Coolest Wikipedian of All Time, Is BLP reform really possible? Options

[Somey]

I'd like to think we can balance the negativity often displayed here with some positivity, and on that note, I think I've discovered someone who might be My Favorite Wikipedian of All Time: User:Sbharris!

What this guy has done is propose a radical (i.e., sane) new policy on biographies of living persons which essentially states that anyone with an article about themselves, who can demonstrate that they are who they say they are, can get their biography deleted on request -- no exceptions. And so far, he's refused to be shouted down by the reactionaries who just want to be able to anonymously slander and libel anyone they want, and yet he's managed to remain just civil enough to avoid getting banned for it - so far, at least. His user page claims he's a 48-year-old American physician, and he does seem to have a sense of humor, so it's only a matter of time before that happens, but in the meantime, people like this prove that there really may be some hope for Wikipedia in the short term (even if it's ultimately doomed in the long term - that's just a given).

I'd hasten to point out that his original proposal has been watered down with so many rules and exceptions already that it's probably only going to make for a marginal improvement in the current situation, if it's even adopted at all. But to his credit, Sbharris is sticking to his principles, and for the most part, getting away with it. I just hope that his being mentioned here won't ruin his ability to be taken seriously as the debate continues -- for what it's worth, if what Sbharris originally proposed were to be adopted, I doubt this website (i.e., Wikipedia Review) would survive for long, other than as a "sympathetic ear" for people to vent their personal frustrations about various occasional abuse incidents.

There's plenty of good material on the page in question, but this is my favorite bit (and please note that I'm totally on the anti-Bush side with respect to the Gannon incident):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...egative_info.3F

User:WAS 4.250 argues that a biography of a nasty, rotten individual should, in effect, be a nasty, rotten-toned biography:

What I remember is that Jeff Gannon created a website and published his picture on it with invitations to pay him money for gay sex and was paid by the Bush administration to plant friendly questions at white house press briefings. The same anti-gay Bush administration that now says it has a problem with leftists manipulating the press. This is not a minor figure who deserves his privacy, but a paid political operative whose illegalities are important to the discussion of political power in the US.

And here's what SB says:

While I may agree with the specific case, the problem is that there's no bright line for deciding such things. In absense of such, I suggest letting the world wide web and various credit reporting agencies and skip tracing firms and clipping services and tabloids and political dirt-finding services be the repository of such stuff, while we let Wikipedia go back to its main job of becoming the world's best encyclopedia, repository of information on physics and history and culture and geography and whatever, WITHOUT becoming the central Big Brother repository on available "neutral" biographical information per se on everybody living who ever did anything of note, which is to say, just about everybody. We can live without that part of Wikipedia. Time enough for bio when you're dead. And few people care about biographical info which happens to show up in other contexts and stujects, contextually. We can allow bios of living people who want to be bio'd, and pull the plug on the rest NOW and sidestep that entire nightmare. The price is a tiny gap in knowledge, which in any case is merely the penumbra of a gap which is necessary anyway, due to libel law. The payoff for making this part of Wikipedia sacrosanct is a HUGE payoff in public relations--- a really monstrous one, because the bad bio thing and the bad info problem are the two main things most people know about Wikipedia. And yes, changing this would make a moral statement; it would be a clear attempt to take and maintain the high ground. Shocking, eh? But such a statement and policy would do nothing but good for Wikipedia.

Amazing! Everything this guy says is absolutely true, and yet he's still able to edit!

Go, man, go!

This post has been edited by Somey: Wed 30th August 2006, 4:01pm

[everyking]

What a stupid idea. Notability and verifiability should be the only criteria.

[Somey]

What a stupid idea. Notability and verifiability should be the only criteria.

Radical ideas often appear stupid when they're first proposed, especially to those who might be negatively affected by them. And frankly, if Wikipedia wasn't something that anyone can anonymously edit, I'd probably agree with you. There's certainly no question that a few well-publicized "opt-outs" by major celebrities would impose a chilling effect on the editing of some "BLP" articles, though I doubt there would be all that many high-profile cases - celebrities are used to the occasional bit of negative publicity. (And as long as you're around, Ashlee's bio is probably safe...)

So, with all due respect, EK, remember that racial equality, women's suffrage, and democratic elections were all considered "stupid" ideas when they were first proposed too. You might claim those are completely different things, but I don't think so - in each case we're talking about freedom, and relief from injustice and tyranny. Just because it's freedom from having to worry about people anonymously inserting lies and slander into your biography on a daily basis, and just because the injustice/tyranny is imposed on the few by the not-so-few (instead of the other way around), doesn't mean that morally it isn't a similar situation.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

While I deplore the use of Wikipedia as a vehicle for slanderous attacks on living persons (my battles over the LaRouche articles are well known,) I don't consider the use of Wikipedia for historical revisionism to be any less dangerous.

Then there's the bigger problem.

