings trumps the encyclopedia's utility. Most decent editors of BLP's already take this into account. It's just that you run into the occasional person who argues that it's not something we may take into account. And often such encounters escalate to chronophagic nightmares.

That's EXACTLY what you're suggesting...

Or exactly the argument that POV-pushers are going to make as they sweep shit under the rug...

RfB

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:43 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:No one's suggesting concern for our subjects' feelings trumps the encyclopedia's utility. Most decent editors of BLP's already take this into account. It's just that you run into the occasional person who argues that it's not something we may take into account. And often such encounters escalate to chronophagic nightmares.
That's EXACTLY what you're suggesting...

No I'm not. I'm suggesting that, where it doesn't negatively affect the encyclopedia's utility to do so, we should treat our subjects with respect. In so many words. That's the alpha and omega of what I'm saying. Nothing more. Nothing less. Since that is what, and only what, I'm saying, how can it make any kind of sense for you to say I am "suggesting concern for our subjects' feelings trumps the encyclopedia's utility"?

I get that you're claiming to be terrified some fool may try to use that idea - that, where it doesn't harm the encyclopedia's utility, we should treat our subjects with respect - to do exactly what it explicitly excludes: harm the encyclopedia's utility by excluding important information on the grounds that it is hurtful to the subject. I get it. And, I suppose, it is inevitable that some fool would occasionally misread that proposition and try to use it to do the opposite of what it says. But, given that the fool would be trying to do exactly what is excluded by that proposition, he is highly unlikely succeed.

Hardly seems like a good reason to argue against "respect the basic human dignity of our BLP subjects when doing so won't harm the encyclopedia." Have I got you right? "Duh. '''Oppose'''. Some idiot might misunderstand it and try to use it to delete some noteworthy negative information from a BLP." I'm so sick of you. Really. You and Geni and Kww should form a WikiProject. WikiProject Callous Cunts. I predict it will be heavily-subscribed.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:19 pm

BLP rules are a cudgel for content warriors enforcing House POV, allowing them to snip or blank sourced information.

Nothing more, nothing less...

RfB

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:35 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:BLP rules are a cudgel for content warriors enforcing House POV, allowing them to snip or blank sourced information.

Nothing more, nothing less...

Oh? So, if it's sourced, it belongs in a BLP. A 1973 parking fine. An ugly argument with a spouse in a restaurant. A police investigation that turned up nothing. These all belong in some poor schmuck's "biography" on Wikipedia if they're reported in some source. You are an arse hole. You and your type are what is wrong with Wikipedia. You're worse than abd on several dimensions.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:44 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:BLP rules are a cudgel for content warriors enforcing House POV, allowing them to snip or blank sourced information.

Nothing more, nothing less...
Oh? So, if it's sourced, it belongs in a BLP. A 1973 parking fine. An ugly argument with a spouse in a restaurant. A police investigation that turned up nothing. These all belong in some poor schmuck's "biography" on Wikipedia if they're reported in some source. You are an arse hole. You and your type are what is wrong with Wikipedia. You're worse than abd on several dimensions.

Fucking ow.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 6:59 pm

The "community" is very inconsistent about using someone's preferred name. In the Bradley/Chelsea Manning case, they rushed to do so. However, in the Christine Hamilton case, they overturned a move although she had legally changed her name, which Manning had not. Of course, Manning was a hero to a lot of people, whereas Hamilton is a right-wing eccentric.

collect · Unread post by **collect** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 7:18 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:BLP rules are a cudgel for content warriors enforcing House POV, allowing them to snip or blank sourced information.

Nothing more, nothing less...
Oh? So, if it's sourced, it belongs in a BLP. A 1973 parking fine. An ugly argument with a spouse in a restaurant. A police investigation that turned up nothing. These all belong in some poor schmuck's "biography" on Wikipedia if they're reported in some source. You are an arse hole. You and your type are what is wrong with Wikipedia. You're worse than abd on several dimensions.

What I wish had been a hypothetical example - a tabloidish source says a person was seen "naked and masturbating in the middle of the street" where the reputable sources do not make the claim, and the police report does not make that claim -- and some editors insisted that we include "naked and masturbating" in the BLP because they found an internet source using those words. That fight I prevailed, along with a bunch of others showing rational behaviour.

