BLP is a train wreck waiting to happen, Almost 4 years later, the situation grows worse Options

[Daniel Brandt]

I managed to get some historical data points from the archive.org by asking for this page. Unfortunately, the archive.org is having technical difficulties and I cannot get more data points right now. But you get the idea.

The first data point below, in February 2006, was when a couple of editors began formulating a BLP policy. Jimbo gave it his blessing a few months later, and a weak BLP policy was put in place in July 2006.

Total number of entries in "Category:Living people"

2006-02-10: — 68,684

2006-07-19: — 109,854

2006-10-08: — 131,046

2008-03-12: — 263,487

2009-12-22: — 422,899

How should we interpret this data?

1. The efficiency in tagging such articles has improved. (Yikes! — this implies that today there may be a lot more than 422,899 BLPs.)

2. All the publicity regarding Wikipedia's BLP problem meant that bored basement-dwellers realized that they can add obscure people as easily as names of obscure high schools, and increase their edit count. This is how they become a kick-ass administrator on the greatest role-playing game on earth.

3. The Arbcom, which is the highest policy body save for Jimbo, Godwin, and the Foundation, should be disbanded because it is unable to address the most serious problem on Wikipedia.

4. Jimbo sent a train down the track at full throttle without an engineer, and he pretends it's an encyclopedia.

5. The Foundation is begging for a class-action lawsuit because they cannot stop Jimbo's train, and need a judge to tell them what to do. Meanwhile, the donations coming in are quite comfy, San Francisco is a lot of fun, and there's no hurry.

Thank you tarantino, who came up with this link. It provides a random sample of a BLP article. See for yourself what sort of quality we get on Wikipedia. Remember, Facebook may have 350 million entries, but the subject started his or her own entry on Facebook. On Wikipedia, some basement-dweller started it on another person without asking for permission. Moreover, Wikipedia ranks infinitely higher than Facebook on Google.

[Jon Awbrey]

Train Wreck In Progress (TWIP), I think says it better.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Doc glasgow]

1. The efficiency in tagging such articles has improved. (Unfortunately, this implies that today there may be a lot more than 422,899 BLPs.)

2. All the publicity regarding Wikipedia's BLP problem meant that bored basement-dwellers realized that they can add obscure people as easily as names of obscure high schools, and increase their edit count. This is how they become a kick-ass administrator on the greatest role-playing game on earth.

3. The Arbcom, which is the highest policy body save for Jimbo, Godwin, and the Foundation, should be disbanded because it is unable to address the most serious problem on Wikipedia.

4. Jimbo sent a train down the track at full throttle without an engineer, and he pretends it's an encyclopedia.

5. The Foundation is begging for a class-action lawsuit because they cannot stop Jimbo's train, and need a judge to tell them what to do. Meanwhile, the donations coming in are quite comfy, San Francisco is a lot of fun, and there's no hurry.

1. Wikipedians are good at tagging things, at spotting crap and libels not so good. You've no idea how often I discovered a shitty BLP which has been tagged, untagged, edited by bots for style and yet for three years no one has noticed the great big lie in it.

2. Not convinced. If it were admin wannabee creating BLPs, I'd be less worried. At least such people try to be neutral - if only to impress RfA. The problem is those motivated to write articles by spite or agenda. And trust me, there's easier ways to inflate edit count than creating bios.

3. The Arbcom is not a policy body - that's the problem. It isn't that it needs disbanded, so much as wikipedia also needs a real policy body, that's not aimed at pleasing the masses and ruling in house, but it focused on product, quality and, yes, ethics.

4. No arguments there.

5. Probably, but will it happen? A real PR disaster is probably more likely.

You may remember [[Alexander Chancellor]], falsely being listed as dead by wikipedia, and unreverted until he complained in the press (see here ).

There were actually,as was pointed out to me, a whole number of such cases this month.

Several other biographies which were edited to falsely allege the death of the subject, and in each case several days elapsed before the abuse was spotted and reverted.

See [[Mark Sinker]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Sinker&action=historysubmit&diff=332677153&oldid=332134220] (7 days)

[[Dania Krupska]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dania_Krupska&action=historysubmit&diff=332953852&oldid=331842872] (6 days);

[[Pat Hutchins]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Hutchins&action=historysubmit&diff=332593461&oldid=331293852] (7days);

[[John Keay]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Keay&action=historysubmit&diff=332593640&oldid=331117746] (8days);

[[Frank X. Gaspar]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_X._Gaspar&action=historysubmit&diff=332542015&oldid=330743346] (9days).

While this may be evidence of someone's breaching experiment, it rather makes the point.

