Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: ColScott

Hey boyo -

why does SPA RTFA get to vote and do whatever he wants but SPA TOOMANYTOOLS does not?

what are you hiding and why?

Posted by: SirFozzie

I'll strike out his vote too. This is a discussion on the merits, not who can rally the most "soldiers" to his side.

Was that one of yours, btw? or just a soldier?

Posted by: ColScott

The Merits are simple

Outside of Hollywood ask 10,000 people who I am

NO ONE WILL KNOW.

He is determined to defame me- name ONE film producer on there (if you can) whose article has a "Professional Reputation" section. Go on.

Aww I should probably just wait till Wales calls back.

You didn't answer my question about what you have to hide so forgive me not answering yours.

Suffice to say the News will eat up the idea of prizes for editing my article.





I see your strike out lasted all of 1 minutes

Posted by: Kato

It took me a while to figure out what you were talking about...

But it's the deletion review of the Don Murphy article here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Don_Murphy

Might have to change that thread title so it's clear for everyone else.

Posted by: SirFozzie

Ok, working on that. I'm not going to get caught in an editwar, but I can certainly see what I can do to fix that.

Posted by: Kato

FT2, an arbitrator, writes about this mysterious RFTA character:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_18&diff=199013583&oldid=199013315

Really? How do we know that? How does FT2 know that? Maybe he's one of JoshuaZ's sockpuppets, maybe he's Jimbo Wales, maybe he's Rachel Marsden or Jossi Fresco or Gary Weiss? How do we know who this is?

If anyone mentions the F-ing "transparent ideals" of Wikipedia again, they deserve to be blackballed from any future discussion of any subject...

Posted by: SirFozzie

Re-struck it out. As I said, not going to get in an edit-war over it (it'd be a fucking stupid reason to be blocked), but as I said there, the important part is the argument with regards to Notability, and I'm happy to let that stand.

Posted by: ColScott

No you have not

Posted by: SirFozzie

Oh for the love of Pete...

First: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2008_March_18&diff=199013315&oldid=199013305

Second: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_18&diff=prev&oldid=199017002

As I said, I'm not getting into a war over it. I've disengaged from the discussion.

Posted by: ColScott

War Snore
You said you would strike it out
Not because you like me
Because it was RIGHT
Now it is NOT struck out
Simple observation

Posted by: ColScott

Hmmm it's beginning to be clear who RTFA is- Joshua Z.

Since I cannot post, will you Fuppet please post to over there my following statement- or you Viridae?

"While it is charming to watch Joshua/RTFA try to make sure I stay in your clique, appearing in an article in the NY Times does not make you a public figure or notable for cult inclusion. If that were the case thousands of people each day from Firemen to school children would be added. Why are you being disingenuous to these people? The NY Times article is NOT about me it is about my site actually. It is NOT Biographical and I have never had a biographical article done. I wonder why Joshua you care so much?

I see that I am getting a lot of criticism for attacking Wikpedians. But as in any assault case, YOU started it and that matters. I didn't ask to be labeled a pedophile on your site. How dare you hate how I respond to your attacks. Next time you are mugged, god forbid, do you want to be told "well you didn't need to hit him with the pipe?" And yes it IS the same thing.

Even now this "editor" you are defending RTFA is dogmatic about including a huge "Professional Reputation" section. Have you made notice of how many film producers you have articles on? Precious few. And how many have a Reputation section? One that a fifteen year old can add to?

I was being mean to Viridae over at WR. I did not expect him to delete the article. But it is a bold and wonderful thing he did. It has been 17 months of constant stress and hell over this, which all started with a little boy from Toronto. Go ask 10000 people who I am. No one will know - or care.

Much is being said about the fact that I want no article. That is simple too- because no matter what you write in it, someone can come along tomorrow and start all over again.

Finally I point way up above to the comment by Benjboi who asks if deletion isn't very Big Brotherish. Well I studied 1984 by Orwell for a film project, and no sir, keeping files and reports on strangers and making them available to the public- that is what the Police State would do.

Please do the right thing. "

Posted by: One

Who the hell is ColScott?

Posted by: Amarkov

Well, his passionate defense of Mr. Murphy should give you a hint.

Posted by: The Joy

Don Murphy himself! I believe he's mentioned this before?

Given JoshuaZ's militant "Last Defender of the Wiki" mentality, I wouldn't put it past him to use socks to push his agenda. I think we speculated whether he was David Spart or DennyColt back in the day, but I don't think we came up with anything conclusive.

Posted by: One

Ok, well whatever. This thread has almost no context (hence is not a legitimate thread for "general discussion"), and it appears to be a continuing argument between ColScott and SirFozzie. I think it should be thrown into the tarpit post haste.

EDIT: I don't know who he is because I try to avoid this crap.

And yes, JoshuaZ was desysopped for that, yes? Would explain how FT2 knew.

Posted by: ColScott

Others are reading and following along just fine.

Posted by: One

Yeah, because they presumably followed it from another thread. To the uninitiated, this would be nigh meaningless:

Posted by: ColScott

Thank You Amarkov

Posted by: The Joy

Mods will generally change thread titles if it becomes too confusing for readers. As a courtesy to the thread starter, would you like a different name for this thread, ColScott?

I see WP administrator John Reaves may soon be joining us here perhaps to explain his actions throughout this affair. Then again, maybe not, who knows?

Posted by: ColScott

New Title


VOTE YES ON DELETION- Early and Often

Posted by: The Joy

Mod note: Done!

Posted by: ColScott

Mr. Reaves, who recreated the article, in his winsome tones writes over at SP

We're all capable of reading the Wikipedia Review, there's no need to have a direct pipe of the tripe here. John Reaves 06:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


So John- tell me- you want to mess with me, then silence me so I can't fight back then yell at others who state my case for me? God you're a four letter word for cat.

Posted by: One

Thanks for the re-title.

Don: as a courtesy to you, tomorrow I'll vote to delete with any and all accounts I have on Wikipedia. I was frustrated by the poor context for this thread, but I agree with you on the article.

Goodnight.

Posted by: ColScott

thank you

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0006613/, academy award wining producer of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers_%28film%29, who maintains a http://www.donmurphy.net/ but objects to Wikipedia having an article about him.

Posted by: Viridae

Can I quietly suggest that people don't go and sockpuppet that DRV, I don't think it will help matters in the slightest. By all means if you have an account on WP that isn't blocked go and make your opinion heard if you have one, but remember its not a vote count so either way you are going to have to present an argument.

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

Hell, I have an admin account and several other accounts with weight. I haven't voted on the article deltion and don't plan to. Dan Murphy is an obnoxious bombast and a hypocrite. WR is carrying his water. I don't know why a guy that http://www.donmurphy.net/ objects to publicity, except that maybe he has his head crammed up his ass.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Gee, that makes him a perfect candidate for the job of Wikipedia administrator!
Let's nominate him!

