Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
I use the somewhat shorter message, Do not create articles without references. If you have the information to write the article, you got it from somewhere. Say where . Articles without references are likely to get deleted. I advise you to do this the moment you create the article, to avoid problems. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 5:52 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:39 PM, doc wrote: >> phoebe ayers wrote: >>> I am all in favor of seeing if we can change people's behavior in >>> subtle ways; it will take many solutions all working together to fix >>> blp's. >>> >>> -- phoebe >>> >>> ___ >>> WikiEN-l mailing list >>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >>> >> >> A very simple and non-controversial start might be to ask New Page >> patrolers, when they see a new unsourced BLP (or indeed any unsourced >> article) to put a polite message on the creator's talk page saying >> >> "Thanks for your article [XYZ]. Wikipedia asks that all material be >> verifiable from reliable sources, it is important that readers and other >> users can check what's been writen. You don't seem to have told us the >> source you used for this article. Please can you edit the article to >> indicate what the source is? (Click here for help if you don't know >> how.) Unsourced material about living people may be removed if challenged." >> >> That doesn't bite or threaten any newbies, although if established >> editors keep getting these on their talk pages, threats might be warranted. > > Yes, definitely -- I try to do this whenever I dabble in new page > patrolling, and it depresses me to no end that everyone doesn't do > this. It's common politeness. The majority of new articles aren't > suitable for wp, but they aren't spam or pure vandalism either -- and > we need to do a much better job of interacting with these potential > good contributors. > > For a template, I think you're looking for something like > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Welcomeunsourced, only less > wordy and not only for reverted edits. > > p.s. per my previous msg, I guess I'm showing my age -- I think I was > thinking of the new page template proposal from 2005: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_article_template > > -- phoebe > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:39 PM, doc wrote: > phoebe ayers wrote: >> I am all in favor of seeing if we can change people's behavior in >> subtle ways; it will take many solutions all working together to fix >> blp's. >> >> -- phoebe >> >> ___ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > > A very simple and non-controversial start might be to ask New Page > patrolers, when they see a new unsourced BLP (or indeed any unsourced > article) to put a polite message on the creator's talk page saying > > "Thanks for your article [XYZ]. Wikipedia asks that all material be > verifiable from reliable sources, it is important that readers and other > users can check what's been writen. You don't seem to have told us the > source you used for this article. Please can you edit the article to > indicate what the source is? (Click here for help if you don't know > how.) Unsourced material about living people may be removed if challenged." > > That doesn't bite or threaten any newbies, although if established > editors keep getting these on their talk pages, threats might be warranted. Yes, definitely -- I try to do this whenever I dabble in new page patrolling, and it depresses me to no end that everyone doesn't do this. It's common politeness. The majority of new articles aren't suitable for wp, but they aren't spam or pure vandalism either -- and we need to do a much better job of interacting with these potential good contributors. For a template, I think you're looking for something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Welcomeunsourced, only less wordy and not only for reverted edits. p.s. per my previous msg, I guess I'm showing my age -- I think I was thinking of the new page template proposal from 2005: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_article_template -- phoebe ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
phoebe ayers wrote: > I am all in favor of seeing if we can change people's behavior in > subtle ways; it will take many solutions all working together to fix > blp's. > > -- phoebe > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > A very simple and non-controversial start might be to ask New Page patrolers, when they see a new unsourced BLP (or indeed any unsourced article) to put a polite message on the creator's talk page saying "Thanks for your article [XYZ]. Wikipedia asks that all material be verifiable from reliable sources, it is important that readers and other users can check what's been writen. You don't seem to have told us the source you used for this article. Please can you edit the article to indicate what the source is? (Click here for help if you don't know how.) Unsourced material about living people may be removed if challenged." That doesn't bite or threaten any newbies, although if established editors keep getting these on their talk pages, threats might be warranted. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:21 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: >> 2009/4/1 doc : >>> Is it perhaps time, that we started to demand that basic sourcing was a >>> pre-requisite of creating an article on any living person? >> >> Without commenting on this specific proposal, I thought it interesting >> that the de.wikipedia.org community implemented a fairly simple way to >> drive more sourcing on all articles: They made the edit summary field >> mandatory for new users, and have renamed it to "Summary and Sources", >> making it clear in lots of places that edits without sources aren't >> acceptable. If you look at anon recent-changes on de.wp, you'll notice >> that this has led to lots of people including URLs, etc., directly in >> their edit summaries. [1] This makes it at least a bit easier for >> other users to decide on whether the edit was legitimate. >> >> [1] >> http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Letzte_%C3%84nderungen&hideliu=1 >> - As an interesting side note, the mandatory summary script doesn't >> seem to trigger on section edits, and those are still very frequently >> unexplained. > > This is pretty great, and could be an easy, painless way to up > sourcing across the board. p.s. I put this on the Village Pump for discussion as well -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#changing_text_of_edit_summary_field -- phoebe ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
2009/4/4 phoebe ayers :
> This is pretty great, and could be an easy, painless way to up
> sourcing across the board. Certainly, footnote syntax is so confusing
> that many people just don't bother; and this would probably help with
> identifying copyvios as well.