[John Limey]

Total number of entries in "Category:Living people"

2006-02-10: — 68,684

2006-07-19: — 109,854

2006-10-08: — 131,046

2008-03-12: — 263,487

2009-12-22: — 422,899

How should we interpret this data?

Another particularly notable fact is not just that the number of BLPs has grown, but also that the number of BLPs has grown much faster than the overall article count. In February 2006, BLPs only accounted for 7% of Wikipedia. Today, they account for 13.5%. Of course, this could just be related to increased tagging, but I for one think it indicates that, despite whatever may be said about BLPs, the problem is getting worse.

If we accept that the growth rate of tagged BLPs is roughly the same as the rate of BLP creation, then it should also be noted that from March 2008 to today, Wikipedia grew by 865,860 articles. Of these, 159,412 were BLPs. In other words, nearly one in five articles added to Wikipedia over the last 21 months was a BLP.

Size of Wikipedia on 2006-02-14 (closest to 02-10 I could find easily) = 971,518. 68684/971518 * 100= 7.07% BLPs.

Size of Wikipedia on 2006-07-04 (closest to 7-19) = 1234741. 109854/1234741 * 100 = 8.90% BLPs

Size of Wikipedia 2006-10-05 (closest to 10-08) = 1418517. 131046/1418527 * 100 = 9.24% BLPs

Size of Wikipedia 2008-03-08 (closest to 03-12) = 2269796. 263487/2269796 * 100 = 11.60% BLPs

Size of Wikipedia 2009-12-22= 3134656. 422899/3134656 * 100 = 13.49% BLPs.

[MZMcBride]

I've had a tool to pull a random biography of a living person for a while (though, admittedly, it's completely unadvertised): http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/randombio/

Most biographies are in the "Living people" tracking category, over 99% I'd say from my experience. The problem, of course, is that 1% of 422,173 is still over 4,000 biographies not properly categorized. From what I've seen, the problem was worse at the beginning of the year, so progress is being made, just very slowly.

I've been casually wondering over the past few days whether it would be possible to effectively scan page text and measure certain characteristics of articles to find (statistically) bad biographies. Pages with few watchers, few page hits, and a lot of "bad" words ("molest," "rape," "murdered," etc.) may be more likely to be problematic biographies. It's not a particularly easy project, but it's one that I'm hoping may net some useful results.

[Milton Roe]

Total number of entries in "Category:Living people"

2006-02-10: — 68,684

2006-07-19: — 109,854

2006-10-08: — 131,046

2008-03-12: — 263,487

2009-12-22: — 422,899

How should we interpret this data?

Another particularly notable fact is not just that the number of BLPs has grown, but also that the number of BLPs has grown much faster than the overall article count. In February 2006, BLPs only accounted for 7% of Wikipedia. Today, they account for 13.5%. Of course, this could just be related to increased tagging, but I for one think it indicates that, despite whatever may be said about BLPs, the problem is getting worse.

If we accept that the growth rate of tagged BLPs is roughly the same as the rate of BLP creation, then it should also be noted that from March 2008 to today, Wikipedia grew by 865,860 articles. Of these, 159,412 were BLPs. In other words, nearly one in five articles added to Wikipedia over the last 21 months was a BLP.

Size of Wikipedia on 2006-02-14 (closest to 02-10 I could find easily) = 971,518. 68684/971518 * 100= 7.07% BLPs.

Size of Wikipedia on 2006-07-04 (closest to 7-19) = 1234741. 109854/1234741 * 100 = 8.90% BLPs

Size of Wikipedia 2006-10-05 (closest to 10-08) = 1418517. 131046/1418527 * 100 = 9.24% BLPs

Size of Wikipedia 2008-03-08 (closest to 03-12) = 2269796. 263487/2269796 * 100 = 11.60% BLPs

Size of Wikipedia 2009-12-22= 3134656. 422899/3134656 * 100 = 13.49% BLPs.

In retrospect inevitable given the slack notability standards. What fraction of the world's population has ever done of the things that would get them "notability" criteria under WP's BLP guidelines? If even 1% it's still [edit for math] 60 million+ BLPs. I have to mention here my favorite gonzo WP article List of Chinese people, still incomplete. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) If you compare that with WP articles worth writing about the natural world (and remember that wiki articles about animals species are split off) you come to the conclusion that eventually most of WP will be BLPs. Really.

Anybody got a convincing argument why not? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Eh?

[Jon Awbrey]

Anybody got a convincing argument why not? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Eh?

Wut? Only one BLP per person? Hardly enough for some of our favorite MOIDerers.

