There is a soon-to-be-archived complaint on AN/I titled "Editor harassing real life sex abuse victim by adding her name to the article on the person she accused."
It's just what it says on the tin.
Drama board enthusiast and frequent defender of the indefensible Beyond My Ken(T-H-L) contributed the following screed to the discussion, which serves as an excellent introduction to the (lack of) ethics that (at least some of) the WP heavy hitters are on board with:
Beyond My Ken wrote:"Do no harm" is an impossible standard to live up to and, if taken literally, would seriously harm the encyclopedia.
Like it or not, facts, encyclopedic facts, may well be harmful to some living people: criminals, corrupt politicians and avaricious businesspeople, just to name a few. Any additional broadcasting of the activities of these people will be harmful to them, their reputations, their court cases and their families - but that's hardly the point. The point of BLP is not to try to avoid doing harm to anyone, it's to avoid doing harm to living people if the facts are not extremely well supported by citations from the very best of reliable sources. When that happens, when impeachable sources -- not tabloids, not scandal sheets, not TMZ or E! -- report something, and those reports are corroborated by other equally reliable sources, then it's out of our hands. Not to include those facts is a distinct disservice to our readers -- the people we are supposed to be serving here -- and an abrogation of our responsibility as encyclopedists in the modern world. That those facts will have a harmful effect on a living person is regrettable, but the additional effect of our including them when unimpeachable sources are reporting them is minimal.
We are not a social services agency, here to make everyone feel better about themselves, we're here to write an encyclopedia in a neutral, straightforward, non-judgmental manner, with our information supported by citations from reliable sources. When we fulfill those requirements, we have fulfilled our obligations to our readers and to the subjects of our articles, to whom we owe nothing more than that: accuracy and neutrality. To say that we have another, overriding obligation, a blanket proscription to "do no harm" is a egregious misreading of the intent of the BLP policy, one that, if widely believed, would cripple our ability to do what it is we're here to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The passive tense is strong with this one. Easier to distance oneself from the consequences of one's actions that way.
Re: Beyond My Ken: "it's out of our hands"
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:39 pm
by enwikibadscience
Mason wrote:There is a soon-to-be-archived complaint on AN/I titled "Editor harassing real life sex abuse victim by adding her name to the article on the person she accused."
It's just what it says on the tin.
Drama board enthusiast and frequent defender of the indefensible Beyond My Ken(T-H-L) contributed the following screed to the discussion, which serves as an excellent introduction to the (lack of) ethics that (at least some of) the WP heavy hitters are on board with:
Beyond My Ken wrote:"Do no harm" is an impossible standard to live up to and, if taken literally, would seriously harm the encyclopedia.
Like it or not, facts, encyclopedic facts, may well be harmful to some living people: criminals, corrupt politicians and avaricious businesspeople, just to name a few. Any additional broadcasting of the activities of these people will be harmful to them, their reputations, their court cases and their families - but that's hardly the point. The point of BLP is not to try to avoid doing harm to anyone, it's to avoid doing harm to living people if the facts are not extremely well supported by citations from the very best of reliable sources. When that happens, when impeachable sources -- not tabloids, not scandal sheets, not TMZ or E! -- report something, and those reports are corroborated by other equally reliable sources, then it's out of our hands. Not to include those facts is a distinct disservice to our readers -- the people we are supposed to be serving here -- and an abrogation of our responsibility as encyclopedists in the modern world. That those facts will have a harmful effect on a living person is regrettable, but the additional effect of our including them when unimpeachable sources are reporting them is minimal.
We are not a social services agency, here to make everyone feel better about themselves, we're here to write an encyclopedia in a neutral, straightforward, non-judgmental manner, with our information supported by citations from reliable sources. When we fulfill those requirements, we have fulfilled our obligations to our readers and to the subjects of our articles, to whom we owe nothing more than that: accuracy and neutrality. To say that we have another, overriding obligation, a blanket proscription to "do no harm" is a egregious misreading of the intent of the BLP policy, one that, if widely believed, would cripple our ability to do what it is we're here to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The passive tense is strong with this one. Easier to distance oneself from the consequences of one's actions that way.
