Giffords shooting Options

[EricBarbour]

Just a fine example of how WP fails to control BLPs, especially when breaking news causes disagreement.

The BLP for Arizona representative Gabrielle Giffords just sat there for years, attracting a few edits a month,
except for the days right after last November's election, when a single editor posted conflicting info about her very close election.
That eventually faded out.

Until today. Giffords was shot in Tucson. A sad and disgusting development.

Instantly her BLP became a madhouse. Because early news reports did not agree about Giffords' fate,
people editwarred "she's dead" or "she's not dead" back and forth.

Slp1 finally full-protected it.

Did the editwarring end? NO. Instead, administrators and rollbackers continued the editwarring--
being the only people with access to the article. At least one of them apologized. The others did not.

Evil Saltine unprotects it.
Sarek reprotects it.
Geni unprotects it again.
Jimbo weighs in.
SlimVirgin reprotects it.

In short, it looked like a typical trivial, chickenshit, pointless editwar over POV content.
Except that for more than 2 hours, all the warriors were administrators and rollbackers.

FT2, Rambling Man, GageSkidmore, KimChee, various others: take a bow, you assholes!

And for extra lulz: similar crap was occurring around the BLP for judge John McCarthy Roll, who was killed in the same incident.

Editorializing: a real encyclopedia would immediately protect articles involving contentious breaking news.
But Wikipedia isn't an "encyclopedia", it's a playground for ADHD trolls. They can't agree on what to do.

[CharlotteWebb]

I bet half of them were just disappointed it wasn't Kathie Lee.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Silver seren]

Admittedly, it was quite amusing to watch this admin fiasco unfold. The ANI discussion was priceless.

[EricBarbour]

You got it.

Giftiger - I resent your implication that I want protection dropped so I can start an edit war. I just want the same rules to apply to everyone. Either we all edit or none of us do. Since various admins have repeatedly demonstrated that they are quite willing to edit through the protection then it needs to be droppped so we can all edit. Otherwise we need a developer to lock off ALL editing to the article. Either suits me fine, but I will NOT accept a two-tier editing hierarchy on this article. Exxolon (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't imply it, I said it explicitly. If your argument is that admins edit-warring isn't fair because you want to join in, that's a pretty firm case for leaving full-protection in place. Something does need to be done about the admins who have continued to make such edits despite full-protection, however; they know better and it's unacceptable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That's NOT what I'm advocating. I'm saying that only allowing admins to EDIT is unfair. The fact that some of the edits the admins are naking consitute edit-warring is a separate issue. Exxolon (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Just as the news reports were appearing, this was posted to ANI:

Congress Woman Shot This morning Lets avoid Death by Wikipedia here The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I see no pending changes? Dusti*poke* 18:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
No it needs to be protected with pending changes! The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It's just been semi-protected. That should handle the influx of IPs editing the article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
That will work something needed to be done. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Whenever there is a major death, the BLP goes haywire with additions. Famous deaths should routinely be protected, fully, for the first few hours during the ghoul race. --Kleopatra (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I think semi-protection is better. The number of pageviews for a biography will increase greatly after their death, and often the article won't be in the best shape. Allowing established editors to fix up the page a little is a good idea, as long as someone keeps an eye on things. Trebor (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And nothing was done. And chaos ensued. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Mkativerata made this proposal.
Which most of the (few) participants either supported or commented on neutrally--except Sarek......

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Ottava]

IRC was filled with rambling nonsense.



Anyway, WP:NOTNEWS should make it clear this shouldn't happen but no one listens.

Easy way to fix:

1. Ban all sources newer than a year.

2. Ban any source that isn't a book published by a notable publisher or another kind of source not published by an academic publisher.

That would get rid of the crappy news articles and most of the bad sources not vetted.

[Newyorkbrad]

IRC was filled with rambling nonsense.
Anyway, WP:NOTNEWS should make it clear this shouldn't happen but no one listens.
Easy way to fix:
1. Ban all sources newer than a year.
2. Ban any source that isn't a book published by a notable publisher or another kind of source not published by an academic publisher.
That would get rid of the crappy news articles and most of the bad sources not vetted.

So by this logic, Rep. Giffords' article wouldn't mention that she was shot, and Judge Roll's article would say he's still alive?

[Ottava]

IRC was filled with rambling nonsense.
Anyway, WP:NOTNEWS should make it clear this shouldn't happen but no one listens.
Easy way to fix:
1. Ban all sources newer than a year.
2. Ban any source that isn't a book published by a notable publisher or another kind of source not published by an academic publisher.
That would get rid of the crappy news articles and most of the bad sources not vetted.

So by this logic, Rep. Giffords' article wouldn't mention that she was shot, and Judge Roll's article would say he's still alive?

Logic must not be your strong suit. See, the above people wouldn't have pages. Why? Because, like most BLPs, they are not notable. If you don't have academic books about you, you obviously don't matter.

And Britannica was a highly notable encyclopedia and didn't have to pander to covering news. That doesn't mean they were "out dated". Encyclopedias aren't newspapers. They don't have to cover every non-notable person's death.