I generally don't bother with the various {{cite}} templates. I don't
usually sort my {{stub}}s either. It's a wiki, someone who cares can.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > 2009/4/1 doc : >> Is it perhaps time, that we started to demand that basic sourcing was a >> pre-requisite of creating an article on any living person? > > Without commenting on this specific proposal, I thought it interesting > that the de.wikipedia.org community implemented a fairly simple way to > drive more sourcing on all articles: They made the edit summary field > mandatory for new users, and have renamed it to "Summary and Sources", > making it clear in lots of places that edits without sources aren't > acceptable. If you look at anon recent-changes on de.wp, you'll notice > that this has led to lots of people including URLs, etc., directly in > their edit summaries. [1] This makes it at least a bit easier for > other users to decide on whether the edit was legitimate. > > [1] > http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Letzte_%C3%84nderungen&hideliu=1 > - As an interesting side note, the mandatory summary script doesn't > seem to trigger on section edits, and those are still very frequently > unexplained. This is pretty great, and could be an easy, painless way to up sourcing across the board. Certainly, footnote syntax is so confusing that many people just don't bother; and this would probably help with identifying copyvios as well. A while (years?) ago the idea came up of using some sort of semantic form for new articles that included, explicitly, a box for sources; and I think that is a great idea as well. In the meantime, what about a link at the top of the create an article box to the code for a basic article that could be pasted in, including a refs section? Or a link to a step by step article creation tutorial, like on Articles for creation? I am all in favor of seeing if we can change people's behavior in subtle ways; it will take many solutions all working together to fix blp's. -- phoebe ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
doc wrote: > wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > >> So a flagged rev backlog will only be addressed if we allow all >> established users to so address it, and deny the power to admins to >> unseat a member of the group. It should probably be automatic at a >> certain edit count or length of stay or something of that nature. >> There is absolutely no need to create any additional powers for admins, >> and we already have process in place to handle people who are truly >> disruptive to the system even though long-term participants. We don't >> need any more of that. >> > This makes flagged no more than a tool to reduce obvious vandalism - and > quite useless for protecting against real BLP harm (see my last post > for reasoning). > Why should it be anything more than a tool? My support of flagged revisions has absolutely nothing to do with BLPs; I believe that it should be available for *all *substantive articles. My disappointment is that even that does not go far enough. I would expand it into a rating system that evaluates every article across a small range of different criteria. Unfortunately, for the present all it can realistically do is catch the obvious vandalism, but at least that's a start. > If we have "anyone can review" then we have "any incompetent can review" > and if admins can't quickly remove the reviewing right without process > and paperwork then any good-faith incompetent will continue to review. > "Anyone can review" is just as powerful as "Anyone can edit." Presuming incompetence is not a good way to encourage and retain new editors, and it is the height of arrogance to pretend the ability to make that judgement. Your arguments sound more like what might expect of admins trying to protect their prerogatives. > Our current vandalism RCP system regularly screws up with BLP. It > reverts people who blank libels - and seldom even casts a glance at the > current state of any article. You think giving these same people more > work will solve the subtler BLP problem? > Neither will throwing out the baby with the bathwater. At the same time, I am not putting flagged revisions on a pedestal so that it can easily be shot down. Any system is only as good as the persons applying it, but that's not the fault of the tool. > Again, if the bad edit is immediately obvious to the reviewer, it is > also obvious to the reader - so it is not particularly damaging to the > subject. > I don't follow your reasoning on that. If someone is calling the subject an "asshole" that's pretty obvious; how would it not be damaging to the subject? > I am of the opinion that full flagging will make little or no difference > to the BLP problem. (That said, it can't do much harm - so let's try > it). However, the current idiotic proposal is utterly useless and > conterproductive. > Amazingly, I agree with your last point, even if it is from the opposite perspective of a supporter of full flagging. You're probably also right that it will have little or no effect on the BLP problems. No military campaign succeeds through aerial bombing alone; you have to put boots on the ground. The recent proposal tries to do too much at once, perhaps in an attempt to placate the opponents of flagged revisions, but only manages to emasculate itself. > For far to long the flagging white elephant has been throw up as chaff > to avoid any real steps on BLP harm reduction. They are two different issues. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
doc wrote: > Personally I could agree that the power to "remove reviewer right" could > be restricted to some special class of user, but only if the power to > "grant reviewer right" is subject to even more scrutiny. > > If reviewer right is wrongly removed - we'll have the internal problem > of an upset editor (big deal? not - get over it!), however if it is > granted to someone who misuses it then it breaches our quality control > and can damage living people. > In other words it seems that you feel that it's worth it to punish the innocent to soothe your paranoia that some stranger might do damage. > I really have little sympathy for those more concerned about internal > power structures or egalitarian principles in wikiland, that how what we > do impacts on the reader, and more importantly the bio subject who is > the victim of our structural carelessness. > > I guess that's what makes your concern for internal power structures and my concern for egalitarian principles so different. It may have escaped your attention that most of us who have stuck around for a long time do support steadily improving quality, and can do so without becoming such obsessives. No matter what we do there will always be a residue of problematic articles. With the law of diminishing returns it is a matter of determining when the cure becomes more harmful than the problem being attacked. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