So he's comparing victims of sexual abuse to "criminals, corrupt politicians and avaricious businesspeople?"
Re: Beyond My Ken: "it's out of our hands"
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:41 pm
by enwikibadscience
Mason wrote:There is a soon-to-be-archived complaint on AN/I titled "Editor harassing real life sex abuse victim by adding her name to the article on the person she accused."
It's just what it says on the tin.
Drama board enthusiast and frequent defender of the indefensible Beyond My Ken(T-H-L) contributed the following screed to the discussion, which serves as an excellent introduction to the (lack of) ethics that (at least some of) the WP heavy hitters are on board with:
Beyond My Ken wrote:"Do no harm" is an impossible standard to live up to and, if taken literally, would seriously harm the encyclopedia.
Like it or not, facts, encyclopedic facts, may well be harmful to some living people: criminals, corrupt politicians and avaricious businesspeople, just to name a few. ... Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
In reading en.Wikipedia science articles is seems that facts are loose and scarce, so, a little self-righteousness about facts is uncalled for. To say the least. And let the fact(oid)s speak for themselves.
Re: Beyond My Ken: "it's out of our hands"
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:46 pm
by Mancunium
Thanks for posting this. The link to the User page of the defender of the indefensible leads to an article of similar name. His page is Beyond_My_Ken(T-C-L). Latest episode on his Talk page:
Don't you think, "Jimbo Wales will burn in hell forever" is a bit much? I realize it was sarcasm, but still... Joefromrandb (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
When waxing sarcastic, bigger is almost always better. <g>
In point of fact, I have respect for Jimbo Wales for starting (or co-starting) a revolutionary project such as Wikipedia, while at the same time cursing him for setting it up along the lines of his libertarian philosophy, which has engendered many of our most intractable problems.
Anyway, you knew I wasn't serious, so what's the problem? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I thought it was in extremely poor taste. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome to your opinion. Since I don't believe that Heaven or Hell actually exist (nor do any other truly rational people), it was a purely metaphorical statement. Please feel free to take your opinions elsewhere from now on, I have no interest in further intercourse with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Re: Beyond My Ken: "it's out of our hands"
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:06 pm
by lilburne
And NYB bitches and moans about throw away remarks here. I say he should come back here once he's given that little fucker on his site a good hefty kick in the balls.
Re: Beyond My Ken: "it's out of our hands"
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:08 pm
by Newyorkbrad
lilburne wrote:And NYB bitches and moans about throw away remarks here. I say he should come back here once he's given that little fucker on his site a good hefty kick in the balls.
I've responded on my talkpage on Wikipedia.
Re: Beyond My Ken: "it's out of our hands"
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:41 pm
by SB_Johnny
Newyorkbrad wrote:
lilburne wrote:And NYB bitches and moans about throw away remarks here. I say he should come back here once he's given that little fucker on his site a good hefty kick in the balls.
I've responded on my talkpage on Wikipedia.
Brad, did really you just pull a {{talkback}} template trick here in the house of the white hats?
Re: Beyond My Ken: "it's out of our hands"
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:48 pm
by Newyorkbrad
SB_Johnny wrote:
Newyorkbrad wrote:
lilburne wrote:And NYB bitches and moans about throw away remarks here. I say he should come back here once he's given that little fucker on his site a good hefty kick in the balls.
I've responded on my talkpage on Wikipedia.
Brad, did really you just pull a {{talkback}} template trick here in the house of the white hats?
If I did, then Mr. Lilburne started it.
Re: Beyond My Ken: "it's out of our hands"
Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:05 am
by lilburne
Newyorkbrad wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:
Newyorkbrad wrote:
lilburne wrote:And NYB bitches and moans about throw away remarks here. I say he should come back here once he's given that little fucker on his site a good hefty kick in the balls.
I've responded on my talkpage on Wikipedia.
Brad, did really you just pull a {{talkback}} template trick here in the house of the white hats?
That being said, there does come a point at which a victim's name becomes so widely known that it would be nothing more than a gesture to omit it from Wikipedia.
Admit it, Ira, you don't know what you're doing, and neither do most WP administrators. The place is a lunatic asylum,
not an "encyclopedia". The "policies" mean nothing, it's purely a matter of having internal political clout.