Did you forget WP:NOTNEWS while at it? No wonder we have such a BLP problem - people without rigorous standards, promoting non-notable individuals, and treating the project as a newspaper are in control.

Real topics that people really need for their school work are ignored while issues like this are a Myspacer's delight. If you enforced the above rules and then banned people who didn't produce article content, 95% of Wikipedian's would disappear but 99.99% of the problems at Wikipedia would go with it.

[Silver seren]

Being a US Representative and the "third woman in Arizona's history to be elected to serve in the U.S. Congress" seems notable enough. It's just that we should wait a few days to let breaking news sort itself out. This isn't really an issue for non-BLP and non-political articles. Breaking news can be added into other types of articles with no problem for the most part, it's just that there is too much personal involvement in articles on living people and politics for anyone to properly deal with breaking news issues.

[gomi]

Anyway, WP:NOTNEWS should make it clear this shouldn't happen but no one listens.
Easy way to fix:
1. Ban all sources newer than a year.
2. Ban any source that isn't a book published by a notable publisher or another kind of source not published by an academic publisher.
That would get rid of the crappy news articles and most of the bad sources not vetted.

So by this logic, Rep. Giffords' article wouldn't mention that she was shot, and Judge Roll's article would say he's still alive?

Probably so. Incompleteness is generally better than inaccuracy in a reference work. However, I think that the point is that Biographies should be held to very high standards. Wikipedia's standards, at the best of times, are low, and you cannot even hold your admins, let alone your editors, to these low standards. Whether higher de jure standards would improve the de facto mess is highly debatable, but it can certainly be said that it wouldn't hurt.

In general, Ottava's point is valid, but should probably be recast. WP:NOTNEWS should indicate that in matters of current affairs, especially vis-a-vis a biography, a minimum of two citations from a pre-ordrained short list of sources (for the US, NYT, Wash Post, etc) are required -- no blogs, no gossip columns, etc. Instead of a year, perhaps a week or two -- at least -- should pass before breaking news gets "encyclopediated". This is (or should be) why wikinews exists, except that everyone ignores that, for good reason.

Imagine the actual damage that could be wrought if substantial misinformation about breaking news gets locked in on Wikipedia -- it's substantial.

(There, I've agreed with Ottava. The world will now end.)

[Ottava]

Being a US Representative and the "third woman in Arizona's history to be elected to serve in the U.S. Congress" seems notable enough. It's just that we should wait a few days to let breaking news sort itself out. This isn't really an issue for non-BLP and non-political articles. Breaking news can be added into other types of articles with no problem for the most part, it's just that there is too much personal involvement in articles on living people and politics for anyone to properly deal with breaking news issues.

1. "third woman in Arizona's history to be elected to serve in the U.S. Congress" is not notable.

2. There are more far more notable pokemon but we kicked them off to Bulbapedia.

3. Why should we have people just because of whatever? Britannica didn't. A Congressman had to be very notable to make the grade.

4. And recentism is a major illness among Myspacers. It is part of them trying to become part of history instead of recording it. Wikinews can handle anything new.

In general, Ottava's point is valid, but should probably be recast. WP:NOTNEWS should indicate that in matters of current affairs, especially vis-a-vis a biography, a minimum of two citations from a pre-ordrained short list of sources (for the US, NYT, Wash Post, etc) are required -- no blogs, no gossip columns, etc. Instead of a year, perhaps a week or two -- at least -- should pass before breaking news gets "encyclopediated". This is (or should be) why wikinews exists, except that everyone ignores that, for good reason.

To be honest, I wouldn't consider any newspaper reliable for an encyclopedia. Too many papers get things wrong and are primarily concerned about twisting things to get as many readers as possible. Academics, true academics, don't get a lot of money for academic books. The ones put out by pundits and such would not fall under my definition of an academic work.

By forcing such works, it would 1. remove the Myspacing ease of just copying and pasting from the internet, 2. force people to look through dry and boring works and not their POV bs, and 3. kill any of the desire to edit fiery topics.

The problem with Wikipedia is that they have too many editors who don't belong there. It is a game. Make the game incredibly dry and boring and the people will leave. Wikipedia should be more like, say, chess and less like WoW.



Bonus edit - This person is so non-notable that Google has a Wikipedia based source in one of the top hits: "Source: Wikipedia. Pages: 226. Not illustrated." - Members of the United States House of Representatives from Arizona

Wikipedia pwns the internet again. Take that, BLPs! Wikipedia shall crush you!

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Newyorkbrad]

1. "third woman in Arizona's history to be elected to serve in the U.S. Congress" is not notable.
2. There are more far more notable pokemon but we kicked them off to Bulbapedia.
3. Why should we have people just because of whatever? Britannica didn't. A Congressman had to be very notable to make the grade.
4. And recentism is a major illness among Myspacers. It is part of them trying to become part of history instead of recording it. Wikinews can handle anything new.

There are of course some very legitimate concerns about the notability bar, BLPs, and reliable sources, some of which I've written about myself. But you kind of lost me again somewhere around "there are deleted pokemons that are more notable than congresswomen."