Posted by: AB

It is ridiculous for WP to complain about BADSITES
in a discussion about whether they should host
an attack page against ColScott. Anyway, WR
isn't a website that sends violent thugs after
people: WP is.

Yes, ColScott is a jerk. This doesn't give WP
the right to smear and defame him, or even
have an article on him against his consent.

Remember, he wouldn't even be here if
they had not amorally kept that article. So,
if we want him to go away or at least calm
down, it is probably best for WP to delete
that article.

Posted by: Viridae

For lack of a better forum AB, what happened to those diffs you wanted dealing with?

Posted by: FCYTravis

There is this overwhelming knee-jerk mentality among Wikipedians that if someone doesn't want an article on them, then they must be evil or trying to hide something or "we must have everything," and thus the best response is to find every single tiny trivial thing about this person and put it in the article, regardless of anyone's wishes, "because we can."

I'm ashamed to admit that I used to have that mentality; but then came Seigenthaler, and then came OTRS, where it became clear to me that Wikipedia entirely failed living people - over and over again. What do you say to someone who's been libeled and slandered on one of the world's top-10 Web sites? Does "I've fixed it, and I apologize" really cut it?

Freedom of the press inevitably entails a heavy burden of responsibility, and includes not only the right to print, but also the right not to print.

On Wikipedia, the latter is exercised far too infrequently.

Posted by: Likipenia

If I was notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, I would object to their being one, even if I had a blog detailing every time I took a dump. Reason? I'd be in control of my blog. If some fan site, or movie trivia site, or whatever, were to libel him, there would be some person who was ultimately responsible who could be sued. Not so with WP.

The average person searching Google for information will often end up at a WP article, and most of them will (wrongly) trust what they find there. Given that reality, and given the freely editable nature of WP, imagine the potential damage that could be done to a notable person's career.

I think it makes perfect sense for Mr. Murphy to not want the 3rd result for his name on Google to be a WP article, and I think WP policy ought to be to delete the articles of living persons on request and prevent them from being recreated, as long as their identity can be established.

Posted by: FCYTravis

I would not go that far... those who are clearly and unambiguously public figures (Academy Award-winning actors, state-level politicians and above, best-selling authors, professional athletes at the major league level, etc.), Wikipedia needs articles on. And major figures such as those people - well, we really don't have too many BLP problems with, because enough people are generally watching those pages that anything truly awful gets reverted fast.

The problems are generally when you get even one layer below that, nobody pays any attention to those biographies and thus stuff can sit and fester for days, weeks, months.

Don Murphy fits in that category - someone might have written something about him in the trade papers once, but he's no Steven Spielberg, and hence probably it's on nobody's watchlist and awful tripe will sneak in because it's easy for a determined person (or group of people) with an axe to grind to do so unless everyone and his mother is paying attention to the article 24/7.

Posted by: AB

There is a thread http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=16693, for some reason.
Why WP's refusal to Oversight outing that has
lead to threats of physical violence is 'off-topic'
to the subject of criticising WP, I have no idea,
but anyway.

The diffs are still there.

Posted by: guy

Hmm, problem. My mother has never edited WP that I know of.

Posted by: Aloft

I have a few thoughts/questions:

Why is Joshua Zelinsky permitted to !vote in a deletion review after being desysopped for abusing that process?

Why do people keep saying, "He can't expect Wikipedia to help if he keeps being so abusive." He doesn't want Wikipedia's help; he wants Wikipedia to quit harming him.

I don't want to speak for Mr. Murphy, but I doubt it's the publicity he objects to. It's Wikipedia's negligence when dealing with articles on living people. Wikipedia is not responsible enough to host articles on living people. Any arguments as to his "notability" are beside the point.

No. It's bad enough that it happens in the first place. What makes it worse is you can't even tell them, "It will never happen again." Seigenthaler's bio has been vandalized repeatedly, even after the widespread media attention it received. What chance does a lesser-known person stand?

Posted by: badlydrawnjeff

Can someone coherently explain to me why someone who appears to have some pretty heady producing creidts to his name wouldn't belong in Wikipedia?

Posted by: Kato

Because when his biography was vandalized calling him a gay paedophile etc, he was so un-notable he had to remove the slurs himself?

Can someone coherently explain why someone would publish an "encyclopedia biography" of someone that contained blatant defamatory statements , and somehow not expect to get sued?

Can someone coherently explain why a forum that disallows WP:Original Research and WP:SYNTH still allows someone to create a biography on a subject that has never before appeared in an encyclopedia, and whose bio is even absent from the otherwise exhaustive film almanac AllMovieGuide?

WP:OPT OUT
WP:NO ORIGINAL BIOGRAPHIES
WP:WHY ARE THESE TWO NECESSARY PREMISES SO HARD FOR YOU PEOPLE TO ADOPT?

Posted by: AB

Because they like hurting people
who don't suck up to them?

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

Agreed...!

I am liking the new Durova. She is clearly a "re-defined" positive force to be respected, and quite articulate and precise in her knowledge of the project. A little humility works.

Posted by: Kato

To be fair, Durova has long pushed this position as well.

But it is the only way to go for Wikipedia to survive. The longer it goes without implementing these kinds of basic practices, the more enemies it will make. And as we've seen, it only takes a handful of "disgruntled" former users, BLP victims or ex-WMF employees to punch massive holes in WP's credibility.

But WP also has the opportunity to set a moral example to the future of the internet. So far, WP's impact has been almost entirely negative, ushering in a chaotic nightmarish environment and a nasty Culture of Revenge that has swept the internet. Before it is too late, and before too many sites follow http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=16526&hl=, Wikipedia has a chance to change and make amends.

Nobody expects WP to make any positive changes of course, it lacks the infrastructure and has no learning curve. Whatsmore, it is too easily led by extremist idiots who can't see the larger picture, and would rather goad one barely known backroom fixer in Hollywood. But we should bring this up each time as a matter of moral duty.

Posted by: Moulton

The Wikipedia culture seems to be obsessed with the practice of magnifying the disrepute of otherwise non-notable figures whose only claim to fame is a random note of disrepute.

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

The notable question is not what is at the heart of the problem. It is the fact that kids can come to an article and change it at will.

Protect artcles and secure them from mindless idiots. That is what a government is for...to serve and protect.

Unfortunately, WP is a hive of flies with no wisdom at the top end.




P.S.

In Re: articles about living people:

Let the living person or their representatives have a hand at trying to make the article real and accurate. Then secure it. Further, let the real person decide if they even want an article. Many people, for many different reasons, do not want the "exposure" that Wikipedia represents.

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a rag. Or is it?

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

Yes, quite right, I shouldn't post after coming home late on st patties day.

Posted by: thekohser

Pumpkin, you may be daft. Someone who creates a website about himself (or a Directory page on Wikipedia Review.com </shameless plug>) maintains control over what that website says about himself.

Wikipedia is the exact opposite. The person is not allowed to influence what the site says about him.

Your logic is stunningly faulty. But, we still love ya, Pumpkin.

Greg

P.S. Apologies to Likipenia, who made the same argument before I read further and responded redundantly.