It is premature to discuss the details when we have no actual experience. Enthusiasm can compensate for structural inadequacies, and carry us till we get the details correct. We will need to make the effort of faith a little, for it is not likely we will get things right at first, and a strong for such enthusiasm, is to avoid having to do more drastic remedies,such as deleting articles before there is a chance to get them sourced, or disallowing unregistered editors. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:29 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > doc wrote: >> That someone has xn edits only means that they have not (yet) behaved in >> a manner to get blocked. It in no sense is equal to clue, >> perceptiveness, or diligence. >> > > Such a view would institutionalize an assumption of bad faith. > >> The problem with widespread flagging is that in order to prevent >> backlogs, you will be under pressure to maximise the reviewers, and give >> the reviewers incentives to rack up numerous reviews per minute. That is >> inconsistent with useful scrutiny. >> >> > That's a speculative view, probably not supported by any evidence. > > > Ec > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
doc wrote: > That someone has xn edits only means that they have not (yet) behaved in > a manner to get blocked. It in no sense is equal to clue, > perceptiveness, or diligence. > Such a view would institutionalize an assumption of bad faith. > The problem with widespread flagging is that in order to prevent > backlogs, you will be under pressure to maximise the reviewers, and give > the reviewers incentives to rack up numerous reviews per minute. That is >inconsistent with useful scrutiny. > > That's a speculative view, probably not supported by any evidence. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with handing out reviewer status at x+1 edits, but making it difficult to remove. It must not be harder to remove than to grant. But as I say, I am strongly opposed to deploying flagging on all articles anyway. > > Those people who are to grant or remove the reviewer right, need to be at a > level *above* the "backlog cleanup crew", and "fight vandalism" people. > Because that level is too fraught with article-space-conflicts, and > additional > content-effecting powers would just tend to create more of that, not less. > > Will Johnson > > > > > > ** > Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or > less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001) > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
In a message dated 4/2/2009 1:20:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes: > If reviewer right is wrongly removed - we'll have the internal problem > of an upset editor (big deal? not - get over it!), however if it is > granted to someone who misuses it then it breaches our quality control > and can damage living people. >> - Your fallacy is trying to restrict "reviewer" to the BLP issue. Imagine you are reviewing away at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And you get caught up in a wheel war between conflicting admins. Effectively, under the scenario that any admins can remove reviewer rights you would have the situation that no non-admin reviewer could EVER review the article. I'm sure you see this. This is not a new thing. We sign on more admins to take care of the backlogs, not to get into conflicts. Giving them more conflict-creation powers is not a good thing, it's a bad thing. Those people who are to grant or remove the reviewer right, need to be at a level *above* the "backlog cleanup crew", and "fight vandalism" people. Because that level is too fraught with article-space-conflicts, and additional content-effecting powers would just tend to create more of that, not less. Will Johnson ** Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
Personally I could agree that the power to "remove reviewer right" could be restricted to some special class of user, but only if the power to "grant reviewer right" is subject to even more scrutiny. If reviewer right is wrongly removed - we'll have the internal problem of an upset editor (big deal? not - get over it!), however if it is granted to someone who misuses it then it breaches our quality control and can damage living people. I really have little sympathy for those more concerned about internal power structures or egalitarian principles in wikiland, that how what we do impacts on the reader, and more importantly the bio subject who is the victim of our structural carelessness. wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > < carcharot...@googlemail.com writes: > > Will, look at the example I provided earlier in this thread. > Established editors and admins were blindly reverting vandalism and > leaving an article in a state of previous vandalism. How do you begin > to address that problem?>> > > You don't address it by allowing any admin who got their badge knowing next > to nothing about NOR (as many don't) do remove the right of established users > > who have been in-project ten times longer than they. I will never, not > ever, agree to giving admins extra powers. They already have several powers > they > should not have in my opinion. The idea behind admins, imho, was supposed > to be that they are helpful janitors clearning up messes, not theat they > were > thought police enforcing the boundary line with clubs. > > If we want to create new powers, then we need perhaps new categories of > user. For those users who do not want to be police, but are quite willing > to > enhance the content of the project, we should create a parallel track, not a > subordinate one. No matter what anyone states, if a reviewer's right can be > removed at the whim (yes whim) of any admin, then reviewers are subordinate > to > admins. They should not be. > > Will Johnson > > > > **Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or > less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001) > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
