Sticky Prod for BLPs bites the dust. Options

[Doc glasgow]

I thought there was a consensus for a BLP prod for new articles. It was the one bit of good news to come out of the unsourced BLP fiasco - new BLPs must be sourced to stay on wikipedia.

However, it seems the discontents with their unending and unfollowable debates have watered it down to the point of uselessness, as the onus is back on the prodder - and only the unverifiable stuff gets deleted (status-quo in effect).

See my response.

I take my eyes off this for a few days, because it is being talked to death and I find the whole thing has been hijacked.

The supposed consensus closing states:

A new PROD-like process should be designed to handle new unsourced BLPs (those written after the final approval of the process). Modifying the current PROD for this purpose has been soundly rejected. The BLP PROD should, in general, not be removable without sufficient addition of sources. What "sufficient" constitutes must be determined by the community. In addition, there appears to be a consensus that the nominator should make a good faith effort to look for sources before nominating. (emphasis added)

That defeats the entire purpose.

Currently, if I find an unsourced article and decide to look for sources and can find none, I can prod or afd the article as being "unverifiable" (not unverified but actually not capable of verification. If no one can verify it in the timeframe of seven days, AfD will then delete it. That's the current system.

The problem with that is that too often no one was prepared to do the source checking, hence the backlog, hence the problem, hence the speedy deletions.

The idea of a stickyprod was that (for new articles) we were going to say (as nicely as we could) "source this, or it dies". If people want a BLP article to stay on wikipedia, they must source it, or someone must, within a seven day period.

The problem with requiring the prodder to look for sources is that it puts us back to square one. That is, if no-one is willing to check for sources, the article ends up staying. We only delete those articles shown to be unverifiable, whilst the unsourced languish until someone sources them, or tries to and fails.

A sticky prod with this caveat is pointless. We've got mechanisms already to remove material that someone believes to be unverifiable. What we were about was shifting the burden for new BLPs onto those wishing to retain.

I'm also left asking. What if someone like me simply prods new unreferenced BLPs and doesn't volunteer to check for sourcing? If someone sources them, certainly they can deprod. But what happens otherwise? Do the articles get kept because the prodder "didn't the work required?"

Sticking prod with an onus on the prodder is a waste of time, and not in line with the consensus that was clear. Seems to me that a we had a consensus, and so some of us moved on, while others, who didn't like that, kept talking till they talked it into something completely different.

The consensus we had would certainly have satisfied me that speedy deletion should not be used. However, this pointless exercise takes us back to square one. Not good at all.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[Lar]

I thought there was a consensus for a BLP prod for new articles. It was the one bit of good news to come out of the unsourced BLP fiasco - new BLPs must be sourced to stay on wikipedia.

However, it seems the discontents with their unending and unfollowable debates have watered it down to the point of uselessness, as the onus is back on the prodder - and only the unverifiable stuff gets deleted (status-quo in effect).

See my response.

I hope you are incorrect. I fear you are not incorrect.

[NuclearWarfare]

I dunno, this close might actually not be the worst thing in the world. There was a general agreement for the hard-line deletionists to go off and occupy themselves with something else for three months. Theoretically, people would be sourcing the articles in the meantime. If the backlog disappears because of their work, great. If the backlog doesn't, well, it would be that much easier to force the sticky prod through, in addition to something else if necessary.

In addition, I agree with Lar.

[RMHED]

There was a general agreement for the hard-line deletionists to go off and occupy themselves with something else for three months.

Is that a euphemism for "go fuck themselves" ?

This post has been edited by RMHED:

[John Limey]

I thought there was a consensus for a BLP prod for new articles. It was the one bit of good news to come out of the unsourced BLP fiasco - new BLPs must be sourced to stay on wikipedia.

However, it seems the discontents with their unending and unfollowable debates have watered it down to the point of uselessness, as the onus is back on the prodder - and only the unverifiable stuff gets deleted (status-quo in effect).

See my response.

Deletion was never the right strategy for dealing with this (politically speaking). There are too many hardcore inclusionists to ever allow for massive deletion, and too many Wikipedians who are convinced it will cause the encyclopedia irreparable harm. Similarly, politically-speaking, massive semiprotection will never take off. There are too many people who, strangely, think that this violates the "encyclopedia anyone can edit". Where does this leave people who want to deal with the BLP issue?

The strategy which, to some extent, we have articulated at On Wikipedia, and which I think holds a better hope for success is to in another direction. Look at Gale's Biography Resource Center, the largest and most comprehensive collection of biographies in existence. At the bottom of every single entry, you find a little link "Update this biography (listee only)" or similar. Even Gale, a multi-billion dollar company with more than 1,200 full-time employees (and no anyone can edit policy) realizes that it can not possibly maintain all of the biographies in its database, so it responds by trying to involve the people most directly affected by them, the subjects. There are certain vocal Wikipedians who oppose this, claiming that promotion and autobiography are greater threats to Wikipedia than defamation by outsiders resulting in detention by law enforcement (cf. Taner Akcam), but they really are a minority (and roughly the same group who want you to believe that Wikipedia is the only real source of truth and substantially more reliable than the New York Times or peer-reviewed journals which are just repeating the views of the powerful).