<cough> Fuzzy Zoeller <cough>

Posted by: ColScott

While I say thank you, I have never won an Academy Award.

And there are a million plus websites that people maintain.




Dan Murphy is a real loser.


as for Don Murphy, he objects to publicity that any child can vandalize

Posted by: thekohser

Unless your name is Carolyn Doran, or Michael E. Davis. Then, you get the WMF employee "halo" of protection.

Posted by: Kato

If you look at some of the old debates, folks were weighing in who had no idea what the role of a Movie Producer was -- and Don Murphy's particular role usually as part of a production team rather than a Robert Evans style Project God-King. And some arguments were made to keep the article on the basis that Don Murphy was a Movie Director for chrissake.

A guy I used to drink with is a Movie Producer, and he actually has won a major film award, a BAFTA for best British Film, even giving the acceptance speech at the awards ceremony. A closer friend of mine produced pop-promos for U2, REM and Paul McCartney. These are just normal blokes I'd get pissed with in the pub. Not public figures. And neither of them have articles on WP. That would be ridiculous.

Posted by: Castle Rock

Lets start counting the pro-inclusion SPAs:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RTFA
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bongout
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jeff_Biggs
He's a fan of our own user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Naerii

Posted by: thekohser

Pumpkin never said you "won" an Academy Award. Pumpkin said that you have "wined" an academy award. You've probably "dined" one, too, for all we know, Don.

Posted by: ColScott

could someone add this message to the page

" While it is true that I want no article, I lived with the one that Squeakbox kept for months. Though inaccurate, it was harmless. The latest brouhaha has started because an obsessed editor or admin, RTFA, has spent literally HOURS trying to turn the article into a multiple page definitive article, complete with defamation and professional attacks. Go back and read the RTFA version. Go to his sandbox page. Ask yourself why he is doing this. Sure, the last version had no BLP problems. But that is because I sent people out to alter the evil things that RTFA anonymously added. Why do some of you have a problem understanding what others above have written? HUMAN DECENCY? In the midst of you there is this criminal, RTFA, whose goal it is to get you and or me in trouble. And you debate this? I bet 99% of you don't even know what the role of the producer IS. Please have HUMAN DECENCY. "

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

Oh comeon Greg, here's a guy who's argued against his bio on notability grounds yet maintains a self promotional website about himself. He smeared Viridae with sockpuppet charges backed up with no evidence, then told me to eat shit and die when I challenged him on it.

So there is no faulty logic at all pointing out what a hypocrite and turd he is.

Even so, I support a BLP opt-out in his case.

Posted by: Kato

Dan Tobias maintains a self promotional website about himself. As http://www.nystedmusic.com/ who was told in no uncertain terms to Eff Off by Wikipedia. That is no criteria for notability apparently under Jimbo's rules, so you can forget that one.

Posted by: ColScott

Um - Somney wants me to be nice so I will urge you to take remedial reading.

I never said I was not notable.
I said I was not a public figure - which is a legal term not an SP term.
I argue against the article because the site is irresponsible and allows children to edit.

BTW how did the Feces taste and why are you still breathing?

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

Oh, I completely agree. I was just pointing out that in Murphy's case he's a hypocrite to use notability as an argument while maintaining a self promotional website.

Even so, I support a BLP opt-out in cases like his.

Posted by: ColScott

STILL cannot read.

Posted by: Kato

1. Wikipedia has proved itself incapable of hosting an article on Don Murphy, by allowing for gross vandalism that the subject had to remove himself a year ago.
2. "Public figures" do not generally expect to have to correct such details themselves, nor appear on a site like this arguing their case.
3. The latest activities by anonymous, unaccountable individuals on the Don Murphy article are deliberate designed to goad the subject.
4. Wikipedia has failed to address these new activities, even letting these obvious cheats converse in the discussion about the article.
5. Hence Wikipedia continues to show the same irresponsible disdain for BLP victims over two years after the Siegenthaler affair.

An utter disgrace.

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

Sorry to have to put you in your place like that, Don. In all fairness I should have warned you when you opened this door that you were initiating a pissing match with a skunk.

Posted by: dtobias

But I've never tried either to get Wikipedia to add an article about me, or to stop them from doing so.

Posted by: KamrynMatika

I only just noticed that

To be fair he doesn't look like too much of an SPA, he's been editing since last June.

Posted by: Kato

JoshuaZ is at it again. Much has http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=54 about this boy's ridiculous arguments on BLP matters, not least his tendency to use secret duplicate accounts to double his points in these discussions. JoshuaZ must be at permanant war with the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Don_Murphy#Arbitrary_section_break_one:

and a reasonable encyclopedia would be incomplete without them
and a reasonable encyclopedia would be incomplete without them
and a reasonable encyclopedia would be incomplete without them
and a reasonable encyclopedia would be incomplete without them
and a reasonable encyclopedia would be incomplete without them
and a reasonable encyclopedia would be incomplete without them

Putting aside the lie that "an encyclopedia" where its writers turn out to be anonymous goons who goad article subjects is in any way "reasonable" -- show me the goddam encyclopedia that has an article on Don Murphy?

The process is again being railroaded by cheats, liars and idiots. What is the matter with this boy? Can anyone help me out here? He will not stop himself. Every debate he comes out with this bullshit. Every debate he tries to put the screws on article subjects. At the very least, perhaps a checkuser can determine which of the mysterious accounts that have appeared alongside him are actually his sockpuppets this time?

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Well, I feel your pain, as the sleightly meta*phorical saying goes, but as long as you continue to treat the symptoms, if indeed not revel in them, there is damn little that I or anyone can do about a cure.

Jonny "IANAV" Cache

Posted by: thekohser

Here's someone who has willingly become a public figure, and his video has been viewed over 400 times! I'd say that qualifies for a Wikipedia article -- very notable. How many people on this Earth have been viewed over 400 times on YouTube? I'd dare say less than one in every million, so that's clearly a notable achievement.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

JoshuaZ is petty and gets worked up about many matters in a very annoying way, in my humble opinion. Is he using socks in this debate do you think? If so, who is a sock of him?

Posted by: badlydrawnjeff

I didn't have a chance to respond today, but the point being that one problem that was easily solvable is not an excuse to keep an otherwise noteworthy individual out of Wikipedia. As much as you people would want to see subject veto, Murphy probably wouldn't meet that standard anyway.

As an aside, Don, i loved Shoot 'Em Up.

Posted by: The Joy

Whatever happened to the "Stable Versions" proposal and the use of reviewers to look over new edits before they are enacted? Those ideas would not necessarily solve all the problems with BLP articles but at least it would cut down on vandalism dramatically.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Hercules move — Stables full of crap.

Jonny

Posted by: The Joy

Oh, I know. As a wiki-gnome, I got sick and tired pretty quickly just reverting vandalism whenever I came across it. Now I just don't care anymore... even on subjects I care deeply about! It's a losing battle.

