The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Discussions in this subforum are hidden from search engines.

However, they are not hidden from automobile engines, including the newer, more "environmentally-friendly" electric and hybrid engines. Also, please note that this subforum is meant to be used for discussion of the actual biographical articles themselves; more generalized discussions of BLP policy should be posted in the General Discussion or Bureaucracy forums.

3 Pages V < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Luke Evans - not as gay as previously believed
Somey
post Wed 10th August 2011, 6:18am
Post #21


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(radek @ Wed 10th August 2011, 12:55am) *
Based on something or a joke I'm not getting? (I ask because I'm surprised)

Surprised about which thing - the small amount of biased/negative, or the large amount of biased/positive? (Or both, I suppose...)

This is sort of what I would have expected, and I'd like to thank Mr. Barbour here for coming up with this pie chart (though I suppose we'll want to see his raw data at some point or other). Unfortunately, the relatively small amount of biased/negative info only makes it more damaging when it does happen, because the larger amount of "neutral" and biased/positive content gives people a false sense of Wikipedia's general decency and fairness.

Likewise, it shows that there really is no reason to fear an opt-out policy, and there probably never was - given these results, most people would actually be foolish to want articles about themselves deleted, unless they had a very good reason (particularly one that involves disputes with Wikipedians themselves). The really despicable thing about Wikipedia(ns) and BLPs isn't that those latter-case scenarios exist, but rather that they refuse to admit it, and because of that they refuse to do the right thing to deal with it - even though the effect it would have on their website would be minimal at worst.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
radek
post Wed 10th August 2011, 6:21am
Post #22


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined: Sat 28th Nov 2009, 10:40pm
Member No.: 15,651

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 10th August 2011, 1:18am) *

QUOTE(radek @ Wed 10th August 2011, 12:55am) *
Based on something or a joke I'm not getting? (I ask because I'm surprised)

Surprised about which thing - the small amount of biased/negative, or the large amount of biased/positive? (Or both, I suppose...)

This is sort of what I would have expected, and I'd like to thank Mr. Barbour here for coming up with this pie chart (though I suppose we'll want to see his raw data at some point or other). Unfortunately, the relatively small amount of biased/negative info only makes it more damaging when it does happen, because the larger amount of "neutral" and biased/positive content gives people a false sense of Wikipedia's general decency and fairness.

Likewise, it shows that there really is no reason to fear an opt-out policy, and there probably never was - given these results, most people would actually be foolish to want articles about themselves deleted, unless they had a very good reason (particularly one that involves disputes with Wikipedians themselves). The really despicable thing about Wikipedia(ns) and BLPs isn't that those scenarios exist, but rather that they refuse to admit it, and because of that they refuse to do the right thing to deal with it - even though the effect it would have on their website would be minimal at worst.


By the large number of "neutrals" - I suspect that this may be due to a large number of stubs which have little but name and birth date in'em. I can see how outright "negative" ones are rather rare (though too many anyway) but I would have expected more self promotion. So yeah I'm basically interested in the methodology here - like how is the subjective (nothing wrong with that) assessment of +/-/neut made. Also, are these all biographies or BLPs (I'm guessing the latter)?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Wed 10th August 2011, 2:52pm
Post #23


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 10th August 2011, 4:59am) *

It's an interesting problem, I suppose - normally it wouldn't be anyone's business, but since he's a movie actor playing leading-man roles, sexual orientation is (for better or worse) an important factor in determining "bankability."
...
Looking at the big picture, I guess gay folks won't have complete equality until people either stop making a point of drawing attention to their sexual orientation, or until people start making a point of drawing attention to the sexual orientation of [i]heterosexuals.

There is an inevitable middle stage where PR folks accept that the people understand that actors aren't the characters that they play and stop trying to appease the tiny portion of the public that gets upset about such things.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Wed 10th August 2011, 3:06pm
Post #24


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 10th August 2011, 5:51am) *

Look at the members list and scroll down to #216.
It's Tyciol! Yeah, great idea, letting him hang around!

Wikiproject Pornography has a member who self-identifies as 13 years old. Hmmmm, perhaps I should have mentioned this to someone?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jd turk
post Wed 10th August 2011, 11:15pm
Post #25


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon 5th May 2008, 12:56am
Member No.: 5,976



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 9th August 2011, 12:15am) *

If WP's administration was serious about taking care of BLPs, it would give immediate blocks to any editor who revert wars with Scott or Off2 in a BLP.


I don't guess you've ever tried to talk to Off2 for any length of time before. It's kind of like just dialing seven random numbers, and trying to order a pizza.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sololol
post Thu 11th August 2011, 12:10am
Post #26


Bell the Cat
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun 10th Apr 2011, 6:32am
Member No.: 50,538

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(jd turk @ Wed 10th August 2011, 7:15pm) *

I don't guess you've ever tried to talk to Off2 for any length of time before. It's kind of like just dialing seven random numbers, and trying to order a pizza.