Did I really win? Look at this BLP which I find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_Norcross "On 9 May 2013, photographs of Norcross naked and masturbating were leaked onto the internet. Norcross apologized for the images on Twitter, stating "Fuuuuuuck!!!! People these days!!!! Cooooome oooonnn guys we have all done it I’m just the stupid one that got caught! Sorry guys" sourced to the wonderful source for all such matters: tvnewsroom.org. Oh - and the source is no longer available. <g>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jason ... Archives/1 inter alia shows that I was accused of being a vandal (see the edit summaries from the same period on that BLP). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =602012704 shows that one of those who most frequently commented negatively on my beliefs as to BLP stated that if an editor can "see" that a person is naked in a video, then Wikipedia should use what the editors knows to be true <g>. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =526033645 shows the type of editor I had to deal with on that BLP.

In short - (too many examples to waste your time with) the exact same mentality shown so nicely at User:Collect/BLP is still around in "full force and vigour" (famous phrase lest anyone make the "bosh and twaddle" accusation about me again).

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 7:54 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:You are an arse hole.

Tony, you're picking up a nice collection of people who disappoint you, it seems.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:03 pm

thekohser wrote:
Notvelty wrote:
Hex wrote:
Notvelty wrote:Apparently, I'm not a human being and therefore am not able to choose how someone can refer to me
Are you for real with this ridiculous argument? If you're unable to distinguish the difference between your screen name on a forum and the real name of a person being discussed in an encyclopedia, then you have a problem.
It's the way I've decided I want to be identified. Apparently, I'm not allowed because bigots have decided not to allow me to define my own identity.

(Fucking ridiculous isn't it? Good, then how about we stop pretending that personal preference is anything other than one consideration of many? And stop pretending that an incredibly powerful individual is a victim.)
Making yourself look stupid today, Notvelty. It's a rare thing for you. I do it sometimes, too. Best to just drop the shovel and stop digging.

I'm a bit confused, I have to say, Greg.

What appears to be happening is that Anthony and Scott have decided that, because I arrived at the same conclusion they did via a different path and then pointed out that their reasoning was silly.. well I don't know what they are trying to say. The moral posturing has been a bit over the top, so it's quite hard to work out exactly what their point is.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:09 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
thekohser wrote:Seems like a super-nice thing to do. Of course, some humans have less dignity to hold in regard than others. (I'm thinking here about people like Charles Manson, Pol Pot, Josef Mengele, Philippe Beaudette, and the like.)

KIDDING about that last one!
No one's suggesting concern for our subjects' feelings trumps the encyclopedia's utility. Most decent editors of BLP's already take this into account. It's just that you run into the occasional person who argues that it's not something we may take into account. And often such encounters escalate to chronophagic nightmares.
That's EXACTLY what you're suggesting...

RfB

I have to agree (my bolding). It certainly did read like Anthony was saying that the first and only consideration was what the subject wanted. Anthony, if you feel that the subjects wishes are just one of many considerations for how they might be named in a reference work, then we agree.

Apparently that makes us arseholes.. or something.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:26 pm

Poetlister wrote:In the Bradley/Chelsea Manning case, they rushed to do so.

My memory is that it was a long drawn out ugly fight. It was hardly a quick and simple rename with no objections.

sparkzilla · Unread post by **sparkzilla** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:09 am

Anthonyhcole wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:BLP rules are a cudgel for content warriors enforcing House POV, allowing them to snip or blank sourced information.

Nothing more, nothing less...
Oh? So, if it's sourced, it belongs in a BLP. A 1973 parking fine. An ugly argument with a spouse in a restaurant. A police investigation that turned up nothing. These all belong in some poor schmuck's "biography" on Wikipedia if they're reported in some source. You are an arse hole. You and your type are what is wrong with Wikipedia. You're worse than abd on several dimensions.

You are both correct -- it's just that the medium is wrong. The problem is that Wikipedia has a confusion in its role as an encyclopedia a news archive. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, then it should be selective about the content of biography. Traditionally this was because encyclopedias did not have a lot of print space. With unlimited space (and in the absence of a clear policy) bored editors will naturally want to add more and more detail. Then the page turns into a news archive. If Wikipedia is a news archive then no news should be left out.