Unfortunately, we're dealing with people who won't consider the ethical consequences of maintaining BLP articles and have no way of protecting those articles from vicious attacks. There needs to be a serious review process with serious reviewers with credentials. Only then could anyone want a bio on WP.

The only way to come even close to getting rid of BLP articles is to "compromise" with the Wikipediots. Daniel Brandt's article wasn't deleted completely as his bio information was just spread out to other articles based on projects he worked on. Even then, JoshuaZ and others are still likely fighting for Brandt's article to return.

I suppose we're all waiting for WP to have a sudden ethical backbone, but I'm not holding my breath anymore. There is no hope.

Posted by: AB

I feel the same way!

{{{The Joy}}}

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

Irony 101...I did not try to get an article. An employee of Clear channel...a programmer; a studio engineer worked at getting my material on WP. Fans and kids got going on it until some loser started talking sexual insanity. I only heard about the article when Clear Channel told me it was being deleted. I got a copy of it and asked for counsel; advice about what the downside could be.
I asked for my name to be deleted and still do not know how to get into the Lee Nysted account.

http://www.Musiclaw1.com attn. Frank

Self Promo: Although my primary business is with Wachovia/A.G. Edwards, I have music counsel, a publicist, and a music business; 4 players on my albums have WP articles and are quite famous, and both albums are listed in AMG. (Lee Nysted) on Google shows 19,000 sites and Yahoo shows 50,000 sites carrying the albums, inclusive of Amazon and iTunes. I have played with and for many players for over 30 years. I have played under several different looks, identities, and styles. I have been in the studio since 1969-1970. Not a soul will ever know all of the story aside from me and my family. I did not create my web site but I agreed to it; it is out there.

If any of the above matters to WP, I honestly do not care. I will never want to allow kids to make up things about me and then have same go out on the net. I do not require exposure from Wikipedia.

I honestly believe that Don would agree to an article if he could edit it and have it secured.

Posted by: ColScott

You believe correctly.

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

Oh gee, there's a recipe for neutral articles.

What would you all say about Jimbo editing his own article to his liking and then protecting it.

It would be much better to delete the thing than to let people write puff pieces about themselves. Get real.

Posted by: Likipenia

What strikes me about that quote from JoshuaZ is his claim that Mr. Murphy has "willingly become a public figure." When I watch a movie and read the credits, I don't tend to care about the producer. The actors and director, yes. But even the director doesn't "willingly become a public figure" by virtue of directing; only the actors do, by virtue of having their faces on screen. As a producer, Mr. Murphy is entitled to be credited for his work, but that is no more evidence of "willingly becoming a public figure" than it would be for a scientist to put his name to a research paper that found its way onto the news stands in a mainstream magazine.

As to his web site, if that qualifies as "willingly becoming a public figure," then I suppose "a reasonable encyclopedia would be incomplete" without an article for every name in the blogosphere.

Posted by: Somey

I was going to make this point the last time this came up, but I've just been so dang busy lately...

The so-called "notability guidelines" exist because people want in, not out. This is glaringly obvious to anyone with any sense of perspective. Simply put, if Wikipedia didn't have such guidelines, every self-promoting nobody would write an article about himself and post it there, and WP would have several million BLP articles, not just 140,000 or whatever it is.

The notability guidelines were NOT created to keep people in, they were created to keep people out. Their use as a justification for keeping people in like Mr. Murphy here is a novel (and total) misinterpretation, which started with Daniel Brandt and has been misused that way ever since.

If Wikipedia were not run by petty revenge-fantasists, they would naturally have a different set of criteria for keeping people in. Why do they need articles about these people? Why? There's absolutely no reason whatsoever, other than the site's usefulness as a cheap revenge platform, and the fact that an opt-out policy would curtail that particular form of usage, if not eliminate it entirely. Ooh, heaven forbid!

Now, it may well be that in any given case involving a person who wants out, there may not be anyone actively using Wikipedia to get revenge against that particular person. But why should that even matter? If they can't accept the fact that anonymous public editability changes everything with respect to their responsibility to their article subjects, then why should anyone even pretend to respect their anonymity, their privacy, or their intelligence? At all?

Posted by: Milton Roe

Um, you're new here, but JoshuaZ, whose name and history we of course know, has his own video up on U-tube, so it's entirely possible that he himself has "thereby" given his consent to "willingly" be a "public figure."

Posted by: Likipenia

His use of WP as an outlet for aggression makes sense now. Do you suppose the other Wikibullys are equally, uh, special?

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Jimbo knows a demographic with special needs when he sees one.

Jonny

Posted by: Kato

I don't know if it is the same for others, but when I go into the YouTube page for the JoshuaZ video, one of the accompanying videos is for Kraftwerk - Die Roboter (The Robot).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FLfaA0j9mM&eurl=http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=16719&st=60&

Posted by: Milton Roe

Undoubtedly. On Wikipedia, no one knows you're a dog...

Okay, old joke, but worth dusting up for Josh.



And they know the same about him. They've got needs, Jimbo's got needs, they all got needs.

Very, very, special... needs.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

From http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/18/jimmy_wales_and_roger_mcnamee/print.html:

I now support the reorganization of Wikimedia Foundation as a for-profit. I don't care how many Silicon Valley venture-vultures get rich. It's the only hope for respecting the rights of BLP victims.

Posted by: JohnA

***AN EXTREMELY OBVIOUS POSTING***

The problem with Wikipedia and BLPs is, simply stated, that no one person stands up and is legally, morally or ethically responsible for the historicity, the tone, the content, the spelling, in short the integrity of the biography before the Law.

So whether WP finally becomes part of a profit-making enterprise or is hosted by Franciscan monks who have taken a lifelong vow of poverty, the problem with BLPs remains until somebody somewhere becomes responsible for the biographies of living persons working with the subjects themselves as well as with legal counsel and can prevent vandalism being added to the biography BEFORE the biography is published, indexed and scraped on the Internet.

Anything else is deckchair rearranging on the Titanic.

***THAT WAS AN EXTREMELY OBVIOUS POSTING***

Posted by: Kurt M. Weber

Irrelevant.

You exist. Therefore, you are a worthy subject for inclusion.

The deletionist vandals will claim otherwise, but the fact of the matter is that anyone and anything that exists, is a legitimate article topic.

If you don't want an article on you, well, tough shit.

Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy

There's http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5915&st=20&p=86922&#entry86922 again.

Out here in the real world, of course, we know there are no "deletionists" or "inclusionists" - just people who can put pressure on wikia/wikipedia until it caves in and respects others.

Posted by: Unrepentant Vandal

Well, sure you have a right to come up with a website with those kind of rules, but that doesn't make it right and there's little reason why Wikipedia should adopt such bat shit insane policies.

But the more it does, the more it gives me the moral high ground when I disrupt it. So I'm alright jack.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

Maybe some won't- (except transformers or other film fans), but you've done and produced something well known, and you've been mentioned in numerous articles. That's what counts as far as notability is concerned. Hence "I've never heard of him" is not a viable argument in a deletion debate. Every individual has numerous things they've never heard of, that are well known in some circles and have been in reputable papers.