So, I will say again (though the idea has thus far gained no traction), that trying to involve subjects has to be a plank in a BLP strategy. Second, WP:BLP needs to be revised into a stronger form, that emphasizes protecting the subject. It should begin "First of all, do no harm". We need to establish a firm presumption in favor of the subject. At present, this does not exist. The type of people who comment here tend to take a presumption in favor of the subject for granted, but in practice, many Wikipedians presume exactly the opposite, and WP:BLP does not clearly establish such a presumption. Writing one explicitly into policy must be the first goal of BLP advocates, and the public statements of Jimmy Wales clearly show that he would support such a course of action.

So, to those of you who actually have any sort of voice on Wikipedia and care about BLP issues, I propose the following course of action:
1. Write the words "First of all do no harm" (or equivalent) into the lead of the BLP policy and make it clear that the greatest BLP danger is defamation, not promotionalism or whitewashing.
2. Provide a better mechanism than the current OTRS system to bring subjects into the discourse.
3. See where that takes you.

To be sure, this plan is insufficient on its own, but Rome wasn't built in a day. Establishing the presumption in favor of the subject is absolutely crucial to going further. Making it easier for subjects to be involved in the process will also simultaneously fix some BLP problems and make them more apparent to outsiders. From this point, it might be possible to proceed gradually towards other changes such as deletion or semiprotection.

By moving towards a deletion policy without first establishing the groundwork, I think BLP advocates have, in fact, set their cause back. There is only enough political capital around to fight so many battles, and in the end the deletion fight accomplished essentially nothing, and there will be a backlash.

Finally, one final recommendation to those of you out there. Take a page out of Ralph Reed's playbook. Yes, at the moment the ArbCom and Wales are fairly sympathetic on BLP issues, but you have to organize at a lower level as well. Focus on administrators. Oppose all RfAs for candidates who are not sympathetic on BLP issues. Make sure that everyone with Oversight permissions has the right views on BLP. Hell, establish a mailing list of people you know you can trust and use it to drive turnout at BLP AfDs and on important RfAs, ArbCom elections, etc.

[Kevin]

Deletion was never the right strategy for dealing with this (politically speaking). There are too many hardcore inclusionists to ever allow for massive deletion, and too many Wikipedians who are convinced it will cause the encyclopedia irreparable harm. Similarly, politically-speaking, massive semiprotection will never take off. There are too many people who, strangely, think that this violates the "encyclopedia anyone can edit". Where does this leave people who want to deal with the BLP issue?

I saw deletion (and flagged revs), were they implemented, as a sign to the masses that times had changed. A clear signal that the old days are over.

[John Limey]

Deletion was never the right strategy for dealing with this (politically speaking). There are too many hardcore inclusionists to ever allow for massive deletion, and too many Wikipedians who are convinced it will cause the encyclopedia irreparable harm. Similarly, politically-speaking, massive semiprotection will never take off. There are too many people who, strangely, think that this violates the "encyclopedia anyone can edit". Where does this leave people who want to deal with the BLP issue?

I saw deletion (and flagged revs), were they implemented, as a sign to the masses that times had changed. A clear signal that the old days are over.

Revolutions don't happen on Wikipedia. There's too much inertia. Big changes never succeed. You have to go gradually step by step. Menshevik not Bolshevik. Ho Chi Minh not Jomini.

[RMHED]

Deletion was never the right strategy for dealing with this (politically speaking). There are too many hardcore inclusionists to ever allow for massive deletion, and too many Wikipedians who are convinced it will cause the encyclopedia irreparable harm. Similarly, politically-speaking, massive semiprotection will never take off. There are too many people who, strangely, think that this violates the "encyclopedia anyone can edit". Where does this leave people who want to deal with the BLP issue?

I saw deletion (and flagged revs), were they implemented, as a sign to the masses that times had changed. A clear signal that the old days are over.

Revolutions don't happen on Wikipedia. There's too much inertia. Big changes never succeed. You have to go gradually step by step. Menshevik not Bolshevik. Ho Chi Minh not Jomini.

Only the WMF board could revolutionize da 'pedia, though it would probably take the barrel of a gun against the forehead to initiate.

[Kevin]

Deletion was never the right strategy for dealing with this (politically speaking). There are too many hardcore inclusionists to ever allow for massive deletion, and too many Wikipedians who are convinced it will cause the encyclopedia irreparable harm. Similarly, politically-speaking, massive semiprotection will never take off. There are too many people who, strangely, think that this violates the "encyclopedia anyone can edit". Where does this leave people who want to deal with the BLP issue?