Subjects should get no say in what the news says about them unless libelous. We don't give subjects veto power over how they are reported. The news has very little sensitivity or care for those who they report on -- if it did the business could not function. The question is how should a site like Wikipedia deal with republishing that news.

Ambiguous BLP rules are definitely a tool used by admins and powerful editors to enforce POV. My questioning the ambiguous BLP policy of "sensitivity" to a subject led to my ban, over what should have been a non-controversial edit to Richard Gere's page. I created my site as an alternative to this confusion. as a news archive, we allow anything that could be considered news to be added -- a much lower standard of inclusion than Wikipedia's.

It's a question of weighting - something that Wikipedia is very bad at. Right now, each WP page is a mass of inconsistent editorial decisions. For example, talking about Gere's marriage was deemed insensitive to the subject, yet celebrities' affairs are included on other pages, and the victims of murderers are included. The weighting problem could be mitigated in software, for example, imagine every event was added and readers could then vote for what was important or not, and then not display those items (we are creating a system like this on Newslines). As it stands, anyone with enough power can censor or add POV material.

Whatever the case, there is no need for namecalling here.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:15 am

thekohser wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:You are an arse hole.
Tony, you're picking up a nice collection of people who disappoint you, it seems.

I don't imagine my list is any longer than yours, Greg. Jimmy didn't do this on his own.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:22 am

Anthonyhcole wrote:
thekohser wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:You are an arse hole.
Tony, you're picking up a nice collection of people who disappoint you, it seems.
I don't imagine my list is any longer than yours, Greg. Jimmy didn't do this on his own.

I think something ate a comment of yours and then my response.

Probably the most useful part of it was a reference to this chap:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... havez.html

Now is there any reason that his name on a biography shouldn't be Scott Fistler?

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 12:06 pm

Notvelty wrote: What appears to be happening is that Anthony and Scott have decided that, because I arrived at the same conclusion they did via a different path and then pointed out that their reasoning was silly.. well I don't know what they are trying to say.

You did no such thing, so it's no wonder that you don't know what's going on.

thekohser wrote:Best to just drop the shovel and stop digging.

Quite.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 12:28 pm

Anroth wrote:
Poetlister wrote:In the Bradley/Chelsea Manning case, they rushed to do so.
My memory is that it was a long drawn out ugly fight. It was hardly a quick and simple rename with no objections.

Any bets on how long the one about Bruce Jenner (T-H-L) will be?

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:07 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:BLP rules are a cudgel for content warriors enforcing House POV, allowing them to snip or blank sourced information.

Nothing more, nothing less...
Oh? So, if it's sourced, it belongs in a BLP. A 1973 parking fine. An ugly argument with a spouse in a restaurant. A police investigation that turned up nothing. These all belong in some poor schmuck's "biography" on Wikipedia if they're reported in some source. You are an arse hole. You and your type are what is wrong with Wikipedia. You're worse than abd on several dimensions.

At what point did I ever say that every molecule of published information which ever saw print or pixels belongs in a biography? There is plenty of room for editorial discretion and editorial debate without pusillanimous ninnies like yourself creating 16 page treatises on niceness and acceptability — unreadable Vogonesque garbage that is only of use to High Priests of House POV in content wars for their sacred wording and to official whitewashers...

RfB

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 7:36 pm

Anroth wrote:
Poetlister wrote:In the Bradley/Chelsea Manning case, they rushed to do so.
My memory is that it was a long drawn out ugly fight. It was hardly a quick and simple rename with no objections.

Sorry, yes, you're right. But someone rushed to do so, and many people supported him.

Konveyor Belt · Unread post by **Konveyor Belt** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:04 am

Dignity is just a blanket statement for the POV warriors to use when the statement mentioned immediately mentioned before it, privacy, does not fit.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:06 pm

Konveyor Belt wrote:Dignity is just a blanket statement for the POV warriors to use when the statement mentioned immediately mentioned before it, privacy, does not fit.

To be clear: Wikipedia editors shouldn't take any account at all of the privacy or the basic human dignity of the people they write about, and anyone who says these things are a legitimate concern is a just POV warrior. Is that your position?