Posted by: Amarkov

\When Wikipedia gets rid of all vandals on BLPs and provides someone who is legally responsible for them, you can argue that. Until then, it is utterly absurd to say that by my existence, anonymous vandals have a right to defame me on Wikipedia if they so choose.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

any bollox just gets removed by OTRS, if you communicate with them. It's not still in the article as it stands, is it.

Posted by: Amarkov

That bad information can be removed when the subject notices is a very small comfort. Look at what happened to Seigenthaler.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

admin or a lot of editors would remove any of that- loads of people are watching that article now.

Obviously it's a big site and not all of it can be watched systematically, as these are volunteers. There are quite a few bots for obvious vandalism- which unfortunately aren't that good.

But in a well-watched article like that, I doubt any probs would stand for long.

I have removed BLP issues myself on some articles I've happened to look at.

Posted by: Amarkov

They are watching the article now, because Mr. Murphy has been so adamant about it. People should not have to complain to Wikipedia in order to protect themselves from defamation.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

As I said- I've revered BLP on Liza Minelli, Megan Meiers, probably others, without any prompting from anyone else.

Posted by: Robert Roberts

I know of one article that has had a sly reference to a living figure winning an award for being a champion pedophile for at least six weeks, I keep checking and it's still there.

Posted by: Amarkov

I'm happy that you're doing your part. But can you cover all of Wikipedia's BLPs?

Posted by: wikiwhistle

No- precisely- but it's a volunteer site. Like any other site, can only remove any libelous or inappropriate content when they are made aware of or see it. That is all that most sites, not just WP, have in their terms and conditions. Because no admins or mods can be monitoring their site every second- there'll always be some time delay before they find inappropriate content.

Do you thing WP should have some paid admins/mods, who have to systematically check articles? I think there would have to be a fair few to cover the millions of articles. Anyway, there would be a small time delay.

Robert R- PM me the link to the person's article which has a paedo accusation if you really want it removed, and (assuming it isn't sourced ), I'll remove it.

Posted by: One

Seeing as it's been up for weeks, and Robert must be familiar with how a wiki works, I think it's a kind of experiment. Actually, I was happy that it's not easily google-able from Robert's description (doesn't use the term "champion pedophile.") I'm curious about how shitty Wikipedia is myself in this enlightened post-Seigenthaler era.

As for your reasonable delay point: it is true that people could add defamatory information, say, in the comments to blogs. However, Wikipedia is unique for giving the whole world a chalkboard that shows up on the top of almost every google search. Requiring that editors look at the damn thing is a modest suggestion.

Posted by: guy

Of course false information can be removed, and I do it fairly often. But it can still be up there for some time (I believe there was some in the Seigenthaler article for weeks even after all the fuss). Also, some of this is quite subtle. I have no way of knowing whether everything is correct or what might be embarrassing to the subject if it is false.

Posted by: Proabivouac

So here we have a brave new world where "anything that exists" - including, for example, Kurt M. Weber's sex life, presuming it exists - "is a legitimate article topic."…don't want one? Well, tough shit.

On the more cheerful side, I can write an article about my pet parakeet: he exists. How about the space three inches south of the northwest corner of my house, near the ceiling? It exists.

Reliable sources? No trouble. We can use people's own self-published material, I mean, for non-controversial about themselves, right? Or something only they would know. If you have a website, well, you're a public figure! So all I have to do is start a website on behalf of that parakeet, on behalf of that space. Website = "notable," right?

Of course, then, it's probably self-promotion. But if someone hostile to these things that exist wrote it…problem solved.

Stepping of reductio ad absurdum mode, the proposal that "anyone and anything that exists, is a legitimate article topic," is insane. Batshit insane. A panopticon, and dangerous.

Posted by: The Joy

Anything that exists should have a Wikipedia article? That would take away the designation of "encyclopedia," wouldn't it?

And don't even get me started on whether we or anything really exists or not. Descartes is not just something you carry your groceries in, you know.

Posted by: Robert Roberts

I'll let people know what it was once someone has found it and got around to removing it (note: I didn't add it to the article) - I'm interested to see how long it takes for a regular to find it as part of their normal routine.

Posted by: Amarkov

The thing is, most sites with user-contributed content are forums like this. They don't present random people's statements as encyclopedia articles. These sites say "this is a forum, on which users say things; they may or may not be accurate".

Wikipedia bills its articles as an encyclopedia, and that should not be done without someone who has said "yes, this information is accurate". Nor without someone who is responsible when the information is innaccurate.

Posted by: Lar

Well, ya, except that Wikipedia DOES have a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer... it's linked from every page, right at the bottom, so presumably people do read it. In the disclaimer it says, in giant letters no less:

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

That doesn't mean that things known to be wrong should be left, but still... you were warned.

Posted by: Kurt M. Weber

Yup.


Yup.


Yup.


An entirely separate issue.



Incorrect.



Nope.

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to compile the sum of all knowledge.

Posted by: SirFozzie

Ugh. Guys, Mr. Weber speaks for himself only on this. Call me a rabid deletionist, I guess

Posted by: Derktar

Well compared to Mr. Weber I think even Everyking could be called a rabid deletionist.

Posted by: The Joy

Is ColScott's article deleted yet?

It took about 14 tries to get Daniel Brandt's article deleted. Hopefully, this will be the first and last time ColScott will have to deal with this.

Edit:

Shoot! Deletion's been overturned! Lousy Chase Me Ladies, I'm the Cavalry!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Don_Murphy

Edit Again:

New nomination:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Don_Murphy_%283rd_nomination%29

Posted by: Amarkov

Brittanica has a disclaimer like that, too. In fact, I'd guess you'll find similar text in many encyclopedias.

Regardless of what disclaimers may say, if something is billed as an encyclopedia, then it has a basic responsibility to be reasonably accurate. Especially when inaccuracy could be harmful.

Posted by: Lar

I don't disagree with the idea that it ought to be as accurate as possible, as much of the time as possible. But, since anyone can edit it, even vandals, it can't be guaranteed to be. The project needs stable versions for that situation to be better, I suspect but even that can't prevent subtle errors that aren't recognised.

But, I thought this thread was about deletion? I've spoken out on BLP-Lock about that, I made rather a radical proposal, in fact.

We're mostly agreeing with each other, here, aren't we?

Posted by: Somey

Presumably you're referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/BLP-Lock...

But you see the sort of mindset we've been up against, don't you? This is the entire reason Wikipedia is called a "cult" and a "hivemind." It attracts people who think and operate this way:...when, of course, you had suggested nothing of the sort. All you'd written was that the proposal "wasn't about" the handful of BLP articles currently under dispute, but the other 250,000 that could potentially be under dispute. Nowhere did you suggest that all 250,000 articles should be placed under full protection immediately, and yet this is the reaction you got.