In the post WWII period, there has been a growing corruption in the academic community, which takes the form of curricula that do not include any reading of original sources. Instead, a priesthood of academics summarizes, spins and dumbs down the research of the ages, and the students memorize it for grades like so many trained seals. Wikipedia then serves to consolidate, reinforce and amplify this codified "knowledge." Sometimes I think Wikipedia needs a policy called MOR (More original research.) However, this bigger problem may be too big to discuss here, particularly given the fact that Wikipedia will probably expire from too many scandals before such a thing could properly be addressed.

[guy]

What a stupid idea. Notability and verifiability should be the only criteria.

In an ideal world, probably yes. But notability is an incredibly slippery, arbitrary, subjective concept, unless you have a reliable source saying that someone is notable.

Anyway, why shouldn't someone have the right to say that they don't want to be on Wikipedia? Maybe if a real A-lister like the Prime Minister of a major country wanted out, that would be awkward, but what about a professor at the University of Liverpool or a second-rate sportsman or an ex-mayor of Paris (three random picks from Category:Living people)?

[Somey]

I agree with guy, as I often do... But the more immediate problem for me, and for anyone else here who's concerned about the BLP issue, is what's the best way to show support for this? Or should I show support for it at all? Maybe I should just ignore the whole thing, given that anything "those WR trolls" agree with is likely to be simply rejected out of hand... I really don't want to seem too "accomodating" on this issue, though - if anything I write here helps MY HERO, User:Sbharris, in any way whatsoever, then that's good as far as I'm concerned. I honestly believe that full opt-out, as he's proposed, is the best solution to the BLP problem - censorship and "coverage gap" accusations be damned. And I meant what I said about how enacting such a policy would make WR itself much less of a viable entity - it would completely remove what may actually be the single biggest and most legitimate objection to Wikipedia, period. (At least in my opinion.)

Having said all that...

I'd guess that if you're a truly notable public person, the decision to ask Wikipedia to remove your bio would be a very difficult one indeed. Aside from the fact that many people crave recognition and status more than privacy (even at the expense of a little criticism), there's always the issue of what your bio is replaced with - presumably a template box that says "this person has requested that their bio be deleted under WP:WCNTBP" (or whatever acronym they come up with), correct? To some people, that would make it look like you had something to hide, which would just make them more curious about you. Smart people would know that implicitly, and therefore only make the request if they'd done the cost-benefit analysis and concluded that was the best course to take, in light of the possibility of ongoing vandalism - something that isn't likely to be a problem in the vast majority of cases.

I'll freely admit that deletion of BLP articles on request might be seen as a form of historical revisionism, assuming you see Wikipedia as a legitimate source of history. But given that they'll reject the idea regardless, there are other ways to deal with privacy and anonymous-abuse issues aside from outright deletion. Making the articles non-robot-indexable (non-robottable?) amd non-scrapable would be The Number One Good Idea, and making them available By Request Only (to registered users only, natch) would be another. Have it be like the Rare Books section of the library, or the back room at the British Museum. But now I'm already getting into compromise solutions that - to me - seem far, far worse than the simple expedient of full opt-out.

Meanwhile, you could presumably still be mentioned in conjunction with whatever incident made you "notable" in the first place, and since those articles would still be indexed and scraped, they'd appear at the top of Google searches on your name instead of your bio. That may be troublesome for some people, but assuming they understand that that's going to happen, it's another reason why they might prefer to leave their bio in place - especially if they're only notable/famous for something bad (like Gannon, for example). At least the full bio would humanize them somewhat, and give them a chance to explain themselves, indirectly or otherwise.

So I just don't see what they're worried about. "Giving in"? To whom? Us? Ridiculous.

[JohnA]

Supposing the biography is of Bill Clinton. Suppose Bill decided that he did not want to have a Wikipedia biography and requests it be deleted.

Would you do it?

[Somey]

Would you do it?

In a word, yes...

But it's part and parcel of Sbharris' argument that this almost certainly wouldn't happen. Clinton may have done some embarrassing things, but ultimately he knows the kind of coverage Wikipedia has, and he'd know that high-profile opt-outs would be newsworthy, and make him look like he's trying to "whitewash" his past. Besides, he'd know that once he died, he'd be "fair game," as the Scientologists would say. The only way he could get away with it would be if there were a whole slew of hig-profile opt-outs within the first year or two, to the point where it became non-newsworthy whenever someone did it.

The situation with Jeff Gannon is a much more likely and valid one, given that Gannon can't be significantly more embarrassed by the media than he already has been, and deservedly so - besides, he's an attention-whore (literally) anyway, meaning that he might even want the media coverage garnered from opting out.

But that presupposes that Gannon won't someday "find Jesus" or whatever, mend his ways and sincerely want to start a new life as a nobody insurance salesman or shopkeeper or something. Call me crazy, but the idea is to err on the side of not hurting people, even if the people in question deserve it, because that places Wikipedia on the moral high ground (and, incidentally, strongly protects it from lawsuits).

It might sound reasonable to implement a "household name" rule of some sort that would prevent opt-outs by people like Clinton, but IMO it wouldn't be necessary. And this is one area where ironclad consistency would be enormously helpful to them, coverage gaps or no coverage gaps.