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:20 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:BLP rules are a cudgel for content warriors enforcing House POV, allowing them to snip or blank sourced information.

Nothing more, nothing less...
Oh? So, if it's sourced, it belongs in a BLP. A 1973 parking fine. An ugly argument with a spouse in a restaurant. A police investigation that turned up nothing. These all belong in some poor schmuck's "biography" on Wikipedia if they're reported in some source. You are an arse hole. You and your type are what is wrong with Wikipedia. You're worse than abd on several dimensions.
At what point did I ever say that every molecule of published information which ever saw print or pixels belongs in a biography? There is plenty of room for editorial discretion and editorial debate without pusillanimous ninnies like yourself creating 16 page treatises on niceness and acceptability — unreadable Vogonesque garbage that is only of use to High Priests of House POV in content wars for their sacred wording and to official whitewashers...

(Mods. He called me a pusillanimous ninny!) Which BLP rules do you have a problem with? Clearly there's something about your position I'm not getting.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:42 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:BLP rules are a cudgel for content warriors enforcing House POV, allowing them to snip or blank sourced information.

Nothing more, nothing less...
Oh? So, if it's sourced, it belongs in a BLP. A 1973 parking fine. An ugly argument with a spouse in a restaurant. A police investigation that turned up nothing. These all belong in some poor schmuck's "biography" on Wikipedia if they're reported in some source. You are an arse hole. You and your type are what is wrong with Wikipedia. You're worse than abd on several dimensions.
At what point did I ever say that every molecule of published information which ever saw print or pixels belongs in a biography? There is plenty of room for editorial discretion and editorial debate without pusillanimous ninnies like yourself creating 16 page treatises on niceness and acceptability — unreadable Vogonesque garbage that is only of use to High Priests of House POV in content wars for their sacred wording and to official whitewashers...
(Mods. He called me a pusillanimous ninny!) Which BLP rules do you have a problem with? Clearly there's something about your position I'm not getting.

What do you expect from an "arsehole"???

:-)

tim

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:49 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:BLP rules are a cudgel for content warriors enforcing House POV, allowing them to snip or blank sourced information.

Nothing more, nothing less...
Oh? So, if it's sourced, it belongs in a BLP. A 1973 parking fine. An ugly argument with a spouse in a restaurant. A police investigation that turned up nothing. These all belong in some poor schmuck's "biography" on Wikipedia if they're reported in some source. You are an arse hole. You and your type are what is wrong with Wikipedia. You're worse than abd on several dimensions.
At what point did I ever say that every molecule of published information which ever saw print or pixels belongs in a biography? There is plenty of room for editorial discretion and editorial debate without pusillanimous ninnies like yourself creating 16 page treatises on niceness and acceptability — unreadable Vogonesque garbage that is only of use to High Priests of House POV in content wars for their sacred wording and to official whitewashers...
(Mods. He called me a pusillanimous ninny!) Which BLP rules do you have a problem with? Clearly there's something about your position I'm not getting.
What do you expect from an "arsehole"???
:-)

I apologise. Sincerely. My problem with you is I can't help liking you but you keep saying really callous stuff. So I keep calling you names, and then thinking, awww ... and apologising. Just stop being a callous dick (sorry), and my life will be nicer and simpler, and I won't have to keep calling you names, feeling like a pusillanimous ninny and apologising.

So, what, exactly, is wrong with WP:BLP? (Which bit/s precisely?)

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 3:35 pm

sparkzilla wrote: Subjects should get no say in what the news says about them unless libelous. We don't give subjects veto power over how they are reported. The news has very little sensitivity or care for those who they report on -- if it did the business could not function. The question is how should a site like Wikipedia deal with republishing that news.

Winner!

RfB

Newyorkbrad · Unread post by **Newyorkbrad** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 4:01 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:BLP rules are a cudgel for content warriors enforcing House POV, allowing them to snip or blank sourced information.
Nothing more, nothing less...
RfB

BLP rules are a well-meaning, if imperfect, attempt to address the problems caused by Wikipedia's ability to cause serious real-world harm to its article subjects given its online pervasiveness.