And the problem is compounded by Wikipedia's "civility" rules. You're not allowed to tell User:Happy-melon that he's a brainless moron with the attention span of a gnat, incapable of reading past the first three or four words of something someone else has written before immediately clicking WP's equivalent of a "Reply" button to tell everyone else how wrong they are and how right he is. This is the sort of person you should be banning from the site, never to be allowed back in ever again. This is the sort of person whose arrogance, narcissism, officiousness, and general lack of brain capacity consistently brings Wikipedia into disrepute among academics and journalists, and as we're seeing, an increasing percentage of everyone else.

As long as people like that exist, they'll be attracted to a website that feeds their egotism and narcissism with each and every "edit," and because of that you'll always have this problem. And not only will it not go away, it will get worse, because these are the people who drive everyone else out.

Posted by: ColScott

Well I am gonna have a law firm speak to Joshua Zelinsky's dad on Monday. Maybe that will calm him down. People don't like the costs of litigation if they have any brains at all.

I sincerely feel that although they remain in the cult, SirFozzie and Viridae have shown real humanity and I won't forget it when the revolution comes. Thank you both.

The article will have to be kept on permanent lock because I'll make sure that there are two fans ready to delete it morning noon and night.

Posted by: The Joy

The best revenge would be finding reliable secondary sources and write a Wikipedia bio about Joshua Z. See how he likes it!

But then the WP Community would yell "Harassment!" while ColScott's article would remain.

Hypocrites!

Posted by: Proabivouac

I can put a bumper sticker on my taxi that reads, "The operator of this vehicle is not responsible for any injury to passengers…"

I can place fine print on my electronic gadget that reads, "this product may explode without warning,"

I can put a warning label on my candy bar, "may be fatal if swallowed."

Do we suppose a fair minded judge would dismiss a resulting claim after I point out, well, you see right here, I warned them!

Would twelve jurors say there's no problem with me remaining in business, doing business as usual?

The disclaimer is meant to be technically there, but relatively ineffective. If the goal were to make it effective, there would be a banner to this effect above the article titles. But then Wikipedia would be harming not its readers or bio subjects, but itself.

Well, you see, I'm not really breaking my word: I was crossing my fingers!

As you would have seen, had you merely paid close attention to my posture (= clicked through the links.)

Posted by: One

I like your examples, but Wikipedia's in even worse shape. Even if they could argue that their lil' old disclaimer is the legal equivalent of click wrap--hell, even if they actually required users to press "ok" to see an article--damage is done to third parties who may have not even seen the site and their wishful disclaimer for everything.

Of course, Congress preemptively solved this problem with sec 230, but it doesn't change the ethics. Harming real live human beings for the sake of encouraging scads of uneven and poorly reviewed BLPs is wrong, no matter what the disclaimer or Congress says.

Posted by: Proabivouac

True. I only addressed above WP's abdication of responsibility when it misinforms its readers, not third parties.

I don't believe that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act really shields Wikipedia from lawsuits, only than by deterring people from filing. That's not trivial. But anyone serious about making a case, if provided an impartial judge, should be able to show that this law was not intended to and does not protect anything like an encyclopedia, but only "interactive service providers" where the customer is not the reader, but the contributor, where a product is used and enjoyed, not published. The defense boils down to, we are not an encyclopedia - those were all lies (we crossed our fingers behind our backs!) We are a heck of a lot like Myspace, our policies to the contrary are wilful lies to our contributors. Heck, we're are an MPORPG! We have zero credibility with our readers - zip. Only a fool would take us seriously! See the disclaimer!

You don't to know anything about law to realize that this is a horrible way to start a case.

Posted by: Viridae

Oppose I view Kurt's participation in this thread as prima facie evidence that he is a wanker.

Posted by: taiwopanfob

But since wikilife != real life, aren't your arguments irrelevant from the get-go? Should that not be true though, what about Daniel Brandt's notions of notability? Are his not just as relevant as yours? If you dimwits can sit around and throw people's lives into the shitter on a regular basis, why can't he? Or are you special in some special, special way?

Posted by: JohnA

Wrong. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to distill knowledge. It is the process of distillation that produces either a fine product or an endless open sewer.

I've no idea where you've got the idea that encyclopedias are meant to contain "the sum of all knowledge" but I suspect hero worship of Jimbo's idiot vision statements would make for a good candidate.

Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy

Anyway...good (if futile) try on the deletion.

Looks like Colscott is left with assessing the other three ways of getting a BLP under control:

1 - the Merkey gambit. Colscott could cetainly afford it, if he was so inclined - but given the high sensitivity to this kind of proposal, its unlikely Jimbo would let himself be seen talking turkey.

2 - the Marsden technique: probably won't fly for obvious reasons, unless there's something I don't know going on.

Which, as far as I know, leaves only one proven method of getting the office to ride in and start deleting:

3 - Credible legal threat. Though from the comments over in the deletion "debate", you'd almost think none of the kids had ever considered how much trouble and expense one of these could lead to.

Posted by: Moulton

With a quarter million BLPs on WIkipedia, it occurs to me that sooner or later, some enterprising law firm will organize a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all those semi-notable people to have their biographies cleaned up or taken down.

As to collecting damages for libel and defamation of character, I'm not gonna speculate on that aspect of the legal options.

Posted by: Lar

For the record, I don't think it's appropriate to know of a flaw this serious and not surface it, somewhere. I don't think running an experiment to see how long it takes before it's found is at all appropriate and I'd appreciate the experiment being terminated by the information being surfaced. I think 6 weeks is plenty damning, there's no need to inflict further damage on the subject of the BLP by letting it stand any longer.

Disclaimer, I meant to speak out, but it slipped away from me. Then, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lar#Robert_Roberts.27_wild_goose_chase spurred me on. Thank you, whoever you are. (since I know you lurk)

Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy

Well, looks like they won't, since they appear to be trying to make it your fault.

Funnily enough, posting about this here has probably shortened the time till they find it, since they're now combing the BLP's. Probably further ahead to keep stumm for as long as it takes.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

Since those arguing that BLPs on wikipedia are often defamatory claim to care so much about the subjects, it's unethical for them to use a real person as an 'experiment'.

If any wiki editor saw that they would most likely remove it, it's just daft and immature for a start- assuming there isn't really a "champion pedophile" award.



That would only need one person, such as Murphy etc, to say that he is seeking others with whom to mount a lawsuit. He could use a webpage as a rallying point. Then others who want their bio removed or something simply sign up with him, publically or privately. Then they can approach a lawyer.

But a lot of this IMHO is just people who are upset with unfavourable coverage in other sources being mentioned on wiki, hence they aren't all flocking to mount real lawsuits, rather than threats of them.

Posted by: taiwopanfob

You think there is only one? You think your ignorance is a defense? Six weeks, six microseconds: many think any interval exceeding zero is too long. If you don't want to run experiments like this, perhaps you should consider "opt out", "no original biographies" and other mechanisms to reduce the number of articles to the point you guys can monitor them effectively.

