I agree with the problem of writing in this style. It's not an easy thing to do. We are creating a creature which has never before existed. An encyclopedia which cites its sources in-line for each controversial statement (at least). And trying to do it with a minimum of bloodshed.
-----Original Message----- From: Emily Monroe <bluecalioc...@me.com> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2009 8:38 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force > Now discarding those sort of sources, let's say we have five > newspaper articles, and two mentions in books about this person > positively, and 245 newspaper articles and 18 mentions negative. > What would you do? I would put the weight on the negative. I just realized this. > The weight is clearly on the negative and that's how we should write > the article. I think I was wrong, at least on some counts. I don't have experience citing articles, just making sure it isn't construed in a way that isn't an attack or full of WP:WEASELS, or WP:PEACOCKS. Sorry about that. I hope this sidetrack was beneficial anyway. Emily On Aug 6, 2009, at 10:32 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > Blog posts fail our requirement that an author of a piece be > previously > published by a third-party publisher. Blog posts are almost always by > amateur writers, regardless of how long they've been blogging. A true > writer, has true writing credits by reputable publishing houses. > > Similarly newsletter articles have little to no valid editorial > oversight. Generally what you write, is what they print, and > sometimes > there is a too-close relationship between the writer and the publisher > which we would want to avoid. True writers, have true writings, > published by actual third-party reputable publishing houses. > Newsletters would fail. > > Now discarding those sort of sources, let's say we have five newspaper > articles, and two mentions in books about this person positively, and > 245 newspaper articles and 18 mentions negative. What would you do? > > What I would do, is try to distill the essence of those contributions > into an article. Obviously nobody, not even Barack warrants 270 > footnotes. So we have to narrow it somewhat. The way we should > narrow > it however wouldn't be to balance the positive with the negative in > this case. The weight is clearly on the negative and that's how we > should write the article. > > Will Johnson > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Emily Monroe <bluecalioc...@me.com> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2009 8:20 pm > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force > >> What you're really saying is, "Isn't there a way to be nice even to >> people who aren't nice?". > > No, I didn't. You misunderstood me. Let me explain. > > I'm more worried about uneven reporting. If, say, there's one hundred > blog posts and fifty newsletter articles about how horrible a person > is, and twenty blog posts, ten newsletter articles, and a somewhat > notable book saying "Hey, this person is actually pretty decent.", of > course these sources containing positive information being somewhat > more hard to find, being the minority, then the wikipedia article will > focus ALL on the negative aspects on the person with a glossed over > paragraph or two about "Some people disagree with this". > > I wasn't talking about violating WP:UNDUE. I wasn't talking about > featured articles which has 150 inline citations, with an extensive > bibliography besides. I was talking about long-forgotten articles > which gets maybe more edits from the article creator (stereotypically > somebody who isn't very experienced in "Wikipedia Ways") and the new > page patroller, who notices the statement of notability, assumes good > faith, tries to make it NPOV, tags the page, marks the page patrolled, > and moves on, than anyone else who's human. > > Humans tend to unconsciously focus on the negative. This is something > we do automatically. It probably makes sense in terms of evolutionary > history. It's better to avoid fire than get burned. It's better to > avoid water than to drown. In modern history, it gets you more > attention from a medical laymen, and so you are more likely to get > attention from a medical expert (via getting means of transportation, > peer pressure, etc.). It increases the ability to survive, but not > write Wikipedia articles. > > Perhaps I'm thinking in black and white, or using the filter of "I > have read way too many stub-to-start class articles which only the > author and the new page patroller [me] has read and yet have not > enough experience or ability to self-express to even participate in > this discussion" improperly. > >> If the only verifiable information on a BLP is negative, then that >> is what the article should contain. > >> We shouldn't add unverifiable information simply for balance. That >> sort of action would be untrue to our principles and policies. > > You're right. > >> "Starting over" won't change that. > > To interpret what you said literally, no, starting over an article > doesn't usually change policy. > > To respond to what I think you were saying, I thought that was we > achieve, to a lesser degree, when we userfy an article that could be > speedied and yet appears to be made in good faith? On the other hand, > with BLP, there's a point when the whole ethical question of "Should > this even be in Wikipedia at all?" needs to be asked. In that case, > the answer I would give is "Unless and until somebody can provide a > WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, BLP compliant article, then the article doesn't > belong in Wikipedia." > > Emily > > > On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:37 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > >> >> >> What you're really saying is, "Isn't there a way to be nice even to >> people who aren't nice?". >> If the only verifiable information on a BLP is negative, then that is >> what the article should contain. >> We shouldn't add unverifiable information simply for balance. That >> sort of action would be untrue to our principles and policies. >> >> "Starting over" won't change that. >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Emily Monroe <bluecalioc...@me.com> >> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >> Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2009 4:52 pm >> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was >>> bad. >> >> I agree. >> >> But what if the only verifiable information in the article is the >> negative stuff, in spite of having other, less widely-reported >> information available? If I had ran across that as a new page >> patroller, I'd probably tag it as an attack page if it was severe >> enough, but what about less severe, and/or older pages? Do we delete >> and start over, or do we merely add the positive information? >> >> Hitler is an extreme example. Everybody in the mainstream knows >> Hitler >> was bad. We just state why. >> >> Emily >> On Aug 6, 2009, at 12:38 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >> >>> Of course, and that's why we have other rules which moderate the >>> other >>> rules. And the BLP policy itself is a rule. However if a piece of >>> evidence is both verifiable, and widely reported and yet negative >>> about >>> a person, and that person vociferously objects to it's inclusion... >>> than what? That is the problem here. We should not white-wash a >>> piece >>> of negative, verifiable, widely reported bit simply because it might >>> affect a person, or even if they claim it does or has. We're not >>> the >>> nicey-nice patrol and shouldn't be forced to become it. We're >>> encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was bad. >>> >>> Will Johnson >>> >>> <<Not everything which is verifiable should be included in >>> Wikipedia.>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ken Arromdee <arrom...@rahul.net> >>> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >>> Sent: Wed, Aug 5, 2009 10:30 pm >>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >>>> The language of the board resolution doesn't come down hard enough >>>> on >>>> the side of verifiable information. That is, if something is >>>> verifiable, even a direct quote from the subject themself, then >>>> that >>>> information should be allowed to be included, and should not be >>>> forcibly stopped from inclusion by aggressive article >>>> patrollers-with-tools. It seems to me that the way the language is >>>> worded, the board is going to continue to allow harassment of those >>>> editors conscientious to the evidence, at the expense of verifiable >>>> evidence already broadcast widely across the net. >>> >>> I think that this is exactly why we need people working on BLP. >>> Wikipedia >>> has put so much emphasis on rules such as verifiability that some >>> people think >>> that the rules trump everything else. Worse yet, the system is set >>> up >>> so that >>> the rules *do* trump everything else; in a conflict between someone >>> with a rule >>> and someone who's trying to use judgment, the rule always wins, >>> because >>> you can always argue with someone's personal judgment, but the >>> rule's >>> right there in print. >>> >>> BLP is sort of a hack to the system which says "we're going to force >>> you to >>> ignore the rules in this particular situation, because they *really* >>> don't >>> work". It by no means covers every situation where the rules cause >>> problems, >>> but it's better than nothing and right now it's all we've got. >>> >>> Not everything which is verifiable should be included in Wikipedia. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ 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