David Goodman wrote: > There are few active people here who have not made that mistake, at > least once or twice; the only way to have no errors is to have no > encyclopedia. This is a logical fallacy. That the only way to make sure no cancer ever enters my body is to destroy every living cell within it - is not an argument against ever using chemotherapy or carrying out a hysterectomy. > What we are out to do is produce the most accurate encyclopedia that > can be produced by our methods-- You said "What we are here to do is to produce the most accurate encyclopedia that can be produced" - agreed "by our methods" - yes and no What if a more accurate encyclopedia could, in fact, be produced by modifying our methods at points? Our method - open editing, inclusionism and evantualism are certainly the great engine that has made the encyclopedia possible - but like all engines you sometimes need gears (and breaks) if you want to move to a particular destination. We regularly block, protect and delete - those are breaks and gears. Wikipedia should always be open to using more or less of these as required to manoeuvre. Dogmatic puritanism, and hang the consequences is as unattractive here as it is with any society of zealous true believers. >and it is already much more accurate than anyone would have suspected >beforehand, knowing the chaotic way > in which it was to be edited. Some people join because they see errors > and want to correct them; others join because they see surprisingly > good things and want to add to them-- that was my personal reason. > > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG Wikipedia exists in the real world, has real power, and with that power comes responsibility too. Some errors are fine. Wikipedia is a work in progress. However, untamed eventualism is not a suitable doctrine for BLP. Scott MacDonald PhD etc. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
This is a fallacy. That the only way to make sure no cancer ever enters my body is to destroy every cell within it - is not an argument against ever using chemotherapy or carrying out a hysterectomy. "What we are here to do is to produce the most accurate encyclopedia that can be produced" - agreed "by our methods" - yes and no What if a more accurate encyclopedia could, in fact be produced, by modifying our methods at points? Our method - open editing, inclusionism and evantualism are certainly the great engine that has made the encyclopedia possible - but like all engines you sometimes need gears (and breaks) if you want to move to a particular destination. We regularly block, protect and delete - those are breaks and gears. Wikipedia should always be open to using more or less of these as required to manoeuvre. Dogmatic puritanism, and hang the consequences is as unattractive here as it is with any society of zealous true believers. Wikipedia exists in the real world, has real power, and with that power comes responsibility too. It is time for Wikipedians to grow up. Scott MacDonald PhD etc. David Goodman wrote: > There are few active people here who have not made that mistake, at > least once or twice; the only way to have no errors is to have no > encyclopedia. > > What we are out to do is produce the most accurate encyclopedia that > can be produced by our methods--and it is already much more accurate > than anyone would have suspected beforehand, knowing the chaotic way > in which it was to be edited. Some people join because they see errors > and want to correct them; others join because they see surprisingly > good things and want to add to them-- that was my personal reason. > > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
There are few active people here who have not made that mistake, at least once or twice; the only way to have no errors is to have no encyclopedia. What we are out to do is produce the most accurate encyclopedia that can be produced by our methods--and it is already much more accurate than anyone would have suspected beforehand, knowing the chaotic way in which it was to be edited. Some people join because they see errors and want to correct them; others join because they see surprisingly good things and want to add to them-- that was my personal reason. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:51 PM, wrote: > < carcharot...@googlemail.com writes: > > Will, look at the example I provided earlier in this thread. > Established editors and admins were blindly reverting vandalism and > leaving an article in a state of previous vandalism. How do you begin > to address that problem?>> > > You don't address it by allowing any admin who got their badge knowing next > to nothing about NOR (as many don't) do remove the right of established users > who have been in-project ten times longer than they. I will never, not > ever, agree to giving admins extra powers. They already have several powers > they > should not have in my opinion. The idea behind admins, imho, was supposed > to be that they are helpful janitors clearning up messes, not theat they were > thought police enforcing the boundary line with clubs. > > If we want to create new powers, then we need perhaps new categories of > user. For those users who do not want to be police, but are quite willing to > enhance the content of the project, we should create a parallel track, not a > subordinate one. No matter what anyone states, if a reviewer's right can be > removed at the whim (yes whim) of any admin, then reviewers are subordinate > to > admins. They should not be. > > Will Johnson > > > > **Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or > less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001) > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
<> You don't address it by allowing any admin who got their badge knowing next to nothing about NOR (as many don't) do remove the right of established users who have been in-project ten times longer than they. I will never, not ever, agree to giving admins extra powers. They already have several powers they should not have in my opinion. The idea behind admins, imho, was supposed to be that they are helpful janitors clearning up messes, not theat they were thought police enforcing the boundary line with clubs. If we want to create new powers, then we need perhaps new categories of user. For those users who do not want to be police, but are quite willing to enhance the content of the project, we should create a parallel track, not a subordinate one. No matter what anyone states, if a reviewer's right can be removed at the whim (yes whim) of any admin, then reviewers are subordinate to admins. They should not be. Will Johnson **Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Sam Korn wrote: > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Carcharoth > wrote: >> Hopefully it can be tweaked to distinguish between removal and >> replacement with a death category. And then people can check edits >> made claiming someone has died, and make sure reliable sources have >> been provided for such claims. > > I wrote this script a little while ago for this exact purpose: > > http://toolserver.org/~samkorn/scripts/recentdeaths.php > > Might be useful until you can get this filter running? It would. Thanks. Though only if people can be found to work on the output. Logs are not that helpful unless there is a way for people to mark them (i.e. patrol them) and say "I've looked at this, best if you go and look at something that no-one has reviewed and marked as done". Not sure if the abuse filter has been set up for patrolling or not. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