Posted by: taiwopanfob

I don't edit biographical articles like this simply because of the situation that is developing around Don Murphy: to edit it is to make you a target for litigation, no matter how well intentioned, good, or otherwise your edits may be. Even the chance of being summoned for discovery in some matter is a sufficient damper.

I encourage others to assume this attitude as well. You have your own life, your own house, and a future to think of first. "It's just a website", as the defenders of the wiki say. Until BLP patrol begins indemnifying their members, membership is only an option for the permanently judgement proof.

Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy

That thinking leads to a bizarre position where wikia/wikipedia does not know the content it is publishing, and it becomes the responsibility of readers and passers-by to correct the publisher's errors, free of charge. Though, of course, wikia/wikipedia claims not to be a publisher, so that last sentence pretty much describes how they think the situation is.

It should be trivial for an "editor" to find that content and correct it, assuming it exists.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

Wikipedia isn't the only large site that finds it hard to keep on eye on all the content. I'm thinking of Sparknotes messageboards just because I know them a little.

People would have a hard time in court having wikipedia done for 'libel' or something for this. The most they could be done for is a sort of negligence. In reality- email a site's legal team or post to the administrators, and any incontrovertible 'libel' would be removed.


But negative coverage in real newspapers shouldn't be removed, or all the BLP articles would be fluff pieces.

Posted by: taiwopanfob

News flash: a court doesn't give a shit how hard the job is. It just expects it to be done.



Fine, then. Dig deep into that pocket of yours and indemnify me. Make editing biological articles at Wikipedia completely safe for me and I'll give your request some consideration.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but PM me and I can remove anything that's obviously 'wrong' to anyone looking at it.

If you were to edit, what do you think might happen to you that's so 'dangerous'?

As to judges expecting a site to be managed- wikipedia would get a slap on the wrist, maybe a fine, it's the editor who inserted the material who'd take the flak.

Posted by: taiwopanfob

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indemnify



I have no idea, and that's the worst thing of all. But being directly associated with page in any way -- even vicariously, as you suggest -- is a danger that doesn't exist if I just sit back from a distance and watch the incoming legal ICBM's land.

Ask me to assume a risk, and I say "What's in it for me?" Most anyone with something to lose (~30 years of their life), and you'll get the same answer.

To put this short: I don't trust you. You personally, and you collectively. Neither do your BLP victims. Address this issue and almost all other problems will disappear.



Jimbo has already stated, point-blank, that ultimate responsibility for content lies with the editor. To wit: the WMF is not indemnifying you. The question before you is simple: what is your current lot in life, what is your expected future? If you are a hand-to-mouth person living in a hovel, using the internet at the library, and expect no change in this state for the remainder of your life, then BLP patrol is neither here nor there, as you can't squeeze blood from a turnip.

Posted by: badlydrawnjeff

Back on topic, the AfD discussion for the Don Murphy article is an overwhelming keep early, to the point where Durova is requesting an early close.

Posted by: Count DeMonet

FTFY

...unless you were referring to any mentioning the stains on Jimbo's eBayed apparel



A glimpse of the old wolf under the new sheep's clothing!

Posted by: wikiwhistle

What would you like to change/think should change then, for people to trust wikipedia? As a result of this thread I went searching, and was surprised to see that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Living_People_Patrol project is dormant. But then I don't know if it's just been replaced by the BLP noticeboard or something.



As long as I don't insert defamatory content about a BLP subject, and call them a 'champion pedophile' or something, then I'm unlikely to have a problem. I accept responsibility for my edits. On the other hand, I hate to see dodgy people whitewashed, so if there is unpalatable coverage of them in reliable sources, I'd also want to ensure it stays included. And they'd have a hard time suing me about it if it's already been in the Guardian or something.

Posted by: ColScott

Message boards are just the opinions of idiots and are not highly google searched and do not calle themselves encyclopedias.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

It's not a regulated term is it- anything can call itself an 'encyclopedia' and not be -legally- obliged to then be a certain way.

Posted by: ColScott

Yes but if you call yourself an encyclopedia and the sum of the world's knowledge and then defame someone you should and will be sued to oblivion

Posted by: wikiwhistle

Go on, then. What's stopping you?

Posted by: taiwopanfob

Always easy spending other people's money, isn't it?





Try paying attention:

1) opt-out
2) no original biographies

and for me, re: editing biographical articles, as I said above

3) indemnification.

Posted by: JohnA

Wikimedia is so cash-strapped that I think the first threat of a lawsuit coupled with a call for class action status will be enough.

There are too many believers in the notion that anonymity==legal immunity to think that they're going to voluntarily delete a BLP without external pressure (cf Daniel Brandt)

Posted by: Lar

I agree!

Say, don't you post your opinions from time to time at that message board you run?

I seem to recall that you do... I think you probably mean that SOME of the posts are the "opinions of idiots" and some aren't. But maybe not.

Posted by: ColScott

No
I think anything on any message board should be ignored as idiotic

Posted by: Count DeMonet

Including all you've posted here?
Your biographers over at WP will doubtless be very pleased to hear that!

Posted by: ColScott

Yes including here.

Posted by: badlydrawnjeff

And the AfD is closed with a clear keep.

Posted by: ColScott

And we already have the thing semi protected because of my League of Extraordinary Editors

Posted by: Somey

I thought about posting something non-idiotic once, but I chickened out at the last minute. The world just wasn't ready, I realized...

There are two important points here, of course. The first is that Wikipedia is different from other websites in terms of the effect it has on its subjects and their supporters. Wikipedia users don't understand this effect, and probably never will, evidently. The reason for the effect is complex, and I'll probably devote at least three book chapters to it one day, but the short version is that it's a combination of arrogance, anonymity, search-engine ubiquity, editors taking themselves too seriously, revenge, and the fear of revenge. All these factors work together to make people react differently, and much more intensely, to attacks made against them via Wikipedia (which can include the mere existence of an article), vs. attacks made on them almost anywhere else on the internet.

Frankly, attempts to equate Wikipiedia with sites that haven't achieved that combination of factors are simply a form of diversionary strawman argument.

The second point to bear in mind is that eventually, someone will be the subject of a Wikipedia article who will make Daniel Brandt and Don Murphy look like Winnie the Pooh and Eeyore. It's unfortunate, but the truth is that we live in a society in which a person's kneecaps can be broken for about 5 percent of the cost of suing that same person, and with a far greater degree of impunity. You can hire and maintain a small army of mercenaries for the same amount required to successfully sue a private foundation that (currently) has legal precedent working in its favor. As a result, Wikipedia editors have every reason to fear being identified, but the Wikimedia Foundation - by not indemnifying them in any way whatsoever - effectively encourages angry biography subjects to do exactly that.

And just because in any given case the Foundation will probably cave at the first sign of a credible legal threat, there are plenty of really scary people out there who won't even bother making a "legal threat" in the first place. Why give fair warning when Wikipedia doesn't give fair warning? As Wikipedia's intransigence, arrogance and complete disdain for social ethics becomes more widely known throughout the English-speaking world, the likelihood will only increase that someone will come along and simply forego the hassle of trying to argue with WP editors, in favor of attacking them directly.