The fact that the BLP rules can be misused for other purposes, and that sometimes their application is disputed, is not an argument against the rules' very existence. Granting that Wikipedia's treatment of BLP subjects could still use substantial improvement, to abandon any attempt at responsibility in this area would multiply the problem fiftyfold.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, the whole problem is not limited to Wikipedia. In this era of "the Web means the end of forgetting," every website and means of online communication should be thinking through its handling of these issues.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 4:08 pm

Newyorkbrad wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:BLP rules are a cudgel for content warriors enforcing House POV, allowing them to snip or blank sourced information.
Nothing more, nothing less...
RfB
BLP rules are a well-meaning, if imperfect, attempt to address the problems caused by Wikipedia's ability to cause serious real-world harm to its article subjects given its online pervasiveness.

The fact that the BLP rules can be misused for other purposes, and that sometimes their application is disputed, is not an argument against the rules' very existence. Granting that Wikipedia's treatment of BLP subjects could still use substantial improvement, to abandon any attempt at responsibility in this area would multiply the problem fiftyfold.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, the whole problem is not limited to Wikipedia. In this era of "the Web means the end of forgetting," every website and means of online communication should be thinking through its handling of these issues.

But you guys are writing, nominally, an encyclopedia.

What we find, yet again, is that the written rules are not the actual rules and the nasty little shits who've been promoted into what passes for power there, routinely violated and pervert them.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 4:12 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
sparkzilla wrote: Subjects should get no say in what the news says about them unless libelous. We don't give subjects veto power over how they are reported. The news has very little sensitivity or care for those who they report on -- if it did the business could not function. The question is how should a site like Wikipedia deal with republishing that news.
Winner!

RfB

And how do we define "the news"?

sparkzilla · Unread post by **sparkzilla** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 4:32 pm

BLP rules are a well-meaning, if imperfect, attempt to address the problems caused by Wikipedia's ability to cause serious real-world harm to its article subjects given its online pervasiveness.

"Well-meaning" means the rules are supposed to be there to protect the subject. But I would say in the vast majority of cases the subject does not care, and the ones that do care usually have something to hide (politicians, criminals, scammers etc.) The information is out there already on the web and in Google. In fact, the only people who really care are POV pushers and administrators.

In my case, I was told that adding text about the advertisement that Richard Gere and Cindy Crawford placed in the Times to say their marriage was strong was "insensitive to the subject. Yet Gere and Crawford placed the ad themselves, so it could hardly be "insensitive" to them. Instead, one editor, soon to be followed by admins, simply did not want the information on the page, and used the "sensitivity" clause as a "cudgel to support POV". When I took it further and questioned the ambiguous definition of "sensitivity" in the BLP policy page I was warned off, and when I persisted, I was marked for death by SlimVirgin, who had helped author the policy. A perfect example of POV pushing, ambiguous rules, arbitrarily applied, followed by administrator abuse.

Ambiguous rules give power to admins to make arbitrary decisions. They will never be changed, because the admins who also write the rules. The extra definition of "dignity" makes things worse, not better. It's just another way for the powerful to force something off the page.

The wiki system has two problems in this case:

1. it does not know how to draw a line between the encyclopedia and the news archive
2. It allows admins to expand their power by adding ambiguous rules

Of course, another solution would be for Wikipedia to be "less pervasive". It's only a matter of time before that's the case anyway.

sparkzilla · Unread post by **sparkzilla** » Wed Apr 29, 2015 4:52 pm

thekohser wrote:And how do we define "the news"?

It's an interesting question because in recent years news is coming from more sources. At Newslines we define news very broadly as anything that is published about a topic, plus important events published by the subject themselves. This includes news articles from major sources, news from minor sources (blogs and the like), important tweets or Facebook posts by the subject, YouTube performances and interviews. We include items that you may not consider news: appearances at photocalls, what someone is wearing. The idea is that we record all the news about a topic in one place and then allow the user to filter the news. For example, they can filter to only see major life events, or only to see fashion etc. We have the basics of this system already: All Bill Cosby news - Bill Cosby filtered by accusations

The difference between these two methods is that in Newslines the user has control, not the editor. On newslines the editor does not do fact checking, and is more of a person who adds news in a specific format.

I don't advocate such broad newsgathering for Wikipedia. I think the best solutions for most biographies on WP would be to say that they cannot go over a certain word count, then editors can battle it out over which news should be included.