Will, look at the example I provided earlier in this thread. Established editors and admins were blindly reverting vandalism and leaving an article in a state of previous vandalism. How do you begin to address that problem? I don't want to link to the revisions in question, as the attacks are quite nasty (look at the revert I made and what it removed). Please do go and look, and you will find a whole series of Huggle edits that reverted the most recent vandalism, but still left the article in an absolutely unacceptable state. Worse, this continued for a day or two until I spotted what had been happening. Carcharoth On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:54 AM, wrote: > I did not suggest doc that "anyone can review". > Review what I said again. > I said that established users can review, that it should be an > automatic right at a certain point and that admins cannot remove that > right. > > That is quite different from "anyone". > > > -Original Message- > From: doc > To: English Wikipedia > Sent: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 1:07 am > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs > > wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >> I'm in agreement with David here. >> I do not want to be a policeman on behaviour, but I would certainly > be >> interested in, and already do, patrol content changes and pass or >> remove spurious details. I think we all do that a bit. Being a >> policeman is quite a different role. >> >> So a flagged rev backlog will only be addressed if we allow all >> established users to so address it, and deny the power to admins to >> unseat a member of the group. It should probably be automatic at a >> certain edit count or length of stay or something of that nature. >> There is absolutely no need to create any additional powers for > admins, >> and we already have process in place to handle people who are truly >> disruptive to the system even though long-term participants. We > don't >> need any more of that. >> >> Will Johnson >> > > This makes flagged no more than a tool to reduce obvious vandalism - > and > quite useless for protecting against real BLP harm (see my last post > for reasoning). > > If we have "anyone can review" then we have "any incompetent can > review" > and if admins can't quickly remove the reviewing right without > process > and paperwork then any good-faith incompetent will continue to review. > > Our current vandalism RCP system regularly screws up with BLP. It > reverts people who blank libels - and seldom even casts a glance at the > current state of any article. You think giving these same people more > work will solve the subtler BLP problem? > > Again, if the bad edit is immediately obvious to the reviewer, it is > also obvious to the reader - so it is not particularly damaging to the > subject. > > I am of the opinion that full flagging will make little or no > difference > to the BLP problem. (That said, it can't do much harm - so let's try > it). However, the current idiotic proposal is utterly useless and > conterproductive. > > For far to long the flagging white elephant has been throw up as chaff > to avoid any real steps on BLP harm reduction. For once, let's listen > to > the Germans who seem to have some useful things to teach us. > > Erik, or someone who knows, can you outline all the things de.wp does > differently from en.wp - and whether it has less of a problem with > legitimate subject complaints? > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
I did read what you said, and it is bad enough. The notion that "anyone [with xn edits] can review", and no admin can revoke, makes the right less scrutinised that rollback - that has the effect of making the quality control utterly useless. That someone has xn edits only means that they have not (yet) behaved in a manner to get blocked. It in no sense is equal to clue, perceptiveness, or diligence. The problem with widespread flagging is that in order to prevent backlogs, you will be under pressure to maximise the reviewers, and give the reviewers incentives to rack up numerous reviews per minute. That is inconsistent with useful scrutiny. wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > I did not suggest doc that "anyone can review". > Review what I said again. > I said that established users can review, that it should be an > automatic right at a certain point and that admins cannot remove that > right. > > That is quite different from "anyone". > > > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
I did not suggest doc that "anyone can review". Review what I said again. I said that established users can review, that it should be an automatic right at a certain point and that admins cannot remove that right. That is quite different from "anyone". -Original Message- From: doc To: English Wikipedia Sent: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 1:07 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > I'm in agreement with David here. > I do not want to be a policeman on behaviour, but I would certainly be > interested in, and already do, patrol content changes and pass or > remove spurious details. I think we all do that a bit. Being a > policeman is quite a different role. > > So a flagged rev backlog will only be addressed if we allow all > established users to so address it, and deny the power to admins to > unseat a member of the group. It should probably be automatic at a > certain edit count or length of stay or something of that nature. > There is absolutely no need to create any additional powers for admins, > and we already have process in place to handle people who are truly > disruptive to the system even though long-term participants. We don't > need any more of that. > > Will Johnson > This makes flagged no more than a tool to reduce obvious vandalism - and quite useless for protecting against real BLP harm (see my last post for reasoning). If we have "anyone can review" then we have "any incompetent can review" and if admins can't quickly remove the reviewing right without process and paperwork then any good-faith incompetent will continue to review. Our current vandalism RCP system regularly screws up with BLP. It reverts people who blank libels - and seldom even casts a glance at the current state of any article. You think giving these same people more work will solve the subtler BLP problem? Again, if the bad edit is immediately obvious to the reviewer, it is also obvious to the reader - so it is not particularly damaging to the subject. I am of the opinion that full flagging will make little or no difference to the BLP problem. (That said, it can't do much harm - so let's try it). However, the current idiotic proposal is utterly useless and conterproductive. For far to long the flagging white elephant has been throw up as chaff to avoid any real steps on BLP harm reduction. For once, let's listen to the Germans who seem to have some useful things to teach us. Erik, or someone who knows, can you outline all the things de.wp does differently from en.wp - and whether it has less of a problem with legitimate subject complaints? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Carcharoth wrote: > Hopefully it can be tweaked to distinguish between removal and > replacement with a death category. And then people can check edits > made claiming someone has died, and make sure reliable sources have > been provided for such claims. I wrote this script a little while ago for this exact purpose: http://toolserver.org/~samkorn/scripts/recentdeaths.php Might be useful until you can get this filter running? Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:07 AM, doc wrote: > Our current vandalism RCP system regularly screws up with BLP. It > reverts people who blank libels - and seldom even casts a glance at the > current state of any article. You think giving these same people more > work will solve the subtler BLP problem? Agreed. And even obvious problems are missed. Have a look at the history of this article for examples where what I presume are Recent Change Patrollers saving revisions of an article that was clearly still in a vandalised state. Classic example of blind reversion that only looked at the current vandalism being removed, not the earlier history or the state the article is being reverted to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Murray http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Kate_Murray_-_article_history_and_uncaught_vandalism_.2B_massive_number_of_attack_edits_by_IPs [Something about a lighthouse.] In case anyone is interested, a filter has been set up to detect removal of the category "Living people". That was how I came across the edit above. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=117 Hopefully it can be tweaked to distinguish between removal and replacement with a death category. And then people can check edits made claiming someone has died, and make sure reliable sources have been provided for such claims. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
2009/4/2 doc : > Erik, or someone who knows, can you outline all the things de.wp does > differently from en.wp - and whether it has less of a problem with > legitimate subject complaints? I'm mostly a tourist on de.wp, but my impression is that it's a combination of - FlaggedRevs on all articles, with most recently flagged version shown by default; - generally higher notability standards than en.wp, on all types of articles; - higher requirements for IP edits; - some systematic training for OTRS volunteers to better handle BLP and other support issues. There are three active chapter organizations, with Wikimedia Germany having hired its own dedicated staff, which helps to deal with escalating problems. That said, there's been a significant decrease in the number of new editors per month on de.wp over the last year, more so than in other large languages. FlaggedRevs in particular can definitely be confusing for new editors, especially if you have to wait days for your edit to be approved. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > I'm in agreement with David here. > I do not want to be a policeman on behaviour, but I would certainly be > interested in, and already do, patrol content changes and pass or > remove spurious details. I think we all do that a bit. Being a > policeman is quite a different role. > > So a flagged rev backlog will only be addressed if we allow all > established users to so address it, and deny the power to admins to > unseat a member of the group. It should probably be automatic at a > certain edit count or length of stay or something of that nature. > There is absolutely no need to create any additional powers for admins, > and we already have process in place to handle people who are truly > disruptive to the system even though long-term participants. We don't > need any more of that. > > Will Johnson > This makes flagged no more than a tool to reduce obvious vandalism - and quite useless for protecting against real BLP harm (see my last post for reasoning). If we have "anyone can review" then we have "any incompetent can review" and if admins can't quickly remove the reviewing right without process and paperwork then any good-faith incompetent will continue to review. Our current vandalism RCP system regularly screws up with BLP. It reverts people who blank libels - and seldom even casts a glance at the current state of any article. You think giving these same people more work will solve the subtler BLP problem? Again, if the bad edit is immediately obvious to the reviewer, it is also obvious to the reader - so it is not particularly damaging to the subject. I am of the opinion that full flagging will make little or no difference to the BLP problem. (That said, it can't do much harm - so let's try it). However, the current idiotic proposal is utterly useless and conterproductive. For far to long the flagging white elephant has been throw up as chaff to avoid any real steps on BLP harm reduction. For once, let's listen to the Germans who seem to have some useful things to teach us. Erik, or someone who knows, can you outline all the things de.wp does differently from en.wp - and whether it has less of a problem with legitimate subject complaints? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > > - As an interesting side note, the mandatory summary script doesn't > seem to trigger on section edits, and those are still very frequently > unexplained. Perhaps it should check whether there is content outside of /* section indicators */ rather than checking for an empty field (which I presume is what it does). -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
2009/4/1 doc : > Is it perhaps time, that we started to demand that basic sourcing was a > pre-requisite of creating an article on any living person? Without commenting on this specific proposal, I thought it interesting that the de.wikipedia.org community implemented a fairly simple way to drive more sourcing on all articles: They made the edit summary field mandatory for new users, and have renamed it to "Summary and Sources", making it clear in lots of places that edits without sources aren't acceptable. If you look at anon recent-changes on de.wp, you'll notice that this has led to lots of people including URLs, etc., directly in their edit summaries. [1] This makes it at least a bit easier for other users to decide on whether the edit was legitimate. [1] http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Letzte_%C3%84nderungen&hideliu=1 - As an interesting side note, the mandatory summary script doesn't seem to trigger on section edits, and those are still very frequently unexplained. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