No doubt someone from WP will read this and interpret it as "OMG WR condones physical attacks," but this is something most of us (including myself) are trying to prevent, not encourage, by supporting an opt-out policy.

Posted by: Proabivouac

This may be old news by now (a few days ago), but take a look at some of the language ArbCom-approved sockpuppet RTFA was pushing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_Murphy&diff=198747721&oldid=198746972

“He is seen as…” Pet the weasels. Touch them. Love them.

This time we have a subject of sorts, “the studios.” Is this really so important that it needs to be in the lead?

No wonder Murphy doesn’t want his bio on Wikipedia: even when it’s good, it’s bad. If a reader walked away knowing nothing else about Murphy, it might easily have been that “he is seen…as hard to work with.” That’s the function of a introduction, after all. It takes no imagination at all to see how this could damage him.

User:John Reaves blocks Runabrat, who’d was pushing for a far more reasonable version against RTFA’s hit piece, as a “disruptive SPA:”
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Runabrat

As opposed to this ArbCom-approved sockpuppet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=RTFA
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_18&diff=prev&oldid=199013305

ArbCom approved this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_Murphy&diff=prev&oldid=198693177

ArbCom approved this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_Murphy&diff=prev&oldid=198722930

Posted by: Unrepentant Vandal

Latest silly ploy by ChrisO is to leave the article only semi protected to "flush out sleepers".

You understand that Don? He's letting the article be vandalised so he gets to block more accounts and increase his admin prestige! (RIP poor Albert, I only knew you for a few moments...)

Edit: And now I can't even leave messages to buffoons like that without them being deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=User:Chris_%22Oli_M%22_Langham

Posted by: One

A few years ago, I would have agreed. There was a glimmer of hope in the Rosenthal case in California (where the surviving claim concerned a man was defamed as a supposed stalker in, and they tried to sue the party who reposted the email without bothering to check whether the stalker claim was bullshit.) California Court of Appeals thought that such a claim could proceed, but the California Supreme Court decided they would follow the majority of the Federal Courts, ruling that it was barred. Section 230 usually gets you out at the summary judgment phase.

Yeah, most academics think it's repugnant, and at least a little counterintuitive in the Communications Decency Act, but the plain language of the statue it pretty clear. Did you not generate the information? Are you running an interactive service? You win--no matter what you call yourself.

Write your congressman, because the courts have made up their mind. I'm not holding my breath, anyway.

Posted by: Proabivouac

It's not an interactive service, because contributors aren't the consumers, readers are. For a reader, there's nothing particularly interactive or service-like about it. It would be quite different were a contributor told, sign up, and you can get a portion of space (say with our ads) where you can post what you like, like Myspace. But that's emphatically not the case. At every opportunity, internal WP policy and public statements alike emphasize that they are not an interactive service provider, but a project to build an encyclopedia.

Posted by: ColScott

My head hurts
aren't you one of the Henchmen who last June thought I was the scum of the earth for driving offf the actually insane Ryan Bushby? And now you are being human, sane and nice?

Posted by: Somey

I believe Mr. Proabivouac had a change of heart between then and now, which went by the name "Morven."

Hey, maybe you can get John Carpenter to direct that forthcoming movie about the online encyclopedia cult that's actually run by alien vampire-like creatures who feed on human brains...? Before this incident I would have suggested Wes Craven or even Clive Barker, but now I think you'll need someone who's a little better with the pyrotechnics.

You could call it John Carpenter's "The Project"...

Posted by: Castle Rock

That was HighInBC right? Personally, I thought you were a hero for engendering that clusterfuck. It was from him that I received my first block, and there are some things you just don't forget...or forgive. He didn't really seem too crazy, he does have a wife, Mwena, who the threats were directed against presumably. Considering her condition some of the comments were a little over-the-top.

This is the last thing he saw before he committed wikicide

[imgx]http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/3/3f/Highinbcowned.JPG/500px-Highinbcowned.JPG[/imgx]

Posted by: Somey

That certainly seems like it would be rather objectionable...

Posted by: One

This is how congress defined interactive computer service: "any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2). SRSLY. Wikipedia allows multiple users to access its servers. This is a loosing argument.

http://casp.net/cases/RosenthalSC.html involved an email, which was posted for others to read. The person posting and forwarding an email was not liable because she did not write it, although she was not hosting any internet site whatsoever, just posting contents to it for others to read. (usenet, I believe). To remove any doubt, the California Supreme Court held "that section 230(c )(1) immunizes individual “users” of interactive computer services, and that no practical or principled distinction can be drawn between active and passive use. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeal's judgment."

I grant that the federal courts are not bound by California's interpretation of federal law, but California purported to be following the federal precedents (which indeed tend to throw internet defamation suits out under 230). I really doubt that a district court would reject Rosenthal-style holdings after the ISPs, EFF, and ACLU hailed as a victory for free speech. These same folks would rush to the defense of Wikipedia.

Rosenthal, like a lot of these cases, is wild reading. They note that the law is absurd, but they apply it anyway. Some examples:
Anyhow, http://www.cybertelecom.org/cda/samaritanref.htm. You'll notice that the 230 defense never seems to fail when the hosting party didn't actually write the content. I could scrummage for newer stuff, but all of the cases I've seen show absolutely no willingness to pick apart the term "interactive." In http://pub.bna.com/eclr/992068.htm, AOL's stock quotation service--which got data from third party vendors--was ruled an "interactive service." Google search results have been called interactive, and so is a static website that reposts a defamatory newspaper article or email. This is just a loosing argument.

Write your congressman!

Posted by: cyofee

It should be noted that HighInBC didn't really commit wikisuicide. See his ED article.

Posted by: Proabivouac

That's neither fair nor accurate.

I believed then, and still believe now, that Wikipedia must not be a platform for attacking living people, or for invading their privacy. Col Scott's posts have not always been, well, entirely civilized, and can you really blame Wikipedia for wanting to keep this kind of material off the site?

On the other hand, I completely get where he's coming from on his own bio. I understand that he's fighting fire with fire, and I know who started it.

That's not a recent realization. I fought hard for the deletion of his bio, with arguments so elementary and foundational that they were dismissed as too elementary and inappropriately foundational:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Don_Murphy_%282nd_nomination%29

Posted by: jorge

Ahhh, the uber-selfish rantings of the same randroid coward Kurt M Weber who ran away from this forum when he couldn't explain how his idiotic cult copes with how you would deal with your own kids or parents who had become destitute, because of course, you couldn't help them according to randism . Your cult is quite simply one of thuggish conservatism masquerading as "freedom".

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Doesn't this thread belong in the Article Forum?

Jonny

Posted by: Kato

<moderator note>Done

Posted by: Moulton

The length of this thread is evidence that it focuses on an issue that begs resolution.

Posted by: Kato

Wasn't that one of Jimbo's text messages to Rachel Marsden?