I saw deletion (and flagged revs), were they implemented, as a sign to the masses that times had changed. A clear signal that the old days are over.

Revolutions don't happen on Wikipedia. There's too much inertia. Big changes never succeed. You have to go gradually step by step. Menshevik not Bolshevik. Ho Chi Minh not Jomini.

Yes, I realise how ridiculous it all looks now.

[John Limey]

Yes, I realise how ridiculous it all looks now.

Well, you did get things started, the problem was sustaining them, and that's where the real challenge ahead lies.

[Doc glasgow]

I'm almost giving up hope. An effective speedy prod was a very small step in this battle.

But we've now got PM Anderson and DGG denying that there's any consensus at all. Sticky prod "in principle" but (according to DGG) it can mean anything and any timescale (=nothing and never).

I'm sick of re-fighting the same wars. These people just grind you down with the same old nonsense.

Here's the horror show

[RMHED]

I'm almost giving up hope. An effective speedy prod was a very small step in this battle.

But we've now got PM Anderson and DGG denying that there's any consensus at all. Sticky prod "in principle" but (according to DGG) it can mean anything and any timescale (=nothing and never).

I'm sick of re-fighting the same wars. These people just grind you down with the same old nonsense.

Here's the horror show

Dear old DGG, a man in severe need of a serious smack round the head with a blunt object.

[Doc glasgow]

I'm almost giving up hope. An effective speedy prod was a very small step in this battle.

But we've now got PM Anderson and DGG denying that there's any consensus at all. Sticky prod "in principle" but (according to DGG) it can mean anything and any timescale (=nothing and never).

I'm sick of re-fighting the same wars. These people just grind you down with the same old nonsense.

Here's the horror show

Dear old DGG, a man in severe need of a serious smack round the head with a blunt object.

I never advocate violence. A feather duster will have to suffice.

[gomi]

[Mod note: off-topic posts moved to the Politics forum.]

[Jon Awbrey]

I thought there was a consensus for a BLP prod for new articles. It was the one bit of good news to come out of the unsourced BLP fiasco — new BLPs must be sourced to stay on Wikipedia.

However, it seems the discontents with their unending and unfollowable debates have watered it down to the point of uselessness, as the onus is back on the prodder — and only the unverifiable stuff gets deleted (status quo in effect).

Just One Question (JOQ). Did you want us to slap you all at once — or one at a time? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fool.gif)

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

[RMHED]

I thought there was a consensus for a BLP prod for new articles. It was the one bit of good news to come out of the unsourced BLP fiasco — new BLPs must be sourced to stay on Wikipedia.

However, it seems the discontents with their unending and unfollowable debates have watered it down to the point of uselessness, as the onus is back on the prodder — and only the unverifiable stuff gets deleted (status quo in effect).

Just One Question (JOQ). Did you want us to slap you all at once — or one at a time? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fool.gif)

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

Ditto. You can't beat the 'pediots if you fight by their rules, you gotta fight dirty to win.

This post has been edited by RMHED:

[thekohser]

I'm sick of re-fighting the same wars. These people just grind you down with the same old nonsense.

I'm sorry you're frustrated with Wikipedia. But, according to the "addictive participation equals success" model that Kelly Martin (I believe rightly) posits, you are just contributing to the same system by being a part of it.

Why don't we all just try off-Wikipedia techniques for the rest of 2010?

How about a sit-in at the Wikimedia Foundation headquarters? How about a hunger strike? You're going to need the media to help facilitate any changes.

[SB_Johnny]

I'm sick of re-fighting the same wars. These people just grind you down with the same old nonsense.

I'm sorry you're frustrated with Wikipedia. But, according to the "addictive participation equals success" model that Kelly Martin (I believe rightly) posits, you are just contributing to the same system by being a part of it.

Why don't we all just try off-Wikipedia techniques for the rest of 2010?

How about a sit-in at the Wikimedia Foundation headquarters? How about a hunger strike? You're going to need the media to help facilitate any changes.

Million BLP victim march?

[Milton Roe]

I'm sick of re-fighting the same wars. These people just grind you down with the same old nonsense.

I'm sorry you're frustrated with Wikipedia. But, according to the "addictive participation equals success" model that Kelly Martin (I believe rightly) posits, you are just contributing to the same system by being a part of it.

Why don't we all just try off-Wikipedia techniques for the rest of 2010?

How about a sit-in at the Wikimedia Foundation headquarters? How about a hunger strike? You're going to need the media to help facilitate any changes.

Million BLP victim march?

Yeah. It will only be 400,000 but like the other one, we can CALL it a million, cause it sounds cooler.

[dogbiscuit]

Why not go for the whole 6 billion or so and be done with it?