Haha, very apt. For a long time I thought he had to be a griefing sockpuppet, the arguments were too absurd.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Thu 11th August 2011, 12:10am
Post #27


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(jd turk @ Wed 10th August 2011, 4:15pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 9th August 2011, 12:15am) *

If WP's administration was serious about taking care of BLPs, it would give immediate blocks to any editor who revert wars with Scott or Off2 in a BLP.


I don't guess you've ever tried to talk to Off2 for any length of time before. It's kind of like just dialing seven random numbers, and trying to order a pizza.

I read a science fiction book in 1970 that featured a computer that had a modem. Somebody programmed it to dial random numbers looking for another computer, and if it found one, attempt to reprogram it over the phone to dial random numbers itself in the same way.

The book said that in theory this sort of thing could spread like an infection. Blew my mind. happy.gif wink.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
It's the blimp, Frank
post Thu 11th August 2011, 3:03am
Post #28


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 3:54pm
Member No.: 82



QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 10th August 2011, 6:18am) *

This is sort of what I would have expected, and I'd like to thank Mr. Barbour here for coming up with this pie chart (though I suppose we'll want to see his raw data at some point or other).


And the formula for interpreting the data -- if it were that simple, I would think that someone would have applied it to settle all the longstanding content disputes about whether a given BLP is neutral or not.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Thu 11th August 2011, 4:26am
Post #29


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



The chart was derived from a survey I did of 200 randomly-chosen biographies.

Think about this: there are roughly 1 million bios on English WP.
If about 1.5% of them are defamatory, that's 15,000 people being defamed.


Stubs, you say? Let me tell you about stubs on Wikipedia.

Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Thu 11th August 2011, 4:32am
Post #30


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



If you're nice to me, I'll post the chart about WP bio living/dead ratio.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Thu 11th August 2011, 4:41am
Post #31


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



Hmmm... IMO you'd have to admit that an (arbitrary?) 10KB cutoff for what constitutes "useful" is subjective, not to mention debatable - though I'd almost have to say that it requires an even more subjective definition of "useful" that takes the subject matter of each article into account (even if we're limiting ourselves to BLPs). But how you'd establish and codify a methodology for that, I have no idea...

Still, I personally think these numbers are fairly consistent with what we see and, to some extent, hear about anecdotally. What's more, the statistics that come out of the WMF and Wikipedia itself rarely take things like "mass-stubification" into account - put it all together and it suggests that WP's growth hasn't been anywhere near as impressive as they've been saying, and the decline in their real growth rate has probably been going on a lot longer than they've let on.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
It's the blimp, Frank
post Thu 11th August 2011, 5:45pm
Post #32


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 3:54pm
Member No.: 82



Is there a way to get a count of how many BLPs have the "controversial" tag?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
radek
post Thu 11th August 2011, 6:02pm
Post #33


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined: Sat 28th Nov 2009, 10:40pm
Member No.: 15,651

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 10th August 2011, 11:32pm) *

If you're nice to me, I'll post the chart about WP bio living/dead ratio.


I'll be nice I promise, especially if there's any chance you'd share the data. I could reciprocate by doing some sampling of my own at your direction if you want.

With the length thing... I got to trot out this old gem: Wyandanch, New York though I got to say, they really ruined it from its glory days when it was at 340k. I was really hoping Mr. 24.186.230.106 would get up to half a mil before they noticed and start cutting it down (I haven't lost all hope yet, he's been down below 100k before and always bounced back).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Thu 11th August 2011, 7:43pm
Post #34


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



A few new articles today.I wonder how his publicists feel about their strategy now? I note that IMDB is currently the number one link for my Google search of "Luke Evans", with WP being number two, but I expect that to flip shortly.

This post has been edited by carbuncle: Thu 11th August 2011, 7:48pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pwok
post Thu 11th August 2011, 8:55pm
Post #35


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed 15th Aug 2007, 12:13am
Member No.: 2,462

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Someone alerted me to the Luke Evans dust-up. It is similar to one that I was involved with a few years ago concerning Matt Sanchez, a gay porn actor and prostitute who became involved in far right-wing politics, up to and including appearances on Fox News. When Sanchez's past was exposed, he admitted the porn (kinda hard to avoid that), but claimed he'd never been homosexual and gave contradictory statements about his prostitution. It all wound up in a big Wikipedia fight, the outcome being that Sanchez's porn career was minimized (from more than 45 films to only four listed), with any mention of his well-documented career as a prostitute censored from Wikipedia. Those facts remain censored today. Because of Wikipedia's stance, which involved their breaking their own rules, I created a website that preserves the accurate record.

With respect to Luke Evans, two issues matter. One is Wikipedia's disregard for both fact and its own rules. This critical problem is at the heart of Wikipedia's lack of credibility. No reputable university will allow a student or faculty member to cite Wikipedia as a source, and in popular culture Wikipedia's approach to facts -- that facts are what people agree to call facts -- is appropriate the subject of derision and satire. The other issue is the particulars of this particular actor. Is he gay? Was he gay? Do we care?