I'm in agreement with David here. I do not want to be a policeman on behaviour, but I would certainly be interested in, and already do, patrol content changes and pass or remove spurious details. I think we all do that a bit. Being a policeman is quite a different role. So a flagged rev backlog will only be addressed if we allow all established users to so address it, and deny the power to admins to unseat a member of the group. It should probably be automatic at a certain edit count or length of stay or something of that nature. There is absolutely no need to create any additional powers for admins, and we already have process in place to handle people who are truly disruptive to the system even though long-term participants. We don't need any more of that. Will Johnson -Original Message- From: David Goodman To: English Wikipedia Sent: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 5:56 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs doc, I think you underestimate the number of good editors who do not want to be admins but would gladly take this on. Considering what an admin does, I can understand not wanting the distinction, but having a real role in making sure we have an acceptable content is another thing entirely. But you are certainly right that it won;'t solve the subtler problems--though I think experienced people develop a good e ye for what is likely to be NPOV violations. Option 1 above makes little sense to me, and I think to you also, because less watched does not = less notable. it just means less popular. We'll lose most of the senators. We'll keep the wrestlers. Option 2 will take a lot of tweaking. Since flagged revisions is essentially certain to be approved for a trial, why don't we wait and see how it works, as the first of the tweaks. If we change too many variables at once, we'll end up with a lot of rules that won;t really have been necessary. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:27 PM, doc wrote: > Flagged revisions is not going to solve much more than obvious > vandalism. If we flag a good proportion of article, then we will need > lots of reviewers, and the level will be set at sysop of lower - the job > will be tedious and done by the lazy with an eye on edit count. The > problem is that subtle attempt to insert credible untruths, half-truths, > or facts spun to create an imbalanced biased picture of a person will > almost certainly walk through this. > > Only what is obvious to the average lazy reviewer will be prevented - > but what is obvious to the reviewer is not harmful, because it is also > obvious to the reader. Hence, general flagging will not solve the BLP > problem, it will not really even he lp. > > We won't dent this until we start to take maintainability into > consideration as well as verifiability. Sure, any individual BLPs /can/ > be written in good way, but, taken together, our wiki-structure /will > not/ maintain this level of BLPs without an unacceptable level of > harmful articles. Eventualism does not work here - because shitty biased > BLPS in the meantime are not acceptable. > > We have two choices: > 1) delete a large proportion of our lower notability (=less watched by > knowledgable people) BLPs. OR > 2) tweek the structures so that those motivated to be doing the quality > control (and that includes clued readers) are able to maintain more > articles. > > The second option means looking at: > 1) Spot banning anyone pushing negative POVs on a BLP. We should not > waste resources arguing with such people. > 2) Permanently semi-protecting any article where there's been a previous > harmful BLP violation that's not been reverted within a few hours. These > are the articles that our open editing has failed once - the subject > should not be open to it again. > 3) *Insisting on sourcing*. Yes, the patroler /could/ google and check > the verifiability of the thing for himself. But we simply DO NOT have > enough clued patroler to do this. We must put the onus on the editor > giving the information to "show his working" - so that the partoler (or > the casual reader) will be quicker to see any problems with the sourcing. > > Why should unsourced BLPs not be tolerated? Because we cannot maintain > any level of quality control as long as we keep making the checker do > all the work. You want it in? You source it - otherwise NO. > > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
doc, I think you underestimate the number of good editors who do not want to be admins but would gladly take this on. Considering what an admin does, I can understand not wanting the distinction, but having a real role in making sure we have an acceptable content is another thing entirely. But you are certainly right that it won;'t solve the subtler problems--though I think experienced people develop a good eye for what is likely to be NPOV violations. Option 1 above makes little sense to me, and I think to you also, because less watched does not = less notable. it just means less popular. We'll lose most of the senators. We'll keep the wrestlers. Option 2 will take a lot of tweaking. Since flagged revisions is essentially certain to be approved for a trial, why don't we wait and see how it works, as the first of the tweaks. If we change too many variables at once, we'll end up with a lot of rules that won;t really have been necessary. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:27 PM, doc wrote: > Flagged revisions is not going to solve much more than obvious > vandalism. If we flag a good proportion of article, then we will need > lots of reviewers, and the level will be set at sysop of lower - the job > will be tedious and done by the lazy with an eye on edit count. The > problem is that subtle attempt to insert credible untruths, half-truths, > or facts spun to create an imbalanced biased picture of a person will > almost certainly walk through this. > > Only what is obvious to the average lazy reviewer will be prevented - > but what is obvious to the reviewer is not harmful, because it is also > obvious to the reader. Hence, general flagging will not solve the BLP > problem, it will not really even help. > > We won't dent this until we start to take maintainability into > consideration as well as verifiability. Sure, any individual BLPs /can/ > be written in good way, but, taken together, our wiki-structure /will > not/ maintain this level of BLPs without an unacceptable level of > harmful articles. Eventualism does not work here - because shitty biased > BLPS in the meantime are not acceptable. > > We have two choices: > 1) delete a large proportion of our lower notability (=less watched by > knowledgable people) BLPs. OR > 2) tweek the structures so that those motivated to be doing the quality > control (and that includes clued readers) are able to maintain more > articles. > > The second option means looking at: > 1) Spot banning anyone pushing negative POVs on a BLP. We should not > waste resources arguing with such people. > 2) Permanently semi-protecting any article where there's been a previous > harmful BLP violation that's not been reverted within a few hours. These > are the articles that our open editing has failed once - the subject > should not be open to it again. > 3) *Insisting on sourcing*. Yes, the patroler /could/ google and check > the verifiability of the thing for himself. But we simply DO NOT have > enough clued patroler to do this. We must put the onus on the editor > giving the information to "show his working" - so that the partoler (or > the casual reader) will be quicker to see any problems with the sourcing. > > Why should unsourced BLPs not be tolerated? Because we cannot maintain > any level of quality control as long as we keep making the checker do > all the work. You want it in? You source it - otherwise NO. > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