Re: Beyond My Ken: "it's out of our hands"
Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:45 am
by enwikibadscience
EricBarbour wrote:
That being said, there does come a point at which a victim's name becomes so widely known that it would be nothing more than a gesture to omit it from Wikipedia.
Admit it, Ira, you don't know what you're doing, and neither do most WP administrators. The place is a lunatic asylum,
not an "encyclopedia". The "policies" mean nothing, it's purely a matter of having internal political clout.
Yes, he's comparing victims of sexual abuse to "criminals, corrupt politicians and avaricious businesspeople." If that is who is running the place no wonder women and experts don't belong. And it wound up that way by running it like a lunatic asylum, nothing but clout matters.
Loose on pronouns, he being further up the thread.
"I don't quite understand why you're having a discussion with KW on his talk page. Talk pages are provided to editors to help facilitate their editing, and a certain amount of general conversation and so on is not a problem, but Wikipedia is not a forum and, in any case, KW is no longer an editor. Since he is banned, he has no use for his talk page, since he cannot ask for an unblock using it, but must go through BASC or ArbCom to be reinstated."
Shh. Do you want someone to take that to deletion review?
If someone does: this time I will know exactly who those people are, and exactly where my loyal troops can find them. Don't mess with the Invincibles.
Oh no, not the Orange Order!
If my loyalist paramilitary doesn't terrify my enemies, perhaps they should be introduced to my fanatical Regiment of Foot:
or my sinister Regiment of Light Horse:
Re: Beyond My Ken: "it's out of our hands"
Posted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 3:39 am
by EricBarbour
Well, the Ren Faire costumes are groovy, and the pikes might put someone's eye out.......but if you're gonna fight off Wikipedia losers,
you need something a bit more, um, tangible. Try making a bonfire out of comic books, that'll make basement-nerds crap themselves.
Re: Beyond My Ken: "it's out of our hands"
Posted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 4:37 pm
by Mancunium
EricBarbour wrote:Well, the Ren Faire costumes are groovy, and the pikes might put someone's eye out.......but if you're gonna fight off Wikipedia losers,
you need something a bit more, um, tangible. Try making a bonfire out of comic books, that'll make basement-nerds crap themselves.
They may wish to consider whether it's worth taking the chance that these people would not obey an order from their colonel.
Re: Beyond My Ken: "it's out of our hands"
Posted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:38 pm
by SB_Johnny
Mancunium wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:Well, the Ren Faire costumes are groovy, and the pikes might put someone's eye out.......but if you're gonna fight off Wikipedia losers,
you need something a bit more, um, tangible. Try making a bonfire out of comic books, that'll make basement-nerds crap themselves.
They may wish to consider whether it's worth taking the chance that these people would not obey an order from their colonel.
Don't you live in Amerrcuh now? This guy is scarier:
Re: Beyond My Ken: "it's out of our hands"
Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:33 am
by EricBarbour
SB_Johnny wrote:Don't you live in Amerrcuh now? This guy is scarier:
That's what he needs, a baker's dozen of those geniuses.
Tell them Wikipedia is run by "feminists and cocksuckers", and "gun control nuts", I tell ya, it can't fail.
Re: Beyond My Ken: "it's out of our hands"
Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:06 am
by Randy from Boise
EricBarbour wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:Don't you live in Amerrcuh now? This guy is scarier:
That's what he needs, a baker's dozen of those geniuses.
Tell them Wikipedia is run by "feminists and cocksuckers", and "gun control nuts", I tell ya, it can't fail.
Drunks and guns voting Republican.
God bless the great imperialist power...
Happy Armistice Day,
RfB
Re: Beyond My Ken: "it's out of our hands"
Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:10 am
by Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Beyond My Ken just removed my guide to the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, ignoring the ANI discussion's
*criticism of Richwales's proposal to remove it and
*suggestion to take the concern to Arbitration Committee: Requests for Clarification and Enforcement.
Beyond My Ken and KWW probably belong to the same administrator fraternity.