I'll dispense with the latter issue first. I never heard of Luke Evans until three days ago. I haven't spent any time looking up career. I haven't even Googled his photo. It's probably because celebrities don't wow me. But the cultural reality is that the private lives of public figures have always been relevant to millions of people, and that certainly includes their sex lives. This is especially true in Hollywood, where the sexuality of its actors, both public and private, has been central to casting and promotion decisions from the very beginning of that industry. Beyond that, in Evans's case, his apparent desire to "rebrand" himself as heterosexual raises a wider set of issues concerning the status of homosexuality and homosexuals in today's culture. This includes the motion picture business, where the so-called "bearding" of actors has been practiced for a very long time, including in the present. Others can disagree, and I'll probably regard their objections as ignorant, laughable, or both, depending on how phrased. But as it concerns Wikipedia's treatment of Evans, my opinion and your opinion of these issue is really beside the point. What counts is whether Wikipedia can be trusted to respect facts and/or its own editing rules. And on those scores, the current dust-up shows that Wikipedia is just as rotten as it ever was. I'd argue (and have argued here) that this goes right to the core of the Wikipedia concept, which is that facts have no independent existence but can be determined by consensus. Once you accept that pernicious idea, then nothing else can be trusted.

In 2002, Evans gave an interview to The Advocate, a well-established gay magazine, discussing his same-sex orientation. In 2004, he gave another interview to something called "Gaydar Nation," a U.K.-based online publication, containing an explicit discussion of his homosexuality. In the same year, he gave a third interview to QX, another U.K.-based Internet gay site, in which he discussed his homosexuality. These three interviews are facts. Also a fact is that Wikipedia's guidelines on the topic of "notability" forbid its use in judging the content of an article. "Notability" is to be applied to the topic, not the contents. Yet, in the Wikipedia justification for censoring facts about both Luke Evans now, and Matt Sanchez some years back, their editors have used "notability" to exclude facts from the articles. This is really only to be expected from an enterprise that begins with the idea that facts have no independent validity. Once you've done that, it's barely a baby step to ignore your own stated rules. As an aside, it's not necessary for Wikipedia's article to say whether or not Evans "is" or "was" gay. What the article should include, though, is references to his two interviews in which he discussed his sexuality in detail.

So, while Luke Evans and his (or his publicists', or both) attempts to "re-closet" himself are trivial, for now, and mainly the subject of guffaws, they nevertheless do once again shine a light on Wikipedia, a fact-free pseudo-"encyclopedia" where decisions are made by roving bands of children, without regard to what might be true, or what that organization holds out as its own processes. This is why Wikipedia is hollow at the core, and can never be trusted.

This post has been edited by Pwok: Fri 12th August 2011, 2:13am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Adversary
post Fri 12th August 2011, 6:53pm
Post #36


CT (Check Troll)
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 801
Joined: Sat 20th May 2006, 12:09am
Member No.: 194



QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 9th August 2011, 8:57pm) *

I bet The Adversary looks like this. smile.gif
Ah, just noticed this.

Well, Horsey (and uncle Milty): when you guys start looking like Sean Connery, I will start looking like Ursula Undress.
Eh, Andress.

That is a promise smile.gif
QUOTE(Pwok @ Thu 11th August 2011, 8:55pm) *

<>that this goes right to the core of the Wikipedia concept, which is that facts have no independent existence but can be determined by consensus. Once you accept that pernicious idea, then nothing else can be trusted.<>
Absolutely agree, unfortunately. Except that officially it is called "verifiability, not truth".
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Fri 12th August 2011, 9:29pm
Post #37


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 11th August 2011, 8:43pm) *

A few new articles today.I wonder how his publicists feel about their strategy now? I note that IMDB is currently the number one link for my Google search of "Luke Evans", with WP being number two, but I expect that to flip shortly.


Seems to me that Americans have got a big fat dick up their collective arse regarding who is fucking who.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Fri 12th August 2011, 10:26pm
Post #38


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(radek @ Thu 11th August 2011, 11:02am) *
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 10th August 2011, 11:32pm) *
If you're nice to me, I'll post the chart about WP bio living/dead ratio.
I'll be nice I promise, especially if there's any chance you'd share the data. I could reciprocate by doing some sampling of my own at your direction if you want.


PM me, please. I need all the help I can get.

Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Silver seren
post Sat 13th August 2011, 10:09pm
Post #39


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu 30th Dec 2010, 2:09pm
Member No.: 36,940

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Make it stop! >_<

This post has been edited by Silver seren: Sat 13th August 2011, 11:50pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Sat 13th August 2011, 11:07pm
Post #40


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sat 13th August 2011, 11:09pm) *


HIREZ images of him making the beast with two backs (either which way) or he's an Ottava.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th 9 17, 11:48pm