Flagged revisions is not going to solve much more than obvious vandalism. If we flag a good proportion of article, then we will need lots of reviewers, and the level will be set at sysop of lower - the job will be tedious and done by the lazy with an eye on edit count. The problem is that subtle attempt to insert credible untruths, half-truths, or facts spun to create an imbalanced biased picture of a person will almost certainly walk through this. Only what is obvious to the average lazy reviewer will be prevented - but what is obvious to the reviewer is not harmful, because it is also obvious to the reader. Hence, general flagging will not solve the BLP problem, it will not really even help. We won't dent this until we start to take maintainability into consideration as well as verifiability. Sure, any individual BLPs /can/ be written in good way, but, taken together, our wiki-structure /will not/ maintain this level of BLPs without an unacceptable level of harmful articles. Eventualism does not work here - because shitty biased BLPS in the meantime are not acceptable. We have two choices: 1) delete a large proportion of our lower notability (=less watched by knowledgable people) BLPs. OR 2) tweek the structures so that those motivated to be doing the quality control (and that includes clued readers) are able to maintain more articles. The second option means looking at: 1) Spot banning anyone pushing negative POVs on a BLP. We should not waste resources arguing with such people. 2) Permanently semi-protecting any article where there's been a previous harmful BLP violation that's not been reverted within a few hours. These are the articles that our open editing has failed once - the subject should not be open to it again. 3) *Insisting on sourcing*. Yes, the patroler /could/ google and check the verifiability of the thing for himself. But we simply DO NOT have enough clued patroler to do this. We must put the onus on the editor giving the information to "show his working" - so that the partoler (or the casual reader) will be quicker to see any problems with the sourcing. Why should unsourced BLPs not be tolerated? Because we cannot maintain any level of quality control as long as we keep making the checker do all the work. You want it in? You source it - otherwise NO. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
I agree with the sentiment that flagged revisions would take care of this additional issue as well. Flagged revisions also allows people, like me, who are used to working entirely online, to create drafts, then wander away for a while, then come back and add more details, until you have a publishable version. This is the way I frequently work. Flagged revs would allow that to be all in-project. Right now, I sometimes have to create drafts on some white-board at some other site, then copy and paste when I have a worked-up version. Which is needless double-work in my opinion. Will Johnson **Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
I've seen no evidence that the unsourced BLPs are more prone to subtle vandalism at the time of creation than the sourced ones. If it's unsubtle vandalism, speedy already takes care of it just fine. If it happens later, this proposal doesn't do any good towards solving the problem. Maybe there will be a miracle, and flagged revisions will actually prove workable. On 4/1/09, geni wrote: > 2009/4/1 doc : >> Is it perhaps time, that we started to demand that basic sourcing was a >> pre-requisite of creating an article on any living person? > > Nope. Reason being that sourcing is no more than a sop to the media to > pretend we are doing something. > > > -- > geni > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
2009/4/1 doc : > Is it perhaps time, that we started to demand that basic sourcing was a > pre-requisite of creating an article on any living person? Nope. Reason being that sourcing is no more than a sop to the media to pretend we are doing something. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
2009/4/1 doc : > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Concrete_proposal +1 - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:16 PM, doc wrote: > Is it perhaps time, that we started to demand that basic sourcing was a > pre-requisite of creating an article on any living person? > > This proposal aims (without causing any deletion spree of backlogs) to > instigate the idea that basic sourcing is necessary for any BLP to > remain on wikipedia. People are given time to source it (and can even do > so retrospectively) - but we set time limits on unreferenced BLPs. > > We've currently got 30,000 of these unreferenced things - that needs > sorting (preferably by sourcing rather than deletion) - but stemming the > tide is the first step. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Concrete_proposal I'll tell you why I like this proposal: it's very binary, and there's very little room for interpretation. If it's an article on a living person, and it has no sources, then it should be speedied. Very little wiggleroom there. I'm totally pro. --Oskar ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
on 4/1/09 11:16 AM, doc at doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: > Is it perhaps time, that we started to demand that basic sourcing was a > pre-requisite of creating an article on any living person? > Absolutely! The basis for any encyclopedia article should be: This is what I learned about the subject, and this is where I learned it. The only other issue would then be the balance of the sources. Marc Riddell ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
Is it perhaps time, that we started to demand that basic sourcing was a pre-requisite of creating an article on any living person? This proposal aims (without causing any deletion spree of backlogs) to instigate the idea that basic sourcing is necessary for any BLP to remain on wikipedia. People are given time to source it (and can even do so retrospectively) - but we set time limits on unreferenced BLPs. We've currently got 30,000 of these unreferenced things - that needs sorting (preferably by sourcing rather than deletion) - but stemming the tide is the first step. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Concrete_proposal ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
