| Moulton arbitration request |
Thu 6th December 2007, 2:08pm
Anthropologist from Mars
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
WP user page -
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Thu 6th December 2007, 1:35am)
Well, the arbitrators are starting to reject it, pretty much saying "no, it doesn't matter if the RfC was unfair".
Note how this ties into the Durova case, because, while my RfAr
focuses attention on the rigors of diligent and conscientious due process for all
, the respondents are simply saying, "It doesn't matter that we routinely short-circuit due process, we desperately wanted this guy banned and that's the desired and essential bottom line of this RfAr."
I don't get all the "Moulton thinks Wikipedia is online journalism" stuff. The verifiability policy is pretty clear; demanding that things be verifiable is the way in which Wikipedia should try to get at the truth. From where did the strange idea here come, that trying to publish true information is bad?
To my mind, that's a key question for ArbCom to address. I clearly stated my primary objective in the RfC
as "achieving a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, especially when the subject at hand is an identifiable living person." The adversarial editors had to dance around their reasons for rejecting that sincere and good faith objective of mine
Essentially they are saying that I failed to discover an effective way to achieve that goal within the rules and constraints of the Wikipedia system, as they administer them
Which is true.
One possibility is that it's simply infeasible
to achieve that goal within the operable constraints of the system.
QUOTE(CNN News Story)
Even those who spot errors in their own profiles can be reluctant to address them. In April this year, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and academic Douglas Hofstadter told the New York Times of his Wikipedia entry, "[it] is filled with inaccuracies, and it kind of depresses me." When asked why he didn't fix it, he replied, "The next day someone will fix it back."
If Hofstadter's prescient analysis is right, it would confirm that my expressly stated objective is infeasible.
With respect to my request to ArbCom for a review of the formulaic script
that short-circuits the rigors of due process, Kirill opines
QUOTE(Kirill 03:52 @ 6 December 2007 (UTC))
Nothing here that indicates potential for improved behavior. This post has been edited by Moulton: Thu 6th December 2007, 3:16pm
Thu 6th December 2007, 4:19pm
'...I will be generous and give you a week.'
Joined: Tue 28th Aug 2007, 2:26am
Member No.: 2,742
From the statement by MastCell
, minor amendments
QUOTE(MastCell @ 01:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC))
he has a fundamental disagreement with the policy of
verifiability, not truth.
Well, as Ms. SV pointed out
QUOTE(Ms. SV @ 16:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC))
" means to confirm that something is true.
QUOTE(Ms. SV @ 16:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC))
The terms "verifiability
" and "no original research
people, newbies and experienced editors alike.
It's really not all that fundamental as MastCell thinks. See Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Role of truth
, for example. In an edit summary
QUOTE(Dcmacnut @ 23:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC))
false and libelous statements do not belong in biographies, Coppertwig on truth and attribution
even with attribution
in biographies of living
QUOTE(Coppertwig @ 12:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC))
I agree with Simon Dodd and Dcmacnut, if I understand Coppertwig's question
correctly. First of all, if a statement about a person is false,
then it is not very interesting. Wikipedia's purpose is to
present interesting or potentially useful facts. So if
Wikipedians have established to their satisfaction that a
statement is false or probably false, then it probably doesn't
belong in the article, (unless maybe there's significant
controversy about it), especially not in a biography of a living
person -- whether it's published material or some other thing
which has convinced the Wikipedians that it's false. If different
Wikipedians disagree about whether it's false, that's a
different situation -- however, we need to be careful in
biographies of living people. If there is good reason to believe
that a statement may be false, maybe it needs to be taken out
of a biography of a living person pending further investigation.
In any case, whether it is true or not is certainly not irrelevant.
There might be no published refutation of the statement, but
the living person might privately hold conclusive proof that it's
false, which could be brought out during a libel suit against
Wikipedia. We don't want Wikipedia going bankrupt having to
pay legal fees. Better to delete the information unless we're
on solid ground.
, wording change
QUOTE(Coppertwig @ 26-27 March 2007)
Proponents [of Wikipedia:Attribution] have not given a yes or Opinion from Ken Arromdee
not to this question: Are you really suggesting that an editor
who knowingly includes cited, but false, information, is helping
write the encyclopedia?
QUOTE(Ken Arromdee @ 03:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC))
If you try to deny that verifiability and truth are ever at odds This post has been edited by AB: Thu 6th December 2007, 6:27pm
with each other, you're not accurately describing Wikipedia. In
some cases, "verifiability, not truth" really *means* "not truth".
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)