In the future, everyone will have 15 BLPs.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Lar]

Another particularly notable fact is not just that the number of BLPs has grown, but also that the number of BLPs has grown much faster than the overall article count. In February 2006, BLPs only accounted for 7% of Wikipedia. Today, they account for 13.5%. Of course, this could just be related to increased tagging, but I for one think it indicates that, despite whatever may be said about BLPs, the problem is getting worse.

This could be because the easy non biographical topics are all written about (there are only so many species that you can write anything at all about other than their name, only so many elements, only so many notable companies, etc etc) but there are a lot of people out there. And I wouldn't be surprised to see that notability standards have been creeping downwards....

[Somey]

If you compare that with WP articles worth writing about the natural world (and remember that wiki articles about animals species are split off) you come to the conclusion that eventually most of WP will be BLPs. Really.

Anybody got a convincing argument why not? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Eh?

Obviously if current trends continue, there can be no contrary argument. BLP's are a growth sector, because more new people are being born all the time - the others are popular culture and current events, and to a lesser extent, innovative technologies and consumer products. Of all those, popular culture is the only one that has a real chance of competing with BLP's in terms of the creation and acquisition of new topic-area territory (NTAT).

And just as obviously, this is why people at all levels of the WP hierarchy resist reform on this issue - Wikipedia has to recruit, and recruitment (practically speaking) requires the creation of additional NTAT for the new recruits to occupy. Trying to recruit people to do maintenance is a failure proposition. The fact that living people have to suffer loss of privacy and threat of defamation to feed the Massive Spam Engine doesn't even enter into their thinking - that's an moral/ethical consideration, not a practical one, therefore irrelevant to them.

[John Limey]

In retrospect inevitable given the slack notability standards. What fraction of the world's population has ever done of the things that would get them "notability" criteria under WP's BLP guidelines? If even 1% it's still 600 million + BLPs. I have to mention here my favorite gonzo WP article List of Chinese people, still incomplete. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) If you compare that with WP articles worth writing about the natural world (and remember that wiki articles about animals species are split off) you come to the conclusion that eventually most of WP will be BLPs. Really.

Anybody got a convincing argument why not? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Eh?

This could be because the easy non biographical topics are all written about (there are only so many species that you can write anything at all about other than their name, only so many elements, only so many notable companies, etc etc) but there are a lot of people out there. And I wouldn't be surprised to see that notability standards have been creeping downwards....

This sort of view really only holds if living people are somehow more notable than dead people. Why shouldn't Wikipedia fill up with articles on hundreds of millions of dead people?

[thekohser]

I just pulled up 10 random Living Person biographies. I would describe them as:

1 Internet cruft bio;

1 police blotter report;

5 marginally noteworthy pro or semi-pro athletes;

1 chess grandmaster;

2 musicians, one of some note, the other I suspect may live in his mom's basement.

At best, one of these articles (about Pinetop Perkins) might appear in a general encyclopedia, but likely not; certainly in an encyclopedia of the blues. Paul Byrd would show up in an encyclopedia of baseball. Evgeny Vladimirov might appear in a chess encyclopedia.

In those encyclopedias, their legacy would be comparatively safe from the whims of a 13-year-old in his school computer lab, commenting on just how much you look like Kelsey Grammer or about your gay porn addiction.




EDIT: Note the contributions of that next-to-last editor... the IP's never been blocked, has it? Just a bunch of warnings to behave.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[bambi]

"I'd be happy to have, in theory, a good, neutral biography on every single person on the planet," he says. "I mean, why not, right?" — Jimmy Wales in The Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2008

This post has been edited by bambi:

[Doc glasgow]

"I'd be happy to have, in theory, a good, neutral biography on every single person on the planet," he says. "I mean, why not, right?" — Jimmy Wales in The Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2008

Yeah, idiot.

[bambi]

"I'd be happy to have, in theory, a good, neutral biography on every single person on the planet," he says. "I mean, why not, right?" — Jimmy Wales in The Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2008

Yeah, idiot.

The Arbcom is working for this guy (he appoints them and he can fire them), and he doesn't even pay them. How intelligent does an arbitrator have to be to do this, I wonder?

[Milton Roe]

This could be because the easy non biographical topics are all written about (there are only so many species that you can write anything at all about other than their name, only so many elements, only so many notable companies, etc etc) but there are a lot of people out there. And I wouldn't be surprised to see that notability standards have been creeping downwards....

This sort of view really only holds if living people are somehow more notable than dead people. Why shouldn't Wikipedia fill up with articles on hundreds of millions of dead people?