[taiwopanfob]

But you kind of lost me again somewhere around "there are deleted pokemons that are more notable than congresswomen."

You are losing it because the conclusion that follows is untenable to your kind: it would result in wholesale deletion of tens of thousands of BLP's.

[MZMcBride]

The biography of a living person to watch here is the alleged shooter's, not the Congresswoman's.

[Silver seren]

How many times does this have to be said?

1. Every BLP at Wikipedia that does not contain at least one reference to a dead-trees book about the subject must be erased Right Now. The only exceptions may in fact be chief executives of a State, Nobel prize winners, or people of similar stature.

2. Mainstream media is inherently unreliable, as the current episode (and uncountably previous ones) demonstrate. They work to completely different goals and under dissimilar constraints. Waiting does not fix the problem. It really is an informational sewer, and it takes a great deal of time, effort and frankly skill to isolate the useful information. (Which gets back to point (1).)

Doing a quick search, I find that she is mentioned and discussed in quite a few "dead-trees book[s]". Here's a good one.

[dogbiscuit]

IRC was filled with rambling nonsense.

Anyway, WP:NOTNEWS should make it clear this shouldn't happen but no one listens.

Easy way to fix:

1. Ban all sources newer than a year.

2. Ban any source that isn't a book published by a notable publisher or another kind of source not published by an academic publisher.

That would get rid of the crappy news articles and most of the bad sources not vetted.

Ottava speak sense.

Though the fundamental problem is that you can place as many rules as you like, many users simply do not understand what is appropriate. Without a fundamental change of culture, further rules won't fix the problem.

It is not inherent in the Internet that its culture has to be unethical and immoral, but where the guiding lights of a project do not lead in the right direction, then it is fairly inevitable that a project will be subverted.

In some ways there are some fairly strong parallels with the Tea Party/ultra-Rebublican rhetoric and Wikipedia. Palin and her ilk have used strong words in their "defence of democracy" (aka if it ain't Republican, it is evil) and it is unsurprising that some unfortunate should take them at their words. Likelwise, Wikipedia espouses some radical philosophies, so it is entirely unsurprising that the editors are lead along a path of inappropriate behaviour - more so because of the circle of reinforcement.

It will be interesting to see how the free speech element of the analysis of this incident will be developed - is it appropriate for the likes of Palin to have carte blanche to put forward extremist propaganda without being called to account. From the outside of America it just seems bizarre that politics in America has descended into a world of hate speech where decent Americans who are characterised as Democrats are demonised, especially as we would view the Democrats as still pretty much occupying the right wing of politics.

[Edit]
There is another aspect of media that is responsible. There is a strong thread in popular TV series, especially targeted at the young, where it is a given that the Government and the agents of Government are corrupt, or have been subverted by nefarious individuals or organisations. Simple example is 24, but just about any Hollywood blockbuster based around secret agents or the police has this element. It is hardly surprising that impressionable individuals would be consumed by a message pumped out by the media and by the entertainment channels and the politicians. After all, where else can an individual get their information that informs their thinking?

[gomi]

[Mod note: Posts (including one of my own) beyond a certain point in the discussion and not pertaining directly to the attack in Arizona cited in the title have been moved to another thread, still in the BLP forum.]

[EricBarbour]

Related matter:

One of the anti-government crackpots that Loughner was (allegedly) following, David Wynn Miller,
has a Wikipedia BLP.

And one Andrea James edited it today---and talked about it on Boing Boing.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[gomi]

One of the anti-government crackpots that Loughner was (allegedly) following, David Wynn Miller,
has a Wikipedia BLP.

What a looney tune. Good grief.

[EricBarbour]

One of the anti-government crackpots that Loughner was (allegedly) following, David Wynn Miller,
has a Wikipedia BLP.

What a looney tune. Good grief.

What, you don't realize how commonplace people like him really are?
Read up on tax protesters......they are becoming a political power in and of themselves.
(A completely demented and fragmented "political power", of course.)

Shauna Henline, the senior technical adviser of the Frivolous Return Program at the Internal Revenue Service, has testified that the IRS receives about 20,000 to 30,000 frivolous tax returns per year, and that approximately 100,000 related letters and other documents are received each year.

And there's thousands of fringe religious groups (nobody has even tried to keep track of them all).
Scores of Mormon splinter groups. Hundreds of Southern Baptist splinter groups. On and on and on.

Hate groups? Have a look at the SPLC's hate map. Another growth industry.

(And people wonder why I'm using that photo as an avatar. The more you look into the world
of fringe groups, the more depressed you get.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Hate groups? Have a look at the SPLC's hate map. Another growth industry.

I had a look at it, and it has a generous serving of Chip Berlet-style horseshit. Berlet couldn't be happier about the Giffords shooting -- he's getting press coverage, saying that the seemingly demented shooter was actually an ideologically incorrect conspiracist with multiple "links and ties."

In a related story, there has been an edit war at Sarah Palin (T-H-L-K-D), which ended in protection because many editors apparently think she shot Giffords.