Re: Beyond My Ken: "it's out of our hands"
Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:55 pm
by Triptych
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:Beyond My Ken just removed my guide to the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, ignoring the ANI discussion's
*criticism of Richwales's proposal to remove it and
*suggestion to take the concern to Arbitration Committee: Requests for Clarification and Enforcement.
Beyond My Ken and KWW probably belong to the same administrator fraternity.
Yeah: "Assholes Pi Epsilon."
Re: Beyond My Ken: "it's out of our hands"
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:15 pm
by mac
Mancunium wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:Well, the Ren Faire costumes are groovy, and the pikes might put someone's eye out.......but if you're gonna fight off Wikipedia losers,
you need something a bit more, um, tangible. Try making a bonfire out of comic books, that'll make basement-nerds crap themselves.
They may wish to consider whether it's worth taking the chance that these people would not obey an order from their colonel.
At first glance I'd guess many of them have Wikipedia accounts to vote "delete" at an AfD.
Re: Beyond My Ken: "it's out of our hands"
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:59 pm
by Mancunium
My regiment is not made up of meatpuppets. Their history is more complicated than some appear to understand: at the heart of the English Civil War, and on the soul of England, is an unforgivable sin.
I think he, like Malik, was pushed past the breaking point by the unrelenting grind of conflict... Presumably he is just taking a break, he's in the Top 200 in lifetime edits, is a guy in his 50s who is set in his ways, and is a content person. It's very hard for such people to walk away — nor should they.
I've invited him here to vent, if he feels like it.
RfB
P.S. And this is still right on...
BMK wrote:We are not a social services agency, here to make everyone feel better about themselves, we're here to write an encyclopedia in a neutral, straightforward, non-judgmental manner, with our information supported by citations from reliable sources. When we fulfill those requirements, we have fulfilled our obligations to our readers and to the subjects of our articles, to whom we owe nothing more than that: accuracy and neutrality. To say that we have another, overriding obligation, a blanket proscription to "do no harm" is a egregious misreading of the intent of the BLP policy, one that, if widely believed, would cripple our ability to do what it is we're here to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Re: Beyond My Ken: "it's out of our hands"
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:13 pm
by Moral Hazard
Excellent news for Wikipedia. I am sorry for those in real life whom BMK shall annoy.
Re: Beyond My Ken: "it's out of our hands"
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:28 pm
by thekohser
Tim, BMK is not one to be lecturing about how to be "neutral" when writing encyclopedia articles, considering his particular talent in writing articles that are disproportionately detailed about his employer's line of business.
Beyond My Ken wrote:
This place is rapidly turning into a madhouse run by [...] hardliners who contribute nothing to the encyclopedia's content, but do their best to harass content-contributors - and it's only going to get worse, because content-contribution is '''''difficult''''' [...].
But now, with pests lacking all good judgment flying around in swarms [...]
Beyond My Ken wrote:
This place is rapidly turning into a madhouse run by [...] hardliners who contribute nothing to the encyclopedia's content, but do their best to harass content-contributors - and it's only going to get worse, because content-contribution is '''''difficult''''' [...].
But now, with pests lacking all good judgment flying around in swarms [...]
The best part is now Ed Fitzgerald gets to look back at the last 10 years of wiki-addiction and wonder to himself, "What the fuck was I thinking?!"
Everyone else is just busy singing, dancing and marching.
Nice to see my list of Corbett diva quits for our blog getting use there, even if they won't link to us.
There sure is a lot of butthurt over there.
Re: Beyond My Ken: "it's out of our hands"
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 5:50 pm
by MysteriousStranger
thekohser wrote:Tim, BMK is not one to be lecturing about how to be "neutral" when writing encyclopedia articles, considering his particular talent in writing articles that are disproportionately detailed about his employer's line of business.
Beyond My Ken is employed?! Here I figured he and guys like him came around to rage on Wikipedia because they were too clueless to realize that their personalities made them unemployable!
Re: Beyond My Ken: "it's out of our hands"
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 10:38 pm
by Sparky
As if to prove that indefinite is not infinite, the crisis is over and life on WP may continue on its merry way.
Brad, did really you just pull a {{talkback}} template trick here in the house of the white hats? 