According to WP's official criteria, living people really are (on the whole) more notable than dead people. Why? Fame. Because computer power, internet power, and media publishing power all expand in power exponentially into the future, where living people tend to be; and at the same time shrink exponentially in the past, where the dead people tend to be. All other things being equal. I hope I don't have to explain this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

WP's "notability" criteria (please note) depend in large part on prior publication of information about you. That is what's driving notability creep, not the fact that WP has run out of "easy" bios. Due basically to Moore's law, there are more cameras and "publishers" out there, every second. And they're generally not pointed at new species of ants, or reporting new facts about yttrium.

Again, most of "pop culture" is basically gossip. Your human brain evolved as a gossip processor, since your tribal alliances were what were going to keep you (and your offspring) alive, not how to integrate ln(x). So what do you EXPECT a popular encyclopedia to be about? Sports teams are just proxies for hunting teams. Minor politicians are the same minor "politicians" people had to deal with 50,000 years ago (know what to kiss and when). The idea that we're all going to subvert our basic instincts and construct an encyclopedia about the natural world rather than the social world, is perhaps one of the oddest aspirations of Wikipedia.

In any case, it didn't work. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

"I'd be happy to have, in theory, a good, neutral biography on every single person on the planet,"† he says. "I mean, why not, right?" — Jimmy Wales in The Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2008.

†(some exceptions apply)

[John Limey]

I've had a tool to pull a random biography of a living person for a while (though, admittedly, it's completely unadvertised): http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/randombio/

Might I ask how the tool works? Is it truly random? I assume it just takes a random biography out of Category:Living people? Does it also include Category:Possibly living people?

[Doc glasgow]

"I'd be happy to have, in theory, a good, neutral biography on every single person on the planet," he says. "I mean, why not, right?" — Jimmy Wales in The Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2008

Yeah, idiot.

The Arbcom is working for this guy (he appoints them and he can fire them), and he doesn't even pay them. How intelligent does an arbitrator have to be to do this, I wonder?

This is a polite fiction. Jimmy likes to think he's the ultimate authority, but it's BS. I wish it wasn't because if he were in charge, at least someone would be responsible - even if it were an irresponsible person.

Fact is, while once Jimmy had founderpower - that's gone. The WMF accords him no role in Wikipedia - it is "just a host" - and the community is in charge, and his "traditional" role in the community has no teeth. If Jimmy tried to "fire" arbcom, unless he did it with the community's support, he'd be fired himself.

Like the Queen, he retains the myth titular power only by never exercising it. If he exercised it, it would be removed.

As much as I don't check-in at the Jimbo cult, the idea that the "community" has the ultimate authority over the project scares me more than him.

[GlassBeadGame]

"I'd be happy to have, in theory, a good, neutral biography on every single person on the planet," he says. "I mean, why not, right?" — Jimmy Wales in The Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2008

Yeah, idiot.

The Arbcom is working for this guy (he appoints them and he can fire them), and he doesn't even pay them. How intelligent does an arbitrator have to be to do this, I wonder?

This is a polite fiction. Jimmy likes to think he's the ultimate authority, but it's BS. I wish it wasn't because if he were in charge, at least someone would be responsible - even if it were an irresponsible person.

Fact is, while once Jimmy had founderpower - that's gone. The WMF accords him no role in Wikipedia - it is "just a host" - and the community is in charge, and his "traditional" role in the community has no teeth. If Jimmy tried to "fire" arbcom, unless he did it with the community's support, he'd be fired himself.

Like the Queen, he retains the myth titular power only by never exercising it. If he exercised it, it would be removed.

As much as I don't check-in at the Jimbo cult, the idea that the "community" has the ultimate authority over the project scares me more than him.

I'd love to see this arrive at push come to shove. I think if it did it would play out very different than you imagine. Not because Mr. Wales has any influence, but because WMF's B/D would have to intervene on his side or become irrelevant themselves. If not it would either be community anarchy and irresponsibility on a level not possible to sustain. If so then some kind of crack down on the community. Either way...

[MZMcBride]

I've had a tool to pull a random biography of a living person for a while (though, admittedly, it's completely unadvertised): http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/randombio/

Might I ask how the tool works? Is it truly random? I assume it just takes a random biography out of Category:Living people? Does it also include Category:Possibly living people?

It's only Category:Living people. It uses the page_random column (which is seeded by MediaWiki) and it uses the RAND() function of MySQL, which seems to be random enough (as long as you don't notice the pattern, one doesn't exist, right?).

CODE

SELECT
  page_title
FROM page
JOIN categorylinks
ON cl_from = page_id
WHERE cl_to = "Living_people"
AND page_namespace = 0
AND page_is_redirect = 0
AND page_random > RAND()
ORDER BY page_random
